A History of Eclecticism in Greek Philosophy PDF

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
THIS is translation of the second section of Dr.

a
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. F
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 I read

: we
" "
205, 31 for effects read affect

:
" "
206, 6 for enquires read asks

:
9, "
207, 2 substitute semicolon for after 'doctrine,'

: a a comma^
" "
210, 13 substitute note of interrogation for after

: a a comma
" "
'ourselves.'
294, 3 for under read in

:
"
"
357, lines 1 and 2 for that universal, which he claims for all
: men as
"
their inborn conviction read that universal

viction
con-
which he claims for all innate

men as
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
ORIGIN AND CHAKACTEK OF ECLECTICISM 1

.
Gradual blending of the schools of philosophy: Internal
causes of this, 1 sg. External causes : diffusion of Greek
philosophy the Romans, 6. Reaction of that

among-
diffusion
upon philosophy, 14. Principle and character
of eclectic philosophy, 17. Contained the of the

germs
later scepticism, 21
;
and of Neo-Platonism, 22
CHAPTEB, II.
ECLECTICISM INT THE SECOND AND FIRST CENTURIES
BEFORE CHRIST THE EPICUREANS ASCLEPIADES 24
Relation of the later Epicureans to Epicurus, 24. Aeclepi-

ades of Bithynia, 29 sq.
CHAPTER III.
THE STOICS : BOETHUS, PANÊTIUS, POSIDONIUS 34:

.
Successors of Ohrysippus, 34. Boethus, 35. Pansetius, 39.
Character of his philosophy, 42. Deviations from ism,

Stoic-
43 sff. Ethics, 47. Contemporaries and disciples of
Panaetius, 52. Posidonius, 56. H^s philosophic dencies,

ten-
50. His anthropology, 64. Other Stoics of the
first century before Chrisfe, 7O

vi CONTENTS.
CHAPTER IV.
PAGE
THE ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS IN THE FIRST
CENTURY BEFORE CHRIST .

.75
Pbilo of Larissa, 75. His practical bias, 77. Modification
of the scepticism of theHis theory of

Academy, 79.
knowledge, 81. Antiochus of Ascalon, 85. Polemic
against scepticism, 87. Eclecticism : essential ment

agree-
of the various systems, 91 j theory of knowledge, 93.
Physics and metaphysics, 94. Ethics, 95. School of
Antiochus, 99. Eudoras, 103. Arms Didymus, 106.
Potamo, 109
CHAPTER V.
THE PERIPATETIC SCHOOL IN THE FIRST CENTURY
BEFORE CHRIST . .
.112
The Commentators: Andronicus of Rhodes, 113. Boethus
of Siclon, 117. Aristo, Staseas, Cratippus, Nicolaus,

Xenarchus, and others, 121 s%. The treatise irepl/cdo-yuou
;
various theories as to its origin, 125. Nature of the
treatise, 132. Origin and date of composition, 138.

Treatise on virtues and vices, 145
CHAPTER VI.
CICERO - VARRO . .
.146
Cicero, 146. His

scepticism, 149. Its limits, 151. Practical
view of philosophy, 156. Eclecticism : doctrine of innate
knowledge, 159. Ethics, 162. Theology, 167. pology,
Anthro-
169. Yarro, 171. His view of philosophy and
the various schools, 172. Ethics, 173. Anthropology
and philosophy, 176
CHAPTER,
THE SCHOOL OF THE SEXT1I .

.180
History of the school, 80. Its philosophic character and
standpoint, 183
CONTENTS. Tii
CHAPTER VIII.
PAGE
THE FIRST CENTURIES AFTER CHRIST " THE
SCHOOL OF THE STOICS "

SENECA .
.189
Philosophy in the Imperial period : study of the ancient

philosophers, 189. Endowment of public chairs of
philosophy, 190. The school of the Stoics from the first

to the third century, 194 SQ. Cornutus, 199. Seneca,
202. His conception of the problem of philosophy, 205.
Uselessness of merely theoretic inquiries,206. Opinion
of dialectic, 207. Physics, 209. Metaphysical and
theological views, 212. The world and nature, 217.

Man, 219. Uncertainty of Seneca's speculative theories,
225, His ethics essentially Stoic in principle, 226.
Modification of Stoic dogmas, 227. Application of par-
ticular
moral doctrines, 235. Independence of things
external, 236. Love of mankind, 239. Religious perament,
tem-
242
CHAPTER
THE STOICS CONTINUED : MTTSONIUS, EPICTETUS,

MARCUS AURELIUS . . ,
246
Musonius, 246. His -practical standpoint, 248. His ethics,

255. Epictetus and Arrian, 256. Practical end of
philosophy, 258. Inferior value of knowledge, 260.

Religious view of the world, 268. Man, 266. Ethics,
268. Independence of things external ; resignation to
destiny and the course of the universe, 270 sq. clination
In-
to Cynicism, 272. Gentleness and love of

mankind, 274, 275. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, 276.
His practical view of philosophy, 277. His theoretic
opinions ; flux of all things, 279 ; the Deity, Providence,

order of the world, 280 sgr* Kinship of man to God, 283.
Ethics, 284. Withdrawal into self, 284. Eesignation

to the will of God, 285. Iôve of mankind, 286
viii CONTENTS.
CHAPTEB X.
PAGE
THE CYNICS OF THE IMPERIAL ERA .

.288
Revival of Cynicism, 289. Its adherents, 290 sq. metrius,

De-
291. (Enomaus, 294. Bemonax, 296. Pere-
grinus, 299. Later Cynics, 301
CHAPTER XI.
THE PERIPATETICS OF THE FIRST CENTURIES
AFTER CHRIST . .
.304
The Peripatetic school of the first and second century, 304%
Commentators of Aristotle's works : Aspasius, Adrastus,

Herminus, Sosig-enes,
Achaicus, 306. Aristocles of
Messene, 314. Alexander of Aphrodisias, 318. Apologies
for Aristotle's writings and commentaries on them, 322.
The Particular and the Universal, Form and Matter,

324. The soul and vovs, 324. God and the world, 329.
Extinction of the Peripatetic School, 332
CHAPTEB XII.
THE PLATONIC SCHOOL IN THE FIRST CENTURIES
AFTER THE CHRISTIAN ERA . . .

334
Platonists of this period, 334. Commentators of Platonic
writings, 337. .
Introduction of alien doctrines opposed
"by Taurus and Atticus, 340. Eclecticism exemplified, in
Theo^ Nigrinus, Severus, Albinus, 344
CHAPTER XIII.
ECLECTICS WHO BELONG TO MO DEFINITE SCHOOL 351
Dio Chrysostom, 353. Lucian, 357. Galen, 360. Character

of his philosophy, 362. Theory of knowledge, 362 sg.
Logic, 363. Physics and metaphysics, 365. Contempt
for theoretic enquiry, 369. Ethics, 370
IKDEX 373
ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTEE I.
ORIGIN AND CHARACTER OF ECLECTICISM.
THAT form of philosophy which appeared about the CHAP.
beginning of the post- Aristotelian period had, in
the course of the third and second centuries, per- ^ @m.
fected itself in its three principal branches. These âld.

three schools had hitherto existed side by side, Of the
each striving to maintain itself in its purity, and ^f^s.

merely adopting towards the others, and towards totetiau
the previous philosophy, an aggressive or defensive
attitude. But it lies in the nature of things that
mental tendencies, which have from dred

kin-
sprung a
soil, cannot very long continue in this ally

mutu-
exclusive position. The first founders of a \

school and their immediate successors, in the fervour of this.
of original enquiry, usually lay excessive weight upon
that which is peculiar to their mode of thought in

;
their opponents they see only deviations from this
their truth : later members, on the contrary, who
have not sought this peculiar element with the
same zeal, and therefore have not grasped it with
B
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, the same rigidityand one-sidedness,more easily

"
perceive,even in adverse statements, that which is
common and akin,and are more ready to sacrifice

subordinate of
peculiarities their own standpoint;
the strife of schools will itself obligethem to repel
exaggerated accusations and unqualifiedcondem-
nations,
by the stronger enforcement of that in

which they coincide with others,to give up or put
aside untenable to soften offensive propo-

assertions, sitions,
and to break off from their systems the
sharpestangles; many an objection of the adversary

maintains its ground, and in seekingto elude it by
another it is found
interpretation, that the positions
presup-
of the
objectionhave been partiallycon-
ceded,
together with the objectionitself. It is,

therefore,a natural and universal experience that
in the conflict of parties and schools their tions
opposi-
graduallybecome blunted, that the common
which
principle underlies them all is in time more
clearlyrecognised,and a mediation and fusion is
attempted. Now, so long as philosophic

productivity
is still livingand active in a people,the case will
either never arise or arise only temporarily,that
its whole science is infected by this eclecticism,
because alreadyin its youthful tions
direc-
course, new
are attempted before those immediately ceding

pre-
them have decidedlybegun to old. As
grow
the contrary, as the scientific
soon, on
spiritis
exhausted,and long space
a of time, devoid of new
cieations,is merely filled with discussions among

the existingschools, the natural result of these
ITS ORIGIN.
discussions, the partial blending of the hostile
parties,will appear to a greater extent, and the

whole philosophywill assume that eclectic character
which, in its universal diffusion,is always the pre-

monitory
sign either
deeply seated revolution,
of a
or of scientific decay. This was preciselythe posi-

tion
in which Greek philosophyfound itself in the
last centuries before Christ. All the causes which
led,generallyspeaking,to the dissolution of classi-

cal
culture,had also had a paralysinginfluence on
the philosophic spirit; for centuries after the
transformation of philosophy, whieh marks the
end of the fourth and the beginning of the third
century no new system arose ; and if the post-

Aristotelian systems in and for themselves had
already lost the purely theoretic interest in the
contemplation of things, and by their restriction
to the life and aims of men, had announced the
discontinuance of scientific endeavour, the - long

cessation of productioncould only serve
philosophic
to dull the scientific sense still more, and to call in
question the
possibility of scientific knowledge in
general. This, state of things found its proper' ex-

pression
in scepticism,which opposed the dogmatic

and more signal success. The
systems with more
eclecticism which since the beginning of the first
century before Christ had repressed scepticism

and united together the previouslyseparate ten-
dencies
of thought, was, however, merely the re-

verse
side of scepticismitself. Scepticism had

B 2
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, placedall dogmatic theories on an equalityin such

a manner as to deny scientific truth to all alike.
__
This '
neither one nor another '
(Weder-noch)became
'
in eclecticism c
One as well as the other {Sowohl-
als-aucli)
; but for that very transition scepticism
had paved the way; for it had not been able to
rest in pure negation,and had therefore,in its
doctrine of probability,
set once more a positive
up
conviction as a practicalpostulate. This conviction
was not indeed to come forward with a claim to full
certainty; but we cannot fail to perceivein the de-

velopmen
of the scepticaltheory,from Pyrrho to
Arcesilaus,and from Arcesiiaus to Carneades,a grow-
ing
estimation of the value of the knowledge of prob-
ability:
it was only necessaiy to advance one step
further,to bring forward practicalnecessitymore
decidedly as against the sceptical
theory,and the
probable would receive the significance
of the true
"
scepticismwould be transformed into a dogmatic
acceptance of truth (Furwahrhalten*).
In this matism,
dog-
however, doubt would inevitablycontinue
to exercise such an influence that no individual
system as such would be recognisedas true, but
the true out of all systems would be separated
accordingto the measure of subjectivenecessity
and opinion. This had been exactly the pro-
cedure
of the sceptics in the ascertainment of
the probable;they develop their doubt in the
as
criticism of existingtheories, so do they seek the

probable primarily in the existingsystems,
among
which they have reserved to themselves the
rightto
ITS ORIGIN,
decide. Carneades, as we know,1 had so treated CHAP.
the ethical questions to which, we are told,aban- Tl

doning his former for combating hostile
predilection
opinions,he more and more restricted himself with
advancing years.2 Similarly Clitomachus, while

contending with the dogmatic schools, seems to
have sought a positiverelation to them ; 3 and we

learn that Êschines,another of Carneades,
disciple
adhered to only of his master's teach-
that side ing.4
Thus scepticismforms the bridge from the
one-sided dogmatism of the Stoic and Epicurean
philosophyto eclecticism ; and in this respect we
cannot regard it as a mere accident that from the
followers of Carneades this mode of thought chiefly

emanated, and that in them it was immediately
connected with the point on which the Stoics and
Epicureans had sustained their dogmatism, and
even the Platonists,in the last resort,their doctrine
of probability,viz. the necessityof definite theories

life.
for practical It was, however, generallyspeak-
ing,
the condition ofphilosophyat that time, and
the strife of the philosophicschools,which first
caused the spreadof scepticism,and in
rise and the
sequel,the eclectic tendency in philosophy.

The most important est-ernal impulse to this ii.Ester
der Grie-
Zeller, Philosojrftie
1 /ta^r^r aXXa. r6re ye, cTrev,eyik
ehen, 3CT Theil, le Abttieilung, Kapj/ea"ou SL^KOVOV ore -rty
p. 517 sq.
faxtav Kal rbv $6(pov atyetK"s6
2 Pint. An, seni s. ge-v. resj?. x6yos avrov S*a T" y^pas els rb
13, 1. p. 791 : 5 p*v ovy 'A/caS??- ^p^crt/J-ov

a-vvrjKTO Kal KOLV^VIK"V.
"ro$ta'T"vTivcav 3 PHI. der Grieclim, III. i.
puiiKbsAto-x^TjSj
8ri p. 524, note 2.
tey6j"T"avt TrpoffiroieLrat yeyo-
yeyov"s, 4 Vide note 2.
viva* Kapj/ea5ov,^
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, cliangewas given by the relation in which Greek

science and culture stood to the Eoman world.1
_ _
The first knowledge of Greek philosophydoubtless

came to the Romans from Lower Italy: the founder
of the Italian School (Pythagoras) is the first philo-
sopher
whose name is mentioned in Eome.2 But
the doctrines of the Greek philosopherscan only

have been heard of there in an entirelysuperficial
and fragmentary
manner beginning of the before the
Diffusion second century before Christ. This state of things

of Green mus" j^g chancre(i however, when, after the second
07 77
')iiiu)sophy
mg the PunicWax, the Eoman policyand Eoman arms pressed
forwar(j farther and farther towards the east ; when
the wars 'with Macedonia Syria brought dis-

and tinguishe
Eomans in great numbers to Greece,
while,on the other hand, Greek ambassadors and

state and
prisoners,3 soon also slaves,appeared more
and more commonly in Eome | when men of the
importanceof the elder ScipioAfricanus,

T. Quinctius
Flamininus, and JEmilius Paulus, appliedthemselves
! For what follows,cf Hitter, suppositionthat

.
he discoursed
iv. 79 sq. to the Eomans on the physics of
2 The arguments for this axe that philosopher.
Griech. Part 3
given in Phil, der Such as the thousand Achse-
I. pp. 287, 3 j 450, 1 ; cf. ibid, ans who, 168
B,c," were carried
313, 2 ; and Part III. ii. p. 77 away into Italy,and kept there
"%. A still earlier date (ifthis for seventeen years, all of them
statement is historical) must be men of repute and culture
fixed for the presence in Eome (among them we know was
of Hermodorus the Bphesian, Polybius),whose long residence
who assisted the decemviri in in the country could not have
the drawing up of the twelve been without influence on, Borne
tables (Part I. 566, 2) : but if even the least considerable
even if he were indeed the of them had their actual abode
celebrated friend of Heraclei- in that city.
tus, we have no ground for the
GREEK PHILOSOPHY IN ItOMK
with delightto Greek literature ; when, from the CHAP.
beginning of the second century, Greek poetry was ^_

transplantedto Eoman soil in the more or less free
imitations of Ennius, Pacuvius, Statins,Plautus,

and their successors ; and Eoman historywas related
in the Greek language by Fabius Pictor and other
annalists. The philosophic literature of Greece
stood in far too close a connection with the other

branches philosophyoccupied far too important a
"
place in the whole Hellenic sphere of culture,as a

means of instruction and objectof universal interest
" to make it possiblefor such as had once found
pleasurein Greek intellectual life to shut themselves

up from it very long,however small the need for
scientific enquiry might be in them. We find,then^
even before the middle of the second century,many
and various traces of the commencement of a ledge
know-
of Greek philosophy among the Eoraans.
Ennius shows that he was acquainted with it,and

adopts from it isolated propositions. In the year
181 B.C. an attempt was made, in the so-called Books
of Numa,1 dogmas of Greek philosophy
to introduce
into the Eoman religion.2Twenty-six years later

(accordingto others only eight)the activityof the
Epicurean philosophersin. teaching caused their
banishment from Borne.3 In 161 B.C., by a decree
of the senate, residence in Eome was forbidden to
the philosophersand rhetoricians ;

4
and this always
1
Cf .
PUl. der. Grieoli. III. 4 This decree of the senate is
ii. p. 8B. to be found in Suetonius, DG
"
Cf. 1. G. III. ii. p. 85. CL Rhetor. I ; G-ell.JV.l. xv. 11
3 Cf. I.e. III. 1 p. 372, 1. (cf.also Clinton, Fasti Hellen.
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, proves that there was reason for anxietyin regard

'
to their influence upon the education youth. of
Paulus, the conqueror of Macedonia, gavc-

his sons Greek and
instructors, for that purpose toot
with him on his expeditionsthe philosopherMetro-

dorus.1 His
companion in the Macedonian paign,
cam-
Sulpicius Grallus, besides the astronomical
knowledge for which he

distinguished,
was may, haps,
per-
have also adopted certain philosophictheories of
the Greeks.2 But all these are merely isolated signs

of the movement which from the middle of the
second century manifested itself to a much greater
extent. Hitherto comparatively few had occupied
themselves with Greek philosophy; now the interest
in that philosophy was more universally diffused.
Greek philosopherscome to Borne in order to try
161 B.C.). These authors tell cf. Pint. Mm. P. 6. The latter
us of another similar enact- mentions among the Greeks
ment : an edict of the censor with whom jÊmilius surrounded
On. Domitius Ahenobarbus and his sons, grammarians, sophists,
L. Licinius Crassus, in which and rhetoricians. Pliny gives,
they express their serious dis- the more definite
information,
pleasure with the teachers and that after the
victory over
frequenters of the newly-arisen Perseus (168 B.C.) he requested
Latin schools of rhetoricians on from the Athenians gooda
account of this departure from painter and an able philosopher.

the consuetude ma/jorwn. But, They sent him Metrodorus,
not to mention that the rJietores who was both in one person.
Latini, who were alone affected Cf. PMl. d. Gr.III. i. p. 525.
2
by this decree, according also Cicero praises his know-*
to Cicero, De Orat. iii. 24, 93 sg., ledge of astronomy, Cic. Off.i-
were only indirectlyconnected 6, 19. According to Livy, xliv.
with Greek philosophy, the 37 ; and Plin. Hist. Nat. ii. 12,
decree was not promulgated 53, he foretold an eclipseof the.
until the B.C., as year
we 95 sun before the battle of Pydna.
see from of Cicero,
a comparison A more detailed account of the
loe. eit. with i. 7, 24. Clinton, authorities in regard to this,
Fasti Bellen., dates it in 92 B.C. event is given by Martin, Revue
1 Plin. Hist. Nat. xxxv. 135 : ArcUolog. 1864, No, 3,
GREEK PHILOSOPHY IN ROME. \
their fortune,,or are sent for thither "bydistinguished CHAP.
men. Young Eomans, desirous of playinga part in "
the state, or of
gaining distinction in cultivated
society,think that they cannot do without the
instruction of a philosopher,and it soon became
usual to seek this not only in Borne, but in Athens
the chief
itself, school of Greek science. Already
the famous deputation of philosophersin the year
156 B.C.1 showed, by the extraordinary influence
which Carneades especiallyobtained, how favourably
Greek philosophy was regarded in Kome; and
though we should not overrate the effect of this
passing event, we may, nevertheless,suppose that

it gave a considerable impetus to the previously
awakened interest in philosophy,
and spread it abroad
in wider circles. More permanent, no doubt, was the

influence of the Stoic Pansetius during his residence,
prolonged as it would seem to have been for many
years, in the capitalof the Eoman empire, he being

a peculiarlyfitted by
man the character of his
philosophyto effect an entrance for Stoicism among

his Eoman auditors.2 Soon after him Caius Blossius
of Cumse, a disciple of Antipater the Stoic, was
in Borne, the friend and counsellor of Tiberius
Gracchus,3 who through him must likewise have
1 The authorities for this are of Gracchus (133 B.C.) Blossius

cited PMl. d. GT. II. ii. p. 928, was also in danger. He left
1 ; cf, p. 498, 1 ; cf. Part III. i. Eome, and went into Asia
p. 498, 1. Minor to Andronicus, after
2 Further details infra,chap- whose fall (130 B.C.) he killed
ter iii. himself. A thorough exaznina-
3
Plut. Til. 6fracc7i. 8, 17, tion of him is to be found in
20 ; Val. Max. iv. 7, 1 ; Cicero, irepl
'Peviepy EXocraiov Kal Aio"pd-
Lcel. 11, 37. After the murder vovs (Leipzig, 1873). Mean-
10 ECLECTICISM.
CFTA.P. become acquainted with Stoicism.1 And now that

I
immigrationof begins, which,
Greek learned men
in time, assumed greater and greater proportions.2

Among the Eomans themselves, men who by
their intellect and position were so decidedly
pre-eminent as the younger Scipio Africanus, his
friend Laelius,L. Furius
the wise Philus and
Tiberius Gracchus, took philosophicstudies under

"With them
their protection.3 are connected Scipio's
nephew Tubero,4 a disciple of Pansetius, who.
while he himself calls his work eruditissimos homines ex Grcccia

"p"vvai Kal eiKaa-tat,
andpalam, semper
the kaftuerutit.
ter
lat- De
so decidedly preponderate, Rep. iii.3, 5 : Quid P. Seijtwne,
that our historical knowledge Quid C. Lcelio, quid Jj. Pliilo
of the man is scarcely extended perfeetius cogitari potest ? qni
by the treatise. ad do?nesticum 'niajorumque
. . .
1 That Gracchus, through the tnorem etiam Jianc, a Socrate ad-

care of his mother, had distin-
guished v"nticiam doctrinam adMbue-
Greeks for his instruc-
tors runt. Cicero there puts the stance
sub-
(Cic. Brut. 27, 104 ; cf. of Carneades' discourse
Plut. Tib. GraecJi. 20) is well against justice,which he self
him-
known. had heard, into the mouth
2
Polyhius (xxxii. 10),however, of Furius Philus, while he
relates thatmuch earlier,when makes him at the same time
Scipio was only eighteen (166 follow the Academic pher
philoso-
B.C.),he said to him and his in the consmtudo contra-
brother: repljub'y"pT"/ia(%uara, rias in paries disserendi ; loe,.
Trepl " vvy 6p""crvov'Sdôvras
vjj,as cit. c. 5, 8 sq, ; Lact. Inst. v.
Kal "pL\ori/JLov/n,"Vovs,
OVK cbropô-ere 14. Concerning the connection
of Scipio and Lselius with
Kal (rol Ka.K"LV(f' 7TOA.T/ yap PanEetius we shall have to
fyvKov cbrb TTJS eE,\\d$o$ speak later on. Laelius, cording
ac-
"pu Kara rb irapbvT"V to Cic. Fiti. ii. 8, 24,

which
avOpdaircov, agrees with had also attended the lectures
what is quoted sugra, p. 7, of Diogenes, which we must,
note 4. no doubt, connect with his
3
Cicero,De Orat. ii. 37, 154 : presence in Home in the year
J^t oerte non tulit ullos Jicec 156 B.C.
cwitas aut gloriaclariores,aut 4
Q. JSlius Tubero, through
"uctoritate gramores, a/at Jiu- his mother a grandson of
manitate politioresP. African, JEmilius Paulus, was a very
.C. L"liOi Z. FwrWj qui secum, zealous Stoic,who carried out
GREEK PHILOSOPHY IN ROME. 11
with the sons-in-law of Laelius, Quintus Mucius CHAP.

I.
Sesevola,1and Caius Fannius,2 P. Kutilius Eufus,3
Lucius ./Elius Stilo,4and others/ open the long
his principlesin his life, not war (Yal. Max. ii. 3, 2 ; Sallust,
without exaggeration. Cf. con-
cerning Jug. 54, 56 but
sg1.), pally
princi-
him Cic. Brut. SI, 117 ; for the purity of his
De Or at. iii. 23, 8T ; Pro Mur. character. On account of the
36, 75 s%. ; Acad. ii. 44, 135 ; impartiality with which, as
Tusc. iv. 2, 4 ; Sen J^p. 95, 72 sgf.; proconsul, he defended the habitants
in-
98, 13 ; 104, 21 120,
; 19 ; Pint. of Asia Minor against
Lucull. 89 ; Pompon. De Omg. the extortions of the Eoman
Juris, i. 40 ; Gell. N. A. i. 22, equites, one of the most less
shame-
7 : xiv. 2, 20 ; Yal. Max. vii sentences of banishment
5/1. Cic. Off.iii- 15, 63, tions
men- was passed upon him, which he
a treatise of Hecato dressedbore
ad- with the cheerfulness of a
to him, and another of sage. He went to Smyrna,

Pansetius, ibid. Acad. ii. 44, where he died, having refused
135 ; Tmo. iv. 2, 4 ; against to return, which was offered him
which the pseudo-Plutarch,2"e by Sulla. Cf. on this subject
Nobilit. 18, 3, is not any torical Cic.
his- Bvvt. 30, 115 ; ^T. D. iii.
testimony ; cf .
Bernays, 32, 80; in Pison. 39, 95;
Dial. d. Arist. 140. Rabir. Post. 10, 27 ; Pv" Balbo,
1 One of the most celebrated 11, 28 (cf.Tacit. Aim. iv. 43) ;
of the ancient jurists and Sen. Ep. 24, 4 ; 79, 14 ; 82, 11 ;
founders of jurispru- Benef. vi. 37, 2, "c. ; Yal.
scientific
dence
among the Romans (Bern- Max. ii. 10, 5, "c. Cicero
hardy, GrTundr. d. Rom. Lit. (Bviit.30, 114) calls him doctus
676, "c.), son-in-law of Leelius rir et Greeds literis eruditus,
(Cic.De Orat* i. 9, 35). Accord-
ing Pancetii auditor, j)rop" perfec-
to Cicero, he had heard tiis in Stoic is. Concerning his
Pansetius lecture, and (I.c. 10, admiration of his teacher
43) he calls the Stoics Stoici Pansetius and his tance

acquain-
nostri. with Posidonius, cf. Cic.
2
C. Fannius, son of Marcus, Off. iii. 2, 10. He left behind
son-in-law of Lselius, was him. memorials and historical
brought by Lselius to hear works : vide Bernhardy, Loc. cit"

Pansetius (Cic. Brut. 26, 101), 203, 506 ; also Cicero, Fin. i.
and is designated by Cicero 3,7.
(Brut. 31, 18) as a Stoic. 4 Vide concerning this phi-
losopher,
Cicero often mentions an torical
his- the predecessor and
work composed by him. teacher of Yairo, Cic. Bnit. 56,
Similarly Plut. Til. Graech. 4, 205 sq. ; also Acad. i. 2, 8 ; Ad
With regard to his consulate, Herenn. iv. 12 ; Bernhardy,
cf. id. C. Gracck. 8, 11, 12. loo. tit. 857.
3 This is the Rutilius who 5 Such as Marcus Yigellius
was famous for his services in (Cic. Qrat. iii. 21, 78) and Sp"
12 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, series of Eoman Stoics. Epicureanism, at the

J same time, obtained a still wider diffusion,
having,
through "books written in Latin, gained entrance
at an earlier period than the other systems, even
those who had not received a Greek cation.1

edu-
among
Somewhat later the Academic and patetic
Peri-
schools,whose principlescould not have

remained unknown to the hearers of Panaetius,were
representedby celebrated teachers in Eome. Among

the Platonists Philo is the first whose presence in
Eome is known to us of the deputation

(irrespective
of ; of
philosophers) the Staseas.2
Peripatetics, But
already,at a much earlier period,Clitornachus had

dedicated works to two Eomans ;3 and Carneades
himself,we are told,was sought out in Athens by

Eoman travellers.4 beginning of Soon after the
the first century before Christ, Posidonius (vide

infra) visited the metropolisof the world; before
the middle of the same century we encounter there
s
Mummiiis, brother of the con- To the poet Lucilius
(148-
queror of Corinth, who, to judge 102 B.c), and
previously to
by the date (Cic. J3rut. 25, 94), L. Censorinus, who was consul
must also have owed his Stoicism in 149 B.C.; Cic. Acad. ii. 32,
to Pansetius. 102.
1
Vide Cic. Fuse, iv. 3, 6: 4 So much truth may un-
Itaque illius eUgantisque vercs of Cicero derlie the statement

(the Stoic, Peripa- (JDe
jphilosophiof Orat. iii. 18, 68) even
teticjand Academic) nulla supposing the statement.
itself
. .
fere sunt aut yoauca admodum to be untrue that Q. Metellus

Latina monumenta . . .
cum in- (Numidicus) as a young man
termi illis silentibus C. Ama- listened to the aged Carneades
finius extitit dicens,"c, for several days in Athens.
2
Further details, infra. Respecting Catulus' relation to
Philo came to Eome in 88 B.C. Carneades, cf. the last pages of
Btaseas, as we find from Cic. the chapter on Carneades. Phil
De Orat. i. 22, 104, appeared ". 6V. Part III. i
there in 92 B.O.
GREEK PHILOSOPHY IN ROME. 13
the Epicureans Philodemus and Syro.1 Mean- CHAP,
Awhile,it was alreadyat this time very common for _____
^''Roman
youths to seek Greek science at its fountain-
tjiead,
and for the sake of their studies to betake
^ themselves the of that
to principalseats science,
and to Athens,2
especially At the commencement
of the imperial era, at any rate, Rome swarmed

with Greek savants of every kind,3and among these
were many who were not merely turning to account
a superficialknowledge in a mechanical manner ;

4
while contemporaneouslyin various placesof the west

the philosophyof Greece became naturalised together
with other sciences,and from these centres spread

itself still further.5 With the knowledgeof Greek
that of
philosophy, Greek literature went naturally
hand in hand, and from the time of Lucretius and
Cicero a Roman literature sprang up at its side,5
1 Phil. d. Gr. Part IH. i. 374. of the time of Augustus and

" - The best known examples Tiberius, residingin Rome, will
Xare those of Cicero andAtticus, come before us further on.
"rf^ but we shall meet with many

5
The most important of
i Of others later on. For the gene- these was the ancient Greek
ir ral practice, cf. Cic. Fin. v. 1, city Massilia, of which Strabo
where Cicero describes his own (iv. 1, 5, p. 181) says: irdvres
K life in Athens with companions ycc,p of "x.apiwrss
irpbsrb Xeyew
in study (77 B.C.); and in re- Tpe'-nwrcu
Kal fyiXoffo"fTw. An
gard to a somewhat later time, early colony of Greek culture
Aead. i. 2, 8, where he says to in Gaul, this city had now
YaiTO : Sed meos amicos, in made such advances that noble
quibus est stiidium, in Grcec-iam Eomans pursued their studies
mitto, ut ea a fontibitspotius here instead of in Athens.
fi
^ Jiawiant, qitam rivulos consec-
6 That these two were the
Qr t"ntwr. first noteworthy writers on
X* 8 The fact is notorious ; for philosophyin the Latin tongue

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

was
I.
Greek, though not to be compared with the earlier,
either in scientific acumen or creative individuality.
At the beginning of this movement, the Eomans
were related to the Greeks merely as discipleswho

adopted and imitated the science of their teachers ;
and, to a certain degree,this relation continued
throughoutits whole course ; for in Eome the tific

scien-
genius and spiritnever attained even to so
much force and

self-dependenceas in Greece it had
Inevitable still preservedin the latter period. But in the end

reaction
this influence of Greek philosophycould not remain
of that
diffusion without a reaction on itself. Though Eomans by
upon
birth,like Cicero and Lucretius, might rehabilitate
Greek science for their countrymen ; and Greek
philosophers, like Panaetius and Antiochus, might

lecture to the Eomans, in both cases it was able
unavoid-
that the character of their presentationsshould

be more or less determined by regard to the spirit
and requirementsof their Eoman hearers and readers.
Even the
purely Greek schools of philosophy in
Athens, Ehodes, and other places, could not free them-

selves
from this determining influence,on account
of the great number of young Eomans of position
who visited them ; for it was naturallyfrom these
claim for themselves this habuit lumen* literamm Lati-

honour, cf. Lucr. v. 336 : Hano narum in- quo , co .magis
.
(the Epicurean doctrine) pri- mus nolis est elaborandwn, quod

cum jprimis ipse repertus tnulti jam esse libri Latini di-
nwnc ego sum in putrias qui cuntur scripti i/nconsider cite ah
joossimvertere voces. Cic. Tune. optimis illls quidem vlris, sod
i. 3, 5 : PMlosopMa jacuit satis eruditis.
'usque non
ad 7ianc fetatem nee
GREEK PHILOSOPHY IN JtOMU. 15
scholars that honour and profitmostly accrued to CHAP.
the teachers. Of still higher importance, however, ___'__

than these considerations must be rated the scious
uncon-
influence of the Eoman spirit; not merely

upon the Romans who pursued philosophy,but also
upon the Greek philosophers

in the Eoman empire ;
for,however great the superiorityof Greek culture

over Eoman, however complete the literary
depen-
dence
of the conquerors upon the conquered, it was
inevitable that Greece, too, should receive spiritual

influence from her proud scholars,and that the
astuteness and force of will to which, in spite of

science, she had succumbed, should necessarily
acquire considerable value as compared with that
science in the eyes of the subjugated nations. It
was consistent with the Eoman however,

spirit, to
estimate the worth of philosophy,as of all other
things,primarilyaccordingto the standard of prac-

tical
utility; and, on the contrary, to ascribe no
importance to scientific opinions as such, when no
great influence on human life was perceptible in

them. From this source sprang those prejudices
againstphilosophy,which at first led even to terial
magis-
interposition.1The same point of view was
1 Cf. on thissubject what contents of their lectures, he

Plutarch (Cato Maj. 22) relates advised should be sent away as
of Cato's behaviour to the em- quickly as possible. Also id.

bassy of philosophers as to ap. Gell. xviii. 7, 3 ; Nepos ap.
whom he feared from the outset Lactant. iiL
15, 10 ; and the
-rb "f"t\6TL[jt,oi/
fji^j evravda rptyav- edict of the censors quoted
res ot v4oL rfy eirl T$ Xeyeiv supra, p 7, note 43 which cen-
86"av ayaTT'ficr'"a'i
paKkov TTJS airb sures the rhetorical schools : ibi
r"vepycav Kal T"V ffTparetuv, and homines adolescentulos totos dies
whom, after he had heard the desidere* To the Eoman states-
10 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, also,however, maintained even in the pursuit and
___!_ study of philosophy. So far as philosophywas cerned

con-
merely with scientific questions,it could

be regarded as
scarcely anything more than a spectable
re-
recreation ; it only attained to more
serious value in the eyes of the Eoman, inasmuch
as it proved itself an instrument of practicaleduca-

tion.
strengthening of moral principlesand

The
the trainingfor the callingof orator and statesman,
these are the aspectswhich primarily and principally
recommended philosophicstudies to his attention.

But on this very account he was necessarily
inclined
to treat them with reference to these points of view.
He cared little for the scientific establishment and
logicaldevelopment of a philosophicsystem ; that

which alone, or almost alone, concerned him was its
practical
utility
; the strife of schools,he thought,
turned mostly on non-essential things,and he him-
self
could not therefore hesitate to select from the
various systems, careless of the deeper tion
interconnec-
of
particular that which seemed
definitions, to him
serviceable. The proconsul Grellius,who made the
well-meaning proposalto the philosophers in Athens
that they should amicably settle their points of

and offered himself
difference, as mediator,1expressed
the trulyEoman conception of philosophy,though
somewhat too candidly. Though the influence of
this standpointwould doubtless have affected Greek
man and soldier philosophy *

Cic. L"gg. i. 20, 53. Gellius
must naturally have appeared was consul in 682 A.u.O. = 72
'
even greater waste of time B.C. Vide Clinton, Fasti H"llen.

than rhetoric. for that year.
ITS PRINCIPLE AND CHARACTER. 17
philosophyvery little had it been exerted at an CEAP.
earlier period, it quite otherwise when philo-

'_
was
sophy had itself taken the direction which ally

especi-
corresponded with the Eoman nature. When
the internal condition of the philosophic schools,
and the
especially last important phenomenon in this
sphere " the doctrine of Carneades "

already led to
eclecticism,it must necessarilyhave developed itself
only the more speedilyand through the
successfully
concurrence of internal motives with external fluences.
in-
But although this eclecticism primarilyappears B.
merelyJ as the product of historical relations,which

L '
L''lfl
cliaractcr
rather conduced to the external connection than to of edeet'w
the internal harmonisingof different standpoints,it

is not wholly without a characteristic principle,
which till then had not existed in this form. If we
enquire accordingto what point of view the doctrines
of the different systems were chosen, we find it was
not sufficient to maintain those doctrines in which
all were agreed; for the eclectics would then have

been limited to a very few propositionsof indefinite
universality. But even the practical utilityof

theories could not be considered as the final mark
of their truth ; for the practical

problem of mankind,
and the way of its solution was itself a main
object
of the strife ; the question was therefore,by what
standard practicalaims and relations should selves
them-
be determined? This standard could only
be ultimately sought in immediate consciousness.
If it be required that the individual shall choose

c
18 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, out of the various systems that which is true for his
J own use, this presupposes that each man carries in

v
himself the standard for decision between true and
and that truth

false, is directlygiven to man in his
self-consciousness is'precisely
and in this pre-
it suppositio
;
that the individuality and importance
of the eclectic philosophy seem chieflyto lie.

Plato had indeed assumed that the soul brought
with it from a previouslife into its present existence

the consciousness of ideas ; and similarlythe Stoics
had spoken of conceptions which are implanted in

man by nature ; but neither Plato nor the Stoics
had thereby intended to teach an immediate ledge

know-
in the strict sense of the term ; for the miniscence

re-
of ideas coincides in Plato with the dialec-

tic
forming of conceptions,and arises,according to

him, by means of the moral and scientific activities
which heregardsas preliminary stagesof philosophy "
and the natural conceptions of the Stoics are not, as
has alreadybeen shown, innate ideas ; but, like scien-

tific
thoughts,are derived merely in a natural manner

from experience. Knowledge here also has to develop
itself from experience,and is attained and
conditioned by intercourse with things. This attain-

ment
of knowledge was first denied by scepticism,

which declared the relation of our conceptions to
the things conceived to be unknowable, and made
al] our convictions exclusively dependent upon subjective
bases. But if in this way, not knowledge
a
of the truth,but only belief in probabilitycan be

this belief takes the
established, place of knowledge
ITS PRINCIPLE AND CHARACTER.
in him. who has despaired of knowledge : and so CHAP.

i
there results,as the natural product of scepticism,
reliance on that which is given to man in his
directly
self-consciousness, and is certain before all scientific
enquiry ; and this, as we shall find in Cicero and
others,is the last foot-hold in the eclectic tion

fluctua-
among the various theories.1 Now, we can
ascribe,it is true, to this principleof immediate
knowledge only a very limited value. What it main-

tains
is at bottom merely this : that the final decision
concerning the questions of philosophy belongs to

unphilosophicconsciousness ; and though the uni-
versal
thought that every truth has to approve itself
to human self-consciousness is entirelyestablished,

yet this thought is here introduced under a verted
per-
and one-sided aspect, and the whole supposition
pre-
of an immediate knowledge is untrue ;
closer observation shows that these supposed im-
mediate
and innate ideas have likewise been formed
by manifold intermediate processes, and that it is only

a deficiencyof clear scientific consciousness, which
makes them appear as immediately given. This
return to the directlycertain is so far to be regarded
primarilyas a sign of scientific decay, an involuntary

evidence of the exhaustion of thought. But at the
same time it presents one aspect which is not with-
1
The eclecticism of the last not be regarded,
any more than
century B.C. stands in this the Scottish philosophy, a as
respect to the preceding scepti- mere reaction of dogmatism

cism in a similar relation to against doubt, hut it is, like
that which in modern times the Scottish philosophy, itself
the philosophy of the Scottish a product of doubt,
school bore to Hume ; it can-
c 2
0 ECLECTICISM.
of philosophic
CHAP, out importance for the further course
T'
As the interior of man is regarded as
development.
the knowledge of the most essential
the placewhere
has its seat, it is herein maintained
truth originally
in to
opposition the Stoic and Epicurean sensualism,
that in self-consciousness a specific
source of know-
ledge
given: and though

is this higherknowledge
of inner experience
is something actual, a fact "
though this rationalism, so far,again resolves itself

into the empiricismof direct consciousness,yet it is
no longer the mere perceptionfrom which all truth is
derived. This appealto the immediately certain may?
therefore,be regardedas a reaction against the sen-
sualistic empiricismof the precedingsystems. But

because it does not go beyond the internallygiven,
as such, and is nevertheless wanting in any deeper
scientificestablishment and development,philosophic
convictions are not recognisedactuallyin their origin
from the hnman mind, but appear as something be-

stowed
on man by a power standing above him ; and

thus innate knowledge forms the transition to that
form of which
philosophy only goes back to self-con-
sciousness,
in order to receive in it the revelation of
God. How the belief in external revelations and the
leaning of philosophyto positive religionare allied

to this, will be shown later on ; at present it is
enough to remark that,as a matter of fact, in a
Plutarch,an Apuleius,a Maximus, a Numenius, and
generally among the Platonists of the first two

centuries after Christ,eclecticism and the philosophy
of revelation went hand in hand.
But as eclecticism in this aspect bore within it CHAP.
the germ of the mode thought which so powerfully

of
__.
"__ "
developed itself subsequently in Neo-Platonism ; i. Edec-
from another point of view it also contained the ^"^'tfo

scepticism,to which in great part it owed its own germs of
origin. For that dissatisfaction which will not allow
thought to be at peace in any definite system, has

its ultimate basis in this : that it has not fullyover-
come
doubt in the truth of dogmatic systems, that

it cannot recognisedoubt as to certain
refuse to
particulars,
even though it does not approve of it
in principle. Scepticism is consequentlynot merely
one of the causes which have conditioned the
development of eclecticism; eclecticism has it
continually within itself as a phase of its own tence;

exis-
and its own behaviour tends to keep it
awake ; the eclectic vacillation between different
systems is nothing else than the unrest of sceptical

thought,a little moderated by belief in the original
consciousness of truth,the utterances of which are
to be broughttogetherout of the many and various
scientific theories. The more however,

superficially,
doubt was stilled by. a mode of philosophisingso
devoid of the
principle, less was it to be expected that
it should be for ever silenced. If the truth which
could be found in no individual system was to be
gleaned out of all systems,it required only moderate

attention to perceivethat the fragments of various
systems would not allow themselves to be so directly

united "
that propositionhas its
eaxsh. philosophical
definite meaning only in its interconnection with

22 ECLECTICISM.
imp. some definite system; while, on the other hand,

_
propositionsfrom different systems, like the systems
themselves, mutually exclude one another : that
the contradiction of opposite theories annuls their
authority,
and that the attempt to make a basis out
of the harmonisingpropositionsof the philosophers^
as recognisedtruth,is wrecked on the fact of their
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 all other theories,
in Neo-Platonism ; and no argument has greater
weight with these new scepticsthan that which the
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, of scepticism
imtm"' aPPears in relation to the uncritical eclectic ment
treat-
of
philosophy,it could no longer attain the
importance which it had had in the school of the
new academy, The exhaustion of thought which
can be shown even in this later scepticism,made a
positiveconviction too necessary, to allow many to

return to pure doubt. If, therefore,the belief in
the truth of the systems hitherto in was
vogue
shaken, and if even their eclectic combination could
not entirelysatisfy,
while strengthwas wanting for
the independent production of a new system the CHAP.

;
*"
general result was only that thought began to long
_
more and more

for a source
of knowledge lying
outside itself and science as

hitherto existing ;
which was sought partly in the inner revelation of
the Deity and partly in religious tradition. Thus
the was
entered which Neo-Platonisrn
way upon,
in the next period more definitely pursued, and so
opened the last epoch of Greek philosophy.

ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTEE II.
ECLECTICISM IN THE SECOND AND FIRST CENTURIES
BEFORE CHRIST. THE EPICUREANS. ASCLEPIADES.
CHAP. OF the schools of philosophywhich had still main-

tained
II.
themselves on the theatre of history up to
I. Eclec- the middle of the second century before Christ,that

ticism in
of the Epicureanswas, to all appearance, least affected
tJte two
centuries by the scientific movement of the time. Though
B.C.
its with
juxtaposition other intellectual tendencies
A. Tlie
jEpieu- had left upon it some traces, it does not seem to
reans.
have been influenced by any of these tendencies in
a deeper and more permanent v

manner. We must,
no doubt, suppose that even the refutation of the
which
objections encountered the Epicurean doctrine
on all sides,gave occasion to some new phases in
the conception and establishment of it ; that the
system perhapswas further developed or modified in

certain subordinate pointsby one and another of its
adherents,and that alien doctrines may have been

more thoroughlyinvestigatedby them than by
Epicurus"himself. But when we have followed up
of tJie
all the traces which might seem to indicate that
later Epi-
cureans
individual
to of Epicurus had departed,either
disciples
JSpicurm.
formallyor materially,from their master,1the sum
1
A collection and examina- which we cannot but acknow-
tion of these the value of ledge, though we not
"
may
THE EPICUREANS. 2
total of such departures which, can be historically CHAP.

proved is so inconsiderable that the well-known L
j
judgments of Seneca and concerningthe

Numenius
orthodoxy of the Epicureans1 scarcelysuffers any

from them. 2 that
limitation We learn from Cicero
the theory of Epicurus was not seldom conceived by
his Eoman compatriots as if he had ascribed an
independent value to intellectual culture and to
virtue ; but Cicero himself adds, that this opinion is

to be found in no scientific of
representative the
Epicurean philosophy.3 He tells us of some cureans

Epi-
separatedthemselves from
of his time who
Epicurus 4 by their theory of a disinterested love to

friends. It is doubtful, however, whether this
should be regarded as a radical deviation from the
Eudaemonism of Epicurus ; the statement in tion

ques-
only asserts that friends may be loved for their
own sake, even when they bring us no advantage ; 5

but this does not exclude the idea that love to them
is based upon the pleasure secured by intercourse
agree with, all the inferences these 'later philosophers' to

and conjectures deduced from be Siro and Philodemus ; but
them " has been undertaken by though this idea is not improb-
Hirzel, Tfntermehungen zu Cio. it cannot
able in itself, be ascer-
i.165-190, in connection with taioed whether it has any foun-

Diining, De Metrodori vita et dation.
scriptis,p. 18 sgq.
5
Cic. Fin. L 20, 69, thus ex-
1
Phil. (Lev 6fr.III. i. p. 379, 4. presses it : Primos conyressus
2
Fin. i. 7, 25; 17, 55; cf. (and so forth) fieri propter
Phil, der Gr. III. i. 4:45,2. wlwptat"m,, cum autem itsus
Quos quidem (he makes

3
yrogrediensfamiMaritatem effe-
Torquatus, i. 17, 55, observe cerit, turn amorem efflorescere
respecting them) video esse tantitm, lit, etiam si milla sit
multos sed iniperitos. utilitas ex amidtia, tamen ipsi
4 Phil, Qr, III. i. 460, 2.
der amioi propter se ipsosamentw.
Hirzel,loc. cit. 170 s#., supposes
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. with them.1 Such a difference cannot be considered

II.
of much, importance. Nor are justifiedin
we
ascribingan alteration of the Epicurean theology

to Philodemus, though he may, perhaps,have carried
it than Epicurus him-
further in certain particulars self:2
though many deviations

and from pure
Epicureanism are perceptible3in Lucretius, on

closer inspectionthey will be found to refer to traits
which merely concern the form of the poetic sentation

pre-
but do not affect the scientific theories.4
1 In the amare gropter se over all. The sun is described
ijjsos, as opposed to the love as an essence which generates

because of utility,there lies the births of the world; the
nothing more than the ception

con- earth, in animated language, as
of an affection based the mother of living creatures ;
upon delight in the person of a even the conjecture that the
friend, and not merely on a stars areliving beings he does
calculation of benefits. But not cast aside (v. 523 *#".)"
such an affection can also be This last, however, according
based on the motive of sure.
plea- to v. 122 sqg., cannot be his"
To this only the further own opinion. What he really
argument can be applied : says only the
is same that
J"tenim, si loca,sifana, si wbes, Epicurus (ap.Diog. x. 112) also
si gymnasia, si campum, si expresses in one of his thetical
hypo-
canes, si dc[iws ludicra, escercendi explanations of Nature
ant venavidi con"uetudine ad- with reference to earlier theories
amare soleniiis,quanto id(Phil,der Gr. 1. 245). Concern-
in
Jiomimtm consMetudine facilius ing^theremaining points,Bitter
jieripotuerit etjustius! himself remarks that the scriptions
de-
8
Phil, der 6V. III. i. 435, 1. of the
poet can only
3
Hitter,iv. 89-106. be intended figuratively; and
4 Kitter thinks (p. 94) that this is the case with the pas-
sages
Nature and her component which perhaps would be
parts are described by Lucre-
tius most surprisiDgto an Epicurean
at times in a much more (v. s^.)" where
534 Lucretius
vivid, and at times in a much defends the Epicurean theory
more detailed manner, than that the earth is borne up by
the lifeless and uniform physics the air (Diog. x, 74) with the
of the Epicureans would seem observation that the air is not
to have permitted. Nature is oppressed by the earth, because
conceived by Lucretius as a the earth was originallyof one
Unity, which rules absolutely piece with it,justas the weight

THE EPICUREANS.
The same may be said of other philosophersamong CHAP.
the later Epicureans concerning whom tradition has

__
__
told us something. It may be that Zeno of Sidon

appropriatedto himself in the school of Carneades l
a more dialectic method, a mode of argument going

more acutely and thoroughlyinto details than we
2
find in Epicurus ; or that Apollodorus3 was superior
to Epicurus in historical knowledge and interest ;
4
of our limbs is no burden to departing from Epicurus, sumes

as-
"us. Though this
strongly re-
minds many as original figures
us of the Stoic sympathy of the atoms as there are atoms
of the universe, Lucretius will
(Bitter, p. 101) decidedly a is
have nothing to do with
misapprehension, expressly con- that
tradicted
theory, and consequently desig-

nates by the passage ii.
the parts of the world 478 sqq. (which Bitter understands).
mis-
only as quasi mewibra. In any How little the
case this thought is without ethics also of the Roman curean
Epi-
result for the rest of his doc-
trine differed from those of
of Nature. He rather the ancient Epicurean it would
maintains, as his own opinion, be easy to show from the points
the unity of Nature in the adduced by Bitter, p. 104 s$.
same sense as Epicurus " i.e. in The agreement of Lucretius
the sense of an interdependence with Epicurus has now been
brought about by the identity expounded in the most thorough
of physical and mechanical manner by Woltjer in the trea-
tise
laws. Moreover, the doctrine quoted, Phil, der Gr. III.
of the spontaneous movement i. 363, 1.
of the atoms (Lucr. ii. 133, 251 1 Of. I.
e. III. i. S7S, 2.
2
sqq.} is Epicurean; and if,on As Hirzel conjectures,loc.
the other hand, Lucretius is cit. 176 s^., appealing to
distinguished from Epicurus by Cicero, Fin. i. 9, 31 ; Tusc. Hi.
maintaining more firmly the 17, 38 ; N,D. i. 18, 46 s#.
conformity to law of natural 8 The KvjTrorvpavvos discussed
phenomena (Bitter, 97), we in Phil, der Gr. III. i. 373.
hav" already heard (PML der 4
Hirzel, 183 s^who asserts,
6V. III. i. 397, 1) the explana-
tion in support of this, that Apol-
lodorus
of Epicurus, which is firmed
con- (accordingto Biog. viL
by his whole system, 181 13) had composed a
; x.
that unconditional necessity SoyjudTew*,

crvvaytoyfy and perhaps
rules In universal causes, if had justifiedin it the ment
judg-
even individual phenomena of Epicurus on Leucippua
admit of various constructions. (Phil, der Gr. I, 842, 6).
That Lucretius (ii.333 "?#.)"
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. we also find Demetrius meeting an objection of

II.
Cameades with an answer which leads us to suppose
that this gained in logicaltraining
Epicurean had
through the dialectic of the Academy.1 But that

either of these philosophers in any definition of
doctrine materiallydiverged from the doctrine of

their master is not maintained in any quarter.
cataloguementions
his certain
When Diogenes in
men who were called Sophistsby the genuine Epi- cureans
we have no reason to consider these Sophists
as more than isolated offshoots of the school,or to
from their appearance any deeply seated agreement

dis-
argue
within it,or any change in its general
character.2
3
In the exposition (men-
tioned
in Part in. L 371, 4) ap. Kal 6 tevK6s. 6* 6
Z'fji/cav
Sext NatTi. viii. 348, where he
maintains, in oppositionto the
statement about argumentation 6 eVz/cArffisis
AaKow, Aioye^s 0' 6
discussed at p. 504, and in mony
har- Tapcreiis6 ras exiAe/crovs1 crxoAas
with the distinction of crvyypd^/as,Kal 'QploovKal a\\OL
owo""i"is,that
e2?u/C7) ots oi yvficriOL
'ETTLKotipeioi
"yevLKT] and cro"J!"icr-
whenever a valid separate proof ras aTTO/caAoiJcriv. Hirzel (lew.
is adduced, the admissibilityof cit. 180 sqq.) believes that
the argument is at once shown. those named Sophists by the
To him also, perhaps, belongs true Epicureans must include
what is quoted by Sextus, viii. all the men here tioned,
men-
330 ; in any case it shows what from Apollodorus on-

wards,
influence the objections of Car- and therefore lodorus

Apol-
neades had made even upon the himself, the two Ptole-
Epicureans. msei, Zeno of Sidon, "c. But
2 The words in 25 ceed
Diog.x.
pro- this is very improbable, even
thus: (afterthe enumeration from the mode of expression,
of several immediate disciples Had such been the meaning of
of Epicurus) KCU OI"TOI ^kv e\\6yi- the writer, he must at least
have said : irdvras 8e rovrovs ol
A.LOVUCTLOS,%v BatnAet 8775-.yvficrioi,
"5i"5e'"aro 'EiriKovpeioi
ffQfyicrr"s
airo-
$' 6 KyTrortipav-
Mai iA.iroXX6^ct}pos KaXovtriv ; and if he wished to
yos yeyovev eAA^yiyUOS,
ttsvirep ra express himself clearly even
T"ETpaK6ffia fii"Aia,'dvo
ffuysypafye this would have been insuffi-
ASCLEPIADES.
The famous physician, Asclepiadesof Bithynia,1 CHAP.

II.
stands in another relation to the Epicurean school,
He is not expresslyenumerated its members

among Ascle-
by any of the authors who mention him, but his jriadesthe

yltt/sioian
theories would certainlylead us to that he
suppose n'"t an
Epicu-
had some connection with the school. He is at one rean,
but shows
cient. He must have written : of Epicurus; and is it
likely
affi/iith'$
rby 5e *A.iro\\6$capojf
/ecu rovs per that he would immediately with the
avrbjs ot yvfjcriOL 'ETHKroiJpeioi
after apply the same predicate
school.
ffofyLcrras a.iroK.a\ov(nv. As it is, to those who were not ledged
acknow-
we can only refer the words by the genuine Epicu-
reans
ovs cbro/mA-outru/ either to the as belonging to their
"XX.OL alone, or to the aAAoi and number ? This is in itself very
the names immediately ceding improbable, but
pre- the ability
improb-
them, Orion and Bio- becomes greater still
genes. Diogenes may in this when we find that among these
case be the same person tioned
men- Sophists are two of the most
by Strabo, xiv. 5, 15 ; distinguished leaders, Apol-
but this is not necessarily the lodorus and Zeno. Hirzel has
case, as Strabo does not scribe just before
de- (p. 170) shown that
Diogenes as an rean,
Epicu- ooly Epicureans of the purest
and in the tion
enumera- type were selected as overseers
of the philosophers of of the school ; and we can all
Tarsus, the Epicurean Diogenes the less concede to him that an
may have been passed over, as Apollodorusanda Zeno " the for-
mer,
well as the far more celebrated as his
designation proves,
Stoic Zeno. But the positive a highly- esteemed head of the
arguments against the sition
suppo- school ; the latter regarded by
of Hirzel are still more Cicero and Plrilodemus as one
decisive. According to this, of the first Epicurean authori-

ties
the Epicurean with whom the could have been, in the "
mention of Diogenes originates judgment of the yvficrioionly

must have pointed out a whole pseudo-Epicurean Sophists.
1 ries
theo-
series of Epicurean philoso-
phers, whose
This physician,
whom he himself calls are constantly mentioned
"\\6yifj.QL
as men who were in the Placita, ascribed to Plu-
tarch,
named Sophists by the genuine and in the writings of
Epicureans, and consequently Galen, is counted by the pseudo-
members of the school who had Galen, Isag.c. 4, vol. xiv. 683 K,
become unfaithful to its true as one of the leaders of the
spirit.How is this conceivable ? logical school of physicians.

As eAAîaoi, he had previously According to Sext. MatJi. vii.
mentioned Metrodorus, Her- 20 "?., ne was a contemporary
marchus, Polysenus, "c. in a "
of Antiochus of Ascalon. Vide
word, the most loyal disciples p. 30, note 1.

ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. "with the Epicurean sensualism l in his statement

II.
that the sensible perceptiongives a true image of
the thing perceived,but that reason, on the con-

trary,
is not an independent source of knowledge,
borrows all its content from perception,and has
to be verified by perception.2In connection with
this he found reason superfluous,3

as an integralpart
of the soul, herein going beyond Epicurus : the
soul, he said, was only the whole compounded of

4
all the senses collectively
; to which he gave as
1 Sext. Math. vii. 201. That principale,dum in animo ipso

there were also some who clared Tolunt
de- esse sensus,"
quorum mn-
sensations to be the dicatur principals, in favour of

criterion of truth, Antiochus which Asclepiades argues that
shows in these words : "\\os 5e many animals live for a time
vis tv ry larpiKrifJ.ev ovdzybs without head or heart (the two
fievrepos, a-TrrSfM^vos 5e KOI """zAo- parts regarded as seats of the
"ro(f)ias,eireiQero ras fJ.ev cucrfl^creis 5iyeij.ovLK6v}. next note.
See
ovrcas KOI aA7j0"SsayriAêis etvcu, 4 This conception results
\6ycp Se from the passage in Tertullian,
AayujSaz/e**'.Here Asclepiades the which therefore compares piades
Ascle-
contemporary of Antiochus can with Dicasarchus ; and
alone be referred to. still more distinctlyfrom Gal.
2 This and nothing else can Aurel. De Mori), aciut. i. 14
be the real opinion of piades,
Ascle- (quoted by Fabric, on Sext.
on which the statement,Asclepiacles Math. vii. 380) :
regmim animcs aliquaparte con-

is based, for he, like Epicurus, stitutum (a TjyejAoviKdv
dwelling
denominated his atoms patrol, in a definite part of the body)
X6ycp eewpyrol(infra,p. 31 n. 5), negat. JEtenim niJiil aliud esse
and also believed in an tual
intellec- 'dieit animam quam sensmtm
knowledge of the hidden omnium costum : intellectual
by means of inferences from the autem occitltarum vel latentium
perceived. "Vide infra,note 4. rerum per soluUlem
fierimotum
3 Sext. Math. vii. 202 : 'AcrK\vj- sensuitm, qui ab accidentifa(s
rbv larpbv
TTidSrjv .
. . avatpovvra sensilili'bus atque awtecedenti
pet? rb 7]yefj.oviK6v.
Ibid. 380, perspectioneperfcitur
m emoriam
he says : ou"Je 0Ao"s virdpx*ivn i:ero alterno eorum exerdtio dic.it.
v)j"/jLoviK6y.
Tert. De an. 15 : Plut. Plao. iv. 2, 8 (Stob. Eel. i.
Messenius aliquis Dictzarcktis, 496) expresses the same in the
ex m edicts autem Andreas et followingwords 'Acr/cA. 6
: tarpbs
Ascleyiades ita abstulerunt
ASCLEPIADES. si
substratum the Trvev/jia consistingof light and CHAP.

IJ"
round particles.1He also traced the activities of
__
memory and intellect to movements in the organs

of sense.2 If
lastlythe atomistic theory of Ascle-
piades 3 is primarilyallied to that of Heraclides of
Pontus,4 it is not to be supposed that he arrived at
this theory without the tradition of the atomistic
system which was stillliving

in the Epicurean school.
The primary constituents of all thingshe held to be
small bodies which
distinguishedfrom the were
atoms of Democritus and Epicurus in that they

were divisible. From all eternity they strike to-gether
in constant motion and splitup into num-

berless
parts, of which sensiblyperceptiblethings

consist.5 But even in compound bodies their cease-
vao-iav r""v alffOârecav,whether from, a complex of motions, cer-

the crvyyvfj.vacria. may mean tain motions detach themselves,
"practice,'
or 'common practice, and that through these arise
work done together,'
or whether abstract presentations.
in a sense otherwise not de- 3 On this subject cf. Lass-
monstrable, corresponding with witz, who discusses it in his
cactus, it may denote a society treatise on Daniel
Bennett,
of "rvyyvfjiva,"6iL"voi. p. 425 sq. fur
{VierteljaJtrscJir.
1
Chalcid. in Tim. 213 : Aut wissensch. PMlos. iii.408 sqq.},
eniwi moles vide
(J"yKoi, infra) for this German restorer of the
guceda/m sunt leves et globo"ce atomistic philosophy (he died
admodimi
ecBcLemqiie delicate ex in 1637) allied himself chiefly
quibus anima sufisistit,quod, with Asclepiades.
4
totum spirttm est, ut Ascle- PMl. d. GT. ii. i. 886
sq.
ypiadtis putat, "c. On the 5 The complete account
most
analogous, though somewhat of this theory is given by Cgel.

different definitions of Epicu- Aurel. loo. cit. : Primordia cor-
rus and Democritus, cf PMl.

.
de-r poris primo wnstituerat atomus
Gr. III. i. 418 ; also I. 808. (thisis inaccurate ; he did not
2
His exact conception of call them so for the reason that
this is not clear from the pass- they are not indivisible)
cor-
age of Cselius Aurelius quoted pmcula intellects setwa, sine

in note 4, p. 30. The solubilis ulla qualitate solita (without
motus points to the idea that colour,and so forth) atque ex
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, less motion continues, so that nothing in any section
__^1 _
of time, even the smallest,remains unchanged.1 If
initio comitata (?)itself). That these 07*0* (as

aeternum se
moventia qua suo iimmu offensa Epicurus had said of the atoms)
ictil)us in infimta par- are and
\6y"y deuprjrol 5i* alcoves
mutuis
solvantur avnp"[j.r)Toi, we are told by Sext.
tium fragment" mag-
entia,
differ- Math. Hi. 5. He also speaks
nitud'me atqiiescJwmate
rursiim eundo sibi (viii.220) of vorjrol UJKOL and
quce
omnia What Caelius
adjeeta vel conjunct" VOTITO. apatcapara.
in semet Aurel. says of the shattering of
faoiant sensiMlia, vim
niutationis Jiabentia autper wiag- the atoms receives confirmation
mtudincm sui met per nudtitu- from the words quoted by witz
Lass-
dinem ant schema aut (p. 426) from the pseudo-

per per
ordinem. Nec" ingulf,ratione ca- Galen, Introd. c. 9, vol. xiv.
videtur quod mdliusfaGiant 698 7(5
: Kara "e -r'byÂffKXrjTTid^T]^
rere
quiditatiscorpora (that being avQptairovtiyicoi

(TroL-êla Qpavtrrol
without generate bodies Kal TTopoi; and from Stob.JSbZ. i.
quality,
of definite quality); silver is 350, according to which the pre-
decessor
white, whereas that which is of Asclepiades (Hera-
rubbed off from it is black ; elides)declared Opada-para,to be
the horn is black, the the smallest bodies (the theories

goat's
sawdust of it white. These also ascribed to Heracleitus
primeval bodies Asclepiadesjike in the foregoing,and in the
Heracleitus, called ampftoi oywi Placita, i. 13, 2 ^y/xarxa "

cf.
(of. the passages quoted, Phil, TLVCL eAaxzcrra Kal atuep7) seemy "
der Gr. II i. 886, 3 ; where, how-

ever, however, originally to belong
in Eus. Par. ev. xiv. 23, 3, to Heraclides). This divisibility
instead of "u,eybvofj.d.craj'TGS,
/*ero- of the OJKOL is referred to when
is to be read, accord-
vofj.d"ravres ing Sextus (Math. x. 318) observes
to Diels, jDoxogr. 252, 2). that Democritus and Epicurus
I previouslyunderstood pression represent things as
the ex- arising "=|
as applying to bodies avoôLcoy (i,e. TQLS yzwojfjLGVQis*)
not joined together i.e., not re Kal
"
axraQcav. Heraclides and
divisible ; but I must concede Asclepiades, on the contrary,
to Lasswitz that the primitive """avo{JLQitov yuev TraBrjrSiySe KaQd-
atoms of Asclepiades are not irep r"v aydpju.(ay
oytttav. The
this. The interpretations which
loclte)\Trdpot., are side by side
f
loose' (therefore capable of with the oyKoi, and have the
separation), and imgeordnet, same significance as the void
e
unordered,' seem to me, ever,
how- beside the atoms, are also tioned
men-
'in point of language, ques-

tionable. by Galen, Theriac. ad.
I should, therefore, Pis. c. 11, vol. xiv. 250 K.
prefer to give to the

"vapfj"os 1
Sext. Math. viii. 7. Plato
signification, *
not combined ascribes true Being to the not-
with one another '
(so that each sensible alone, because sensible
oyvos is separated from the things are always in a state of
other and moves itself for Becoming:
A8CLEP1A"ES.
these theories had been attributed to acknow- CHAP,

an
IL
ledged member of the Epicurean school, they would
no
doubt contain a noteworthy departure from the
doctrine of the master, but as Asclepiades is not
described as an Epicurean, they only show in one
individual case
what seems in itself natural and
probable, viz., that the influence of Epicureanism, as
of other systems, was not strictly confined within
the limits of the school.
Trjs Qvtr'ias, Sxrre Tavrb ["% 5uo r^jv o^vrTjra rrjs pays (on account
xp6vovs imo^vîv of tlie swiftness of tlie flow

TOUS eAaîcrrous"
^77^6 sTTLdexecrdaL, KaQdirep "\eje nothing can

sliow itself twice),
Ka.rA.fftth.7j7r idfi 5vo eTriSeiêiS 5xa

7]$,
34 ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTEE III.
THE STOICS : BOETHUS, PANÊTIUS, POSIDONIUS.
CHAP. AMONG the remaining schools of philosophy, that of
the Stoics was the first which, in partial divergence

B. TJie from its older teachers, admitted foreign elements.
Stoics.
This occurred, however, subsequently to a still more
considerable extent in the Academy /which, from the
first century before Christ, was the chief seat of
eclecticism. The Peripatetics seem, on the whole,

to have preserved the tradition of their school in
greater purity ; but we shall find that some, even
among them, were inclined towards an eclectic bination

com-
of that school with other standpoints.

In the school of the Stoics,the rise of eclecticism
is connected with the names of Boethus, Pansetius,
and Posidonius.
Supposed Already at the beginning of the second century

vaciUfi- ,~" p. /-XT ,-, "
m
tjie successor of Cnrysippus, Zeno of Tarsus,
.
is said
tionofthe
to have been perplexed as to one of the distinctive
ipjrus doctrines of his school "

the doctrine of the destruc-
tion of tlie world" so that ne left the question of
its truth undecided :
*
and similarly, after him
J ?
tion of the
icorld. l Numen. Eus. Pr. of the
ap. ev. xv. conflagration of the
18, 2. Zeno, Cleanthes, and world rbv
:
p.(-v yhp TOVTO
Chrysippns taught the doctrine r^v Kal SidSoxov rtj$
BOETHU8. ;
Diogenes of Seleucia in his later years became CHAP.

IIL
doubtful about this dogma, which he had
previously __
defended.1 Neither of these statements, however,

is satisfactorilyattested ; 2 though the thingis pos-
sible
and we can
in itself, easilyexplainit,especially
in the Diogenes,if the objectionsof
case of his
of the world
disciplesagainst the conflagration had
embarrassed him and caused him to refrain from
expressingany decided opinion on the subject. As
to Boethus,3 we know that he not only openly re- BoWtus.
nounced the Stoic tradition on this point,but on
other and important questions approximated

more
to the Peripatetic doctrine, so as to imperil the

purity of his Stoicism.
An example of this has already come before us nis dvria
in his doctrines concerning the theory of knowledge : ^"^TOW

for if he described Eeason (z/o"s)
and Desire as Stoicism.
criteria 4 side by side with Perception and Science,

he not only set up the Aristotelian kTrwrripr)in the
but added
place of the Stoic TrpoKrityisf to it and to
Perception two other independent sources of know-

ledge,
the recognitionof which was not consistent
Treplrrjs regard to Zeno of Tarsus, the

Zyvctiva (pacriv ^Tncf^lv
r"v $\"v. otherwise well-instructed
eKTrvpcixreajs au-
1 Ps.-Philo. JEtern. m. c. 15, thor of the Philonic treatise can-
248 Bern. : \tyerai 5e Kal not have been acquainted with

p.
yviKa. veos %v o-vvt-jri' any divergence of his from the
Atoysvns
school, he would not have
ypa^dêvosrip SSyparLri)s eKirvp- or
dxrevs tye rris fanc'ias"v$oiOL"ras omitted to appeal to him.
eVt^xeTv.
3
Concerning whom cf. Pliil.
2 Neither of the witnesses "#. G-r. III. i. 46, 1.
his knowledge, 4
Ibid. III. i. 71, 1 ; 84, 1.
speaks from own
themselves tell We 5
Tbid. III. i. 74 ; 84 sg. ; and
as they us.
know not, therefore, on what concerning brurrfmij, Hid. II. li.
their assertions are based. In 650.
D 2
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. with the Stoic empiricisn^ though it perfectly

III.
harmonised with the doctrine.1
Peripatetic
But the attitude of Boethus to the Stoic theology
is still more antagonistic.For although he held,
with others,that (rod was an ethereal substance,2
he would not admit that He dwelt in the world as
its sonl; and he consequentlyrefused to describe
livingbeing ; he rather assignedthe

3
the world as a
abode -of the Deity to the highest sphere, and presented

re-
Him as working from thence upon the
universe.4 As to the reasons which determined the
1
In respect to vovs this Is Diog. vii. 148 : HOTI"OS
4 Se 3v
sLown in Phil d. 6fr. II. ii. 190 Overseas ovtriav deov
*f-ri Trepl rfyv
Aristotle nowhere, indeed, Ttov cLirX".vS)vcrQcfipay,
which is to
sqq.
describes the upej-ts
as a source of be understood in the
same way
presentations or cognitions; as the correspondingdefinitions
but he traces practicalends of other Stoics (Phil, d, Gr. III.
and aims partly to natural i.137, 1, 2),the ^ôviKlv of the
desires,and partlyto the stitution
con- world is said to have its seat in
of the will, on which the purest part of the ether.
must depend what we consider This would not necessarilyex-
clude
to be good (La. 582, 3 ; 586, 2 ; the ancient Stoic doctrine
631, 2 ; 653 ; cf. Mh. JV". i. 7 ; that It spreads itself from
1098, ~b,3). thence through all the^parts of
2 Stob. Mel. i. 60 : Ed^Qos rbv the world. But in that case
aldepa Qebv aire^yaro. In his the world would be a living

opinion of the soul also he creature and the Deity its soul",
remained faithful to the Stoic which Boethus did not allow.
materialism. But if this conception be jected,
re-
3
Diog. vii. 143. The Stoics there remains only a
'
declare the world to be motion of the world from out,

with-
living and animate : Bo^fos and so far the extract
$t](nv OVK *Tj"cu ""o given by Philo (I c.) sponds
corre-
Philo, JEtern. m. c. 16, p. with the view of out
Bern. : fyvxfy "e rov Stoic : [_6
K'ara r'obs a Zo |o vi/ras
v r i oTa
6 Bets " if these words belong to
the excerpt from Boethus, which real KvBepj/'firov
now appears to pro-
bable, me i Kalmost
at least according to the
iraj/ra, ri\ie^re Kal creK^vr),
"c.
sense. irapiarrdfjisyos
Kal (TvvSpwv floret,
BOETHUS. #
philosopherto this rejection of Stoic pantheism, CHAP.
tradition tells us nothing: the decisive cause must _.__!_.

no doubt have lain in the fear of imperillingthe
sublimity and unchangeablenessof Grod, if He were,
according to His substance, connected with the
world. In these theories Boethus, in oppositionto

his school,agreed with Aristotle,but he essentially
differs from him both in his materialism.,and in the
opinion that God only directs and guides the

not *"
universe from the ruling point, but stands beside
every part of it, ready to help ; whereas Aristotle
denies .to the Deity every activitydirected to the
world.3 Boethus is therefore seekinga middle course
between the pantheism of the Stqicsand the theism

of Aristotle; like that which was subsequently
attempted from the Peripateticside in the "
Book of
the Universe.92
With this is connected Boethus' contradiction of
the doctrine of the of

conflagration the world. Of
the four arguments by which he opposes this trine,3
doc-
the first shows that the destruction of the

world must result without a cause, for outside the
world nothing but the void,and in the world

there is
there is nothing which could bring destruction to it.
conclusively,
The second seeks to prove, not altogether
4
that of all the different kinds of destruction none
Trpbs rfyv rov Kal

fiXov "5tafj.ov$]v a
According to Ps.-Philo, I.e.
TV HOLT opeby X6yov avvirainov c. 16 sg., p. 249-253, Bern. (952,
SLolK-riffiv. 0. *#. H., 503 *$. M.).
1 Kal rots
jjXlcare Kal ffeX-fivr) *
Kara. Kar" avcdpscriv
$Laipe"riv,
"\Xots Kal airXavtffiv,%ri
vhdvijcrt rys eTreôi/crsjs irotdTTjTOS(as ill
Kal rots fjiepecrtrov
8* aepi K6crp.ov the destruction of a figure),
Kal crvvSpcav
-jrapicrrd/jievQs (Philo, Kara (rvyxycrw (chemical mix-
loc. eit.}. ture, of. PML cL Gr. III. i. 127,

Vide infra, chapter
*
v, 1).
;J3 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, could be applicable

to the world.1 The third main-
TIL
tains that after the destruction of the world the Deity
_
would have no and

objectfor his activity, must sequently
con-
sink into inaction ; nay, Deity be

if the
the world-soul, he must himself be destroyed.

Lastly,the fourth contends that,after the complete
annihilation of the world, this tire must itself be
extinguishedfor want of nourishment ;

2
and then the
new formation of the world would be impossible.

But Boethus had doubtless concluded from this not
only that the world was but

imperishable, also that
it had no beginning ; 3 he exchanged the Stoic mology

cos-
not for the Platonic but for the Aristotelian
/ theory,the doctrine of the eternity of the world :
his departurefrom the Stoic dogma is here also a
transition to that of the Peripatetics.

That Boethus likewise opposed the Stoic belief in
prophecy is not asserted ; 4 his own utterances on
this subject are confined to an enquiry concerning

the prognosticsof weather and similar things,the
1 For that only Is capable of G"r III. i.153, 2),and
.
this would
division which dieo-rdr^y,
is l/c presuppose a luminous body,
or "K ffvvaarroiJLev"v, or only 3
This appearsespeciallyfrom
weakly united " not that which the third argument; thepseudo-
is superiorto all else in force. Philo also (p.249, 4) represents
An entire annihilation of the him attacking the
as presuppo-
quality of the world is not sition el
yevijThs KOL 6
"{"6aprb$
maintained by the other view, for Kôrôs.
this is still to subsist in the form 4 The contrary would rather
of fire. If finallyall elements seem to result Cic. Divin.
from
were simultaneously abolished ii. 42, 88, according1to which
there would
through trfryxvffis, Panastius units " Stolois astrolo-
be a transition of the oj/into the goruin prcedicta rejecit ; but

"
#y.
(JL)J this only implies that Boethus
2 Because as pure fire it could did not expressly oppose the
be neither
avQpa.%nor 4"Ab",but belief, not that he himself
only avyl](on which cf PMl.
.
d. shared it.
PANJETIUS.
connection of which with the phenomena portended CHAP.
he sought to discover.1 '"
With Boethus Is associated his celebrated co- Panc?tiu":
disciple Pansetius,2 not only in his opposition to the ^Siês

doctrine o" the destruction of the world, hut also in ISO B.C.
the independent attitude he assumed to the tion

tradi-
of his school, and in his readiness to allow
entrance to other views. This distinguished -and
influential philosopher, the chief founder of Koman
Stoicism, was born, it would seem, about 180 B.C., in
Ehodes, 3 and was introduced to the Stoic philosophy

by Diogenes and Antipater.4 He afterwards went to
1
Cic. Divin. L 8, 13 : Quis and was no longer living after
igitur elicere causas prfssen- 110 B.C. Van Lynden places

sionum i"otest? Etsi video Bo'e- his life between 185-112 B.C.
tJiuvi Stoieutri esse oonatum^ c[ui, The Ind. Hero. Camp. Col. 51
hactenus {only so far) aliquid, (of. Phil. d. ""r. III. i. 33, 2)
effit,itt earwn rationem rerum names Nicagoras as his father,
cxplicaret, qiice in niari coslove and in Col. 55 mentions his
Jierent. Ibid. ii. 21, 47 : -ZV"m two younger brothers. That

et prog nostieorum causas perse- he was of good family, we know
cutismitet Boetlius Stoicus . . .
from Strabo, I.e. When Suidas,
et Posidonius. In both, sub roce, distinguishes from the
. . .
th.e emphasis falls on celebrated Pansetius a second

passages
the causce jyrognosticorwm, the and younger Panastius, the
natural connection between friend of Scipio, this is merely
prognostic and result. a proof of his ignorance, as is

2
Van Lynden, De Pa.ncQtio abundantly shown by Van
Rlwdio, Leiden, 1802. Lynden, p. 5 sgg.

3
Concerning his native place 4
Diogenes is mentioned as
there is no doubt (vide Strabo, Ms teacher in the Ind. Here.
xiv. 2, 13, p. 655). On the Col. 51, 2; byandSuidas,

other hand, we are told nothing Tlavair. ; Antipater, by Cicero,
of the either of his birth Dii'in. i. 3, 6. His piety to*
year
or death, and they can only be wards the latter is praised by
determined from the Ind. Hero. Col. 60. Besides
approximately
the facts that he attended the these, according to his own
discourses of Diogenes of Seleu- statement (ap. Strab. siv. 5, 16,

143 openly- 676), he heard Crates of
cia ; in B.C. as an p.
recognised philosopher, panied
accom- Mallos in Pergamus. Polemo
Scipio to Alexandria, also, thePeriegete,is, on clirono-
40 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. Kome,1 where lie

long remained an inmate of the
III.
household of ScipioAfricanus,the younger.2 Scipio
Mu dence
resi- and Lselius were his friends 3
and hearers,and he won
ill
Home,
over many zealous youths to Stoicism.4 Scipioalso
chose him for his companion when in 143 B.C. he
was sent at the head of a deputationto the East,

and to Alexandria.5
particularly After the death of
Appointed Antipater,Pansetius undertook the leadershipof the

head of
school in Athens/ of which apparentlyhe was the
ike Stoic
school
in Athens. logical grounds, regarded as 135-130 B.C., we must suppose
his teacher rather than Ms that he worked here for a con-
siderable
disciple. The text of Suidas number of years.

which asserts the latter (EoAe^. Vellejus says that Scipio had
Ei/Tjy.)
seems corrupt. Of. Bern- him with him dond niUitiaque"
hardy in loc.,
Van Lynden, 36 s%. and the Ind. Here. Col. 56, 2,
1 Whether this occurred after seems to speak as if he panied
accom-
the Alexandrian journey, and Scipioto army. the
whether Pansetius visited Kome 3 Cic. Mn. iv. 9, 23 ; ii. 8, 24.
of his own accord,or was invited Of. i. 26, 90 ; ii. 22, 76. Gell,
there by others,tradition does JV. A. xvii. 21, 1. Suidas
not inform us. Plutarch (O. TLavair. Tlo\v@ios.
PriiiG. PMlowpJi. i. 12, p. 777) 4 Vide supra, p. 10 s$.
presupposes that Pansetius was 5 Cic. Acad. ii. 2, 5 ; Position.
not in Kome when Scipio in-
vited ap. Prut. I. c.} and Apophthegm.
him to him. imp. Scrip. Min. 13 s#.
accompany Teg. et
But Scipio must have been 200; Athen. xii. 549, d.
p.
already well acquainted with (where JHoffei^c^viosis in any
him to have given such the
an case a slip of memory for
invitation. HavairLos, which, however, is
3 the
Vide following note, repeated xiv. 657 $#.). Gf.
and Cic. Pro Mur. 31, 66; Justin. Hist, xxxviii. 8.
Veil. Paterc.
i. 13, 3. How 6 Ind. Here. Col. 53 : StdSoxos
long Pantetius was in Eome we
.
do not know but as he came Cf. these further statements

; ;
thither at latest after the that he died in Athens (Suid.);
Alexandrian journey,therefore that he did not again return to
in 142 B.C., and probably before Ehodes (Cic. Tmo. v. 37, 107) ;
that journey, and the that he offered
as, on was the right
other hand, Rutilius Eufus, of citizenship in Athens, but
who died after 81 did
B.C., seems noc accept it (Procl. in
to have heard him in Kome Hesiod. SE. Kal 'H,u. 707,
(supra, p. 11, 3), which can no doubt after Plutarch) ;
scarcelyhave happened before that there was in Athens a
PANJETITTS. 41
head until about 110 B.C.1 That he had previously CRAP.

III.
been active in a similar capacityin his native cityis
not likely.2As teacher and author/ scholar and HlS ICHTi
ing and
society for common meals Posidonius had been the mediate
im-
called Pansetiasts (Athen. v. successor of Panagtins tioti.
186, a). The attempt of
Schep- in Ehodes, which according to
pig, De Position. Again. (Son- the dates would only be pos-
sible
dersh. 1869), p. 3 sq. to make if Pansetius had been at
Panaatius the head of the the head of the Rhodian, and
Khodian, and not of the nian
Athe- not the Athenian school, and
school is settled by the had filled this post towards the
foregoing, and by the proofs end of the second century.
3
"iven infra,p. 42, 1, and p. 52, 3 Concerning his writings vide
( Mnesarchus Dardanus).and Van Lynden, p. 78-117, 62 sqq.
1 We place his death
cannot The best known of these are
much earlier, as, according to the books ireplravKadriKOvros (cf.
Cic Off. iii. 2, 8, he lived after Phil d. Gr. in. i. 273, 3, 27G *#.)"
the composition of his work on acknowledged, according to
Duty (which he cannot have Cicero,to be the profound
most
written when he was very work on that subject,the model
young), for 30 years ; but espe-
cially of Cicero's own. There are
because Posidonius could also quoted a work on the
otherwise scarcely have been schools of philosophy (TT.alpe-
his disciple;nor can it have "rea"j"), if. evdv/jitas,
v. Trpoyoias^
occurred much later,for Crassus, a politicaltreatise (Cic. Legg.
who came as quasstor to Athens iii. 6, 14) and a letter to Tubero.
found Mnesarchus there, and From the .treatise v. vpo-voias
not Pan?etius (Cic. De Orat, i. Cicero seems to have taken his
11, 45) ; and
Crassus, born, criticism of astrology, De
according to Cicero, Brut. 43, Dimn. ii. 42, 87"46, 97. (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
not have become quasstor fore
be- his treatise Die Quellen wti
110 B.C., but also not very Cic. ; Biich, De Dnin. Freiburg,
long after that date. Vide 1878). Hirzel supposes that
Zumpt, Alfi. d. BerLAead. 1842; treatise to be also the source
Hist. PJdl "1 S. 104
(80). of Cicero's De Nat. DC. ii. 30t
3 Suidas 'Aira/i.)75-61, 154,
(IlocreiSitjy and he is probably
presupposes this when he says right,while Schwenke (Jahrb*
of Posidonius : cr%oA^v5J %"rxw fur PJdlol. 1879, p. 135 *".)"
derives this section, with the
Uavairiov. Cicero, But rest of the book, from donius
Posi-
Two. v. 37, 107, reckons him v. Qe"v. The letter to
among those g%i semel egressi Tubero may have been used by
nungwwri do'immi revertemmt ; Cicero for the second book of
and on the other hand Suidas the Tiiseulana Disputationes
manifestly presupposes that (cf Zietzschmannj
.
De Tusc. J)is~
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, he
philosopher, and
enjoyed great reputation,1 it is
I?L__probable that no one since Chrysippus had worked
with greater success for the spreadof Stoicism.
i* did- The Stoic system, however, had undergone con-
siderable alteration in his hands. Though Panaetius
agreed with its principlesand found no part of it

superfluous,2yet his own interest,consistentlywith
the spiritof the period,was chieflydirected to the
practicalside of philosophy ;
3 and he therefore en-
deavoured
(hereindeparting from the usage of his
to bring that aspect nearer

school) to the
general
comprehensionby presentingit in a more intelligible
and attractive form.4 But this practicalinterest,
when the scientific objects are subordinated to it,
always involves an attempt to harmonise and com-
put. Font. Halle, 1868) ; on the "hiewas held in Athens ; in Col,

other hand the chief source of 71 we are told of his honourable
the first book of the Titsculan. burial ; Seneca, Ej).33, i, coni-
Disp. is not, as Heine thinks pares him and Posidonius with

(De Font. Tuso. Disp. p. 8 s^.)* Zeno,Cleanthes, and Chrysippus.
to be sought in a treatise of 2 Which is evident from his
Pansetius, whose view is di- title of princess Stoicorum.,
rectlyopposed to that of Gieero ; and is confirmed by the quota-
biit,as Corssen says (De Poîd. tions in Part III. i. 61, 3.
H7wd. Bonn, 1878), in a trea- 3 A few physical propositions
tise of Posidonius, of Pansetius have been handed
This, after what
1 has been down to us; but the greater
said, scarcely requiresa special number and 'the most charac-
proof. Cicero, e.g., calls him teristic of the quotations from
(Divin. i. 3, 6) vel prineeps him that we possess relate to
ejus [sc. Stoiocs]disciplines ; anthropology, theology, and

(Legg. 1. "?.)magnus Jwrno et morality. Such of his writings
imprints eruditm ; (Fin. iv. 9, as we know are either historical,
%$)iniprimu ingemus et gruvis; ethical,or theologicalin their
(Off. ii. 14, 51) ffravissiviuscontents; whereas not a single
StoicO'Tum ; the Ind. Hero, dialectic definition has ever
Gimp. Col. 66, praiseshis many- been quoted from him.

sided knowledge, and mentions 4
Cic. Fin. iv. 28, 79 ; Off, i.
68) the esteem in which 2, 7 ; ii. 10, 35.
PAN"TIT7S. 4
bine differingpoints of view. Pansetins,therefore, CHAP.

IIL
assumed **
freer attitude towards the doctrine of his
predecessors: he would not withhold from other Relation

*" tki'
philosophers the recognition due to them
r r "
: he highly
" J
Stoic doc-
.
esteemed Aristotle,Xenocrates, Theophrastus,and trine*.
Dicsearchus; and his admiration of Plato was so
great that it might seem he would have preferredto

follow him, rather than Zeno.1 It cannot be pected
ex-
of one who appreciated the merits of the

earlier philosophersso impartiallythat he should
adhere very scrupulouslyto the traditional doc-
trines '
of a single school : and, in fact, the many

deviations of Panastius from the Stoic dogmas show
that he treated the authorityof his school,in re-
spect
philosophy,with the same

to independence of
judgment that he displayedin regard to questions
of literaryand historical criticism.2 He disputed,
1 Cic. 28, 79 : sem-

Fin. iv. Proclus reckoned himself
habuit in ore Platonem, among the Platonists ; they
perque
Aristotelem, Xenocratem, Thco- may also be translated : 'Panae-
plirastum, Dictparohum, 'litip- tins and some others belonging

siusscripta declarant. Tusc. i. to the Platonic school.' Whether
1,). Jnd.Herc.
82,79(yi^djp.4:4:, he or Posidonitts is meant by
Col. 61 : %v yap iffxvp"s 0iAo- the philosopher from Ehodes,
TrA^T"jy Kal whose
"pLKoapicrrQT"X.r}s^ remarks on Parmenides
a[AA"] ica! rS"v

7rap"[v65]a"["]" are mentioned by Proclus in
7xiwv[ciw]v [ri 5m r^v 'A"a- Parm. vi. T. vi. 25, cannot be

Of
S^fcu/ [KOIrbv Uepi~\ira.rQV. ascertained.
Grantor's treatise on Affliction 2
ParuBtius is in this respect
he said (Cic. Acad. ii. 44,
135) a remarkable exception to the
it should be learned by heart, careless manner in which the
word for word. According to majority of the ancients are
Proclus in Tim. 50 B, he seems accustomed to deal with learned

to have written a commentary tradition. His opinion con-
on Plato's TimcBMS ; the words cerning the genuineness of the
of Proclus, however, riai/ccrr. dialogues passing under the
Kal "\\ot rives TtXarcoviKav.,
rtav name of Socrates, and his
do not necessarily imply that judgment concerning the writ-
44 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. like Boethus, the doctrine of the of

conflagration
III.
the world;1 and though he only said that the
ings of Ariston of Chios are avrbs r}VTO/jL6\"r)(rcw.

Epiph.
discussed in Phil. d. 6fr. .
iil 2,9, p. 1090, D : ttavair.
II. 1, 206, 1, and III. i. 35, 1.
We see from Plutarch, Artst. With this agrees
27, and Athen. xiii 556, Z", in substance Stob, Eel. i. 414
that he was the first, as it (TLav. IT iday are pav elvou vo/Aifci
seems, to dispute the story of Kal IJLO.X.XQV apeffKovffav avrq" TTJV
the bigamy of Socrates, and aWiOTyra TOV fyrfyv TU"V
K6cr/j.ov
from Plut. Arist. 1, that he oAwy though
els Trvp /zeraj8oA7?v),
corrected a wrong statement of we learn from it that Pansetius
Demetrius Phalerius ing
concern- after his manner had expressed
a x"P^yâ "" Aristides himself guardedly upon the
through closer investigation. point ; and it is also quite con-
sistent
It is possiblethat he went too therewith that in a sertation

dis-
far in the matter of Ariston 's on the universe pro-.
writings, and his conjecture bably emanating from Pansetius
respecting Archelaus (cf,Phil. (ap. Oic. N. D ii. 45, 115, 46, .
d. Gr. I. 860) may have been 119), it is emphatically asserted

unfounded, as in his opinion that the whole universe is
{Sclwl.in Ran.
AristojjJi. 1493 framed with a view to the in-
sqq. ; cf. Hirzel, Unters. zu Cic. colwmatas nmndi, and that there
i. 234) that Aristophanes,I. c., is nothing in it so admirable
is speaking of another Socrates ; guam qiwciita stabilis est mim-
but the fact that Pansetius felt dus atqiie ita eoliferet ad per-
the necessity of critical exami-
nation, mane-ndim, tit niltil UB excogi-
rarely felt in his time, tcLri quide-mpossit aptius, for a
is not affected by this. On the philosopher who assumed the
other hand it is in the highest destruction of the world would
degree improbable that the as-
sertion have had no occasion to lay the
of his having denied chief stress on its durability.
Plato's authorship of thePhado Nor does Cic. JV. D. ii. 33, 85,
rests upon any other ground offer any contradiction : if the
than a misunderstanding, as I Stoic do.es not here come to a
have shown concisely in Part decision whether the world will

II. a, 384, 1, and more at length last for ever or only for an definitel
in-
in the Commentationes Momm- long period,this does
seniants, p. 407 sq.',cf. 405. notprove that he had no opinion
1
Dwg. vii. 142 : Havainos 5' about it,but only that it is not
necessary for his immediate

Philo, Mtevn. m. c. 35, p. 24-8, purpose, the proof of a world -
"
forming intelligence to bring

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

SIS ItELATIOy TO STOICISM,
eternityof the world was, in his opinion

prob- more CHAP.
3
able? we can see that he decidedlypreferred the __._IIL_

Platonic or Aristotelian theoryto that of the Stoics.1
In connection with this, he not only limited the
soul's existence after death to a certain space of
time, but denied it entirely/2 It is also stated that
quo Pancetium addubitare di- word aiStoTTjs

(nor in
cebant) but this mode of pression
ex- as having no end. But as the
can neither be taken former was as a rule admitted
from Pansetiusnor from Cicero's by the Platonic school (cf PML .
Greek original,the author of d. Or. II. i. 876 sq.\ and as the

which cannot have learned chief opponents of the Stoic doc-
trine
merely by hearsay that Pange- since Zeno were the tetics
Peripa-
tius was sceptical concerning (PMl. d. Gr. II. ii. 836,
the world's conflagration. The 929)rit seems to me probable that
words are to be laid to Cicero's Paasetius, when he had once
account ; nor can we infer from given up the Stoic dogma, did
them that even he was tain
uncer- not remain half way, but went
about Panaetius's real over to the Peripatetic,which
meaning*, for he may have ployed
em- at that perk "I was generally
this form of language the next alternative.
to represent Balbus as speaking 2
This is clear from Cic.
from his recollection of oral Tusc. i. 32, 78. After the Stoic
communications (cf. Comment. doctrine of a limited duration
Moitvnmen. p. 40'3 sq. That of the soul has been repudiated,
Arnob. Adv. Nat. ii. 9, names Cicero continued : M. Nwrnguid,
Pansetius among the defenders iffitiir
est causes, qmn amicns
of conflagration theory
the dimittavnw* eos is nostros Stotcos
only a proof of his superficialitydicOj qui ajunt animos manere,
(cf.Diels, Doxogr. 172 sq.'). e coTpore cum excesserint, sed
i For which of these two ries
theo- non semper ? A. Istos rero, "c.
he had decided " whether he JiT. Send rep'relienclAs . . .
ore-
repudiated a beginning of the damns igiturPanaatio a Platone

world as well as an ending " we suo dissentienH ? quern enim
are not told. The words, o:0a- omnibus locis divininn, g/uem,
varov aal ayfjpa in Epiphanras, sapientiss^mium^ quern sanetis-
if they really emanate from simwiij quern Somernm pMlo-
Pansetius, remind us of Plato's sopTiorum appellat^ Jiujushanc
ayripcav Kal tidvotfov
{Tiwi.33, A) j imam sententiam de immortali-
and even the further statements tate animorum non, probat.
do not carry us with certainty Vult enim, quod nemo negat*
beyond the question of the end quicquid natum sit interire :
of the world, since the notion nasci autem anivnos . . .

alterant:
of having no beginning is not autem adfert rationem : nihil
so completely included in the esse, quod doleat,quin id (egrum
40 ECLECTICISM,
CHAP. he reckoned only six divisions in the soul instead of

III.
the traditional eight; for he included speech under
the voluntarymotions, and ascribed sexual propaga-
tion,
not to the soul,but to the vegetablenature.1
exseqitoqiiepossit: quod autem not to internal disease and solution

dis-
in morbum, cacLat, id etiam, in- but to external force.
twiturum : dolere autem ani- When, at last,Panastius doned
aban-
Now, the conflagrationof the
mos, ergo etiam interire.
as I must concede to Heine (He world, he had no motive for
Fontibw*. Tuscul. Disput. Wei-
mar, attributing to the soul a limited
1863, p. 8 sq.\ even an existence ; he had only the
orthodox Stoic would sarily
neces- choice between absolute denial
oppose the doctrine of and unlimited acceptance of

immortality so far as this main* its immortality. From Tusc.
tains not merely continuance i. 18, 42, it would appear that
after death, but an eternal tinuance.
con- Paneetius believed in the lution
disso-
But that the tions
objec- of the soul immediately
of Pansstius had not this after death. Is autem, animus,
meaning merely, we can see it is here said, qui, si est Jiorum
from the manner in which g_uatuorgenerum^ esc quibus owi-
Cicero introduces them. He nia, dieuntur, ex
const are i%-
distinguishesPansetius, indeed, flammata, anima constat, ttt
quite clearlyfrom those Stoics potissimvm videri video Pana'tio,
qui ajnnt animos manere. Thes e swperiora cajjessatnecesse eat*
arepreviouslydisposed of, and JVi7i.ilenim habent JICPC diM
there ~?H en remain only two genera, $roni) et super a semper
possibleviews, that of Plato petunt. Ita, siv-e dissipantur,
and that Pansetius
of that "
procml a terris id evenit ; sire,
which maintains an endless permanent et cons erv ant liahi-
duration of life after death, turn suum, IIOG etiam magis ne~
and that which altogetherde-
nies cesse est ferantur in ccelitm,.
it. The same is evident When Cicero here remarks that
even from the objectionswhich 'the view of Pansetius cerning
con-
Cicero quotes from Panaetius, the nature of the soul
especially the second : he who being presupposed, we must
represents souls as lastingtill admit that it is exalted to
the of
conflagration the world, Heaven even in the event, of
must not base his denial of its being annihilated after
their unlimited existence on death/ the inference is that
the argument that they become it was Pansetius himself with
diseased, and therefore may whom he had found the trine
doc-
also die,but on the view that of such a dissolution of
they are not able to withdraw the soul.
themselves from the fate of 1 Nemes. Nat.
De Iffom. c. 15,
the whole; for they would cumb,
suc- p. 96
: Tlaz/ainos $6 "5
according to his theory, rb /iev $wr)riK.bv ryjs itaQ*
RELATION TO STOICISM. 47
The first of these theories is not of much tance

impor- CHAP.
II L
i
l but the second, in the discrimination of
^t%?7 from (j"vcrt,$"

presupposes a psychological dual-
ism5 which is originally foreignto Stoicism.2 Panse-
tius here follows the Peripatetic doctrine,as in his

theory of immortality. "We are again reminded of
it in his ethics,,"bythe division of the virtues into

theoretical and practical.3That he also departed His
Ethics.
from the severityof the Stoics and approximated to
the view of the Academy and the- Peripatetics, in his
definition of the highest good, is not probable ; 4
pepos able how far this dependence

Se extends to details, and it is
nbv ov TTJS fyvxris j"epo perfectlyconceivable that here
TTJS (pva-ecas. Tertull. De An. and in what follows he himself
14 : Dimditur autem \_anima\ may first have given this un-
in partes nunc in duas . . .

Stoical meaning to the truly
mine in quingue (to which Stoic notion of the dominion
Biels, Doxogr. 205, from the of the \6yos (ratio) over the
parallel
passage in Theodoret, dpfjify (temeritas).
CUT. Aff. v. 20, adds : ah
Or. 1
698) undoubtedly
Bitter (iii.
Aristotele}et in sex a Pancetio, seeks too much in it.
Through Diel's luminous storation
re-
2 The old Stoic psychology
of the text, those derives all practical activities
conjectures are,1 set at rest from the and
Tjyt/jLovLKbv, in its
which Zietzschmann (De Tusc. materialism has no occasion
Disp. Font. 20 sgq.')connects for the distinction of ^v%^ and
with the reading of the scripts
manu- ; the latter is rather
"f"vfri$ sup-
posed
: Mine in et
qiiingiie in to be changed into the
sex a Pan. When this author former afterbirth f Phil, d. Gr.
infers from Cic. Tusc. ii. 21, III. i. 197, 1).

47 (est enwi animus in jpartes
3
Diog. vii. 92.
tributus duos, giiarum altera Diogenes indeed maintains
4
ration-is est pa/rticeps^ altera (vii.128) : "5 /leVroiTlavalnos

expert} that Pansetius in his
ethics followed the Platonic
and Aristotelian distinction of elvaiq"a"rlKdl vyieicLSKal
a rational and irrational part Kalxopriyias. But as this ment

state-
of the soul, I cannot agree in regard to Posidonius
with him. Even if Cicero in (vide proofs in Phil. d. @r. III.
this section holds to Panastius i. p. 214, 2 ; 216, 1) is decidedly
throughout, it is still question- false, Tennemann {GeschicJite
8
ECLECTICISM.
though he perhaps emphasisedmore stronglythe

CHAP,
_^__distinction between desirable thingsand things to be

statement that he denied
rejected;and similarlythe
be traceable to the
the fadeeta of the wise,,1
may
fact that he brought out more clearlythe difference

between the Stoic superiorityover pain and the
to it. But we nevertheless,
Cynic insensibility may,
he tried to soften
gatherfrom these statements that
of the Stoic ethics, and among the
the asperities
possibleviews of their propositions, gave the

many
him least into
preferenceto those which brought
collision with the ordinary theory.2 The same deavour
en-
is also evinced by the tendency of his cele-

brated
that of Cicero
work on Duty, the prototypeof ;
for this is expresslydesigned,not for the perfected
to nature is
d Phil iv. 382) is right in pleasure according
trust to it not inconsistent ; but when we
sayino- that we cannot
Accord- understand by pleasure in the
in regard to Pansetius.
the emotion ot
ine to Plutarch {Demosth. 13), narrower sense
he tried to that Demos- $5"w^, it every emotion

is like
prove
Katin* alone to contrary to nature. Of. ibid. III.
thenes held the
be a 81* autb atperbv
: all the 218, 3.
^
A. (Ml. 10:
less would he himself have 1
xii. am\-
5%
yntria enim atgue airaGeia non,
doubted it; and Cicero says ex-
"pressly (infra,,p. 49, 2) ineo iuqnit,sed giwrwn-

that he tantum,
699)
Bitter (iii. dam etiam ex eadem portion
did not. When
Jwmitmm sicuti
finds in the proposition(ap. prudentiorum
Sext. Math. xi.73) that there "
fadicioPanatfo . . .
vnyprolxtia
est.
abjec-kaque
is not only a pleasure contrary
2 This is from the
to nature, but a pleasureaccord- seen cir-
ino- to nature,'a'manif est de via- cumstance that, according to

the older Stoicism, Cicero, Fin. iv. 9, 23, in the
tion from
both letter to Tubero de dolore,
this seems questionable,
from the passage itself and paticndo, he did not expressly
the quotation in Phil. pain is not an
d. Gfr. declare that
III i. p. 219 sq. The Stoic evil,but only enquired: Quid

esset et quale,$ uantumgue in en
doctrine is only that pleasure
esset ali"ni, deinde ratio
isathingindifferent(a5*a"j"ojooi/}, qiue
with which the theory of a esset perferendi.
'
PANMTIU" RELATION TO STOICISM, 49
wise man, but only for those who are making pro- CHAP,
'
gress in wisdom ; and for this reason it does not
treat of the but

/caropdcojâ^ only of the f
Meanwhile, however, all this contains no real devia-

tion
from the Stoic ethics,and what we are otherwise

told concerning the moral doctrines of Panastius is
in harmony with them.2 His divergences from the

traditional theology of his school were more able.
consider-
It can only be the doctrine of Pansetius His
which his scholar,Mucius Scsevola,puts forward (like

Varro 3
at a later period),when he says
4 that there
are three of
gods, those spoken of by the
classes
poets, by the philosophers, and by the statesmen.

The narratives of the poets concerning the gods are
full of absurd and unworthy fables : they represent
the gods as stealing, committing adultery,changing

themselves into beasts, swallowing their own dren,
chil-
"c. On the other hand, philosophic theology
is valueless to states (it does not adopt itself to a

1 This at least results from sets forth the claim of life
Cicero's exposition, Off. iii. 3, according to nature; ap. Cic.
13 s$. ; also ap. Sen. Ep. 116, 5, Off. iii. 3, 11 $q. ; 7, 34, he cle-
Pancetius would first of all give clares id solutti lornim,,qiwd esset
precepts for those who are not Jwnestum; ap. Stob. _BuZ.ii. 112,
yet wise. In reply to the ques- he compares particular duties
tion of a youth as to whether the with marksmen aiming from
wise man will fall in love, he different standpoints at the
says that they will both do same mark. What Cicero quotes
better to keep themselves from (Off. ii. 1-4, 51) has also an
such an agitation of the mind, analogy (Pliil.d. 6rr. III.i. 263)
as they are not yet wise men. with the ancient Stoics. The
For further details concerning utterance in Off. ii. 17, 60, is
the treatise of Panaetius see truly Zenonian.
Phil. d. 6rr. III. i. p. 273, 276 **CLi"fra,
chapter vii.Varro.
sq.
4
According to Augustine,
2
Ap. Clem. Alex. Strom, ii. Civ. D. iv. 27, whose authority
416, B; Stob. Ucl ii. 114, he was doubtless Varro.
'
50 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, public religion), for it contains many things the

IIL
knowledge of which is either superfluousor preju-
dicial
to the people; under the latter category,
Scsevola places the two propositionsthat many of
the personages honoured as gods as Heracles, "
.ZEseulapius,the Dioscuri "

were merely human
beings,and the gods are not in appearance as they

are for
represented, the true God has no sex, no age,
and no members.1 From this it naturallyresulted 2
that the could
existingreligion only be regarded as
a convenient public institution in the service of
order, and that the authors of it must regulatethem-

selves
in their doctrine of the gods accordingto the
power of comprehensionin the masses. Though we
do not know whether Pansetius was the first to bring

forward this discrimination of a threefold doctrine
of the gods,3we must at any rate assume that
in his theology,as in that of the men who for
the most part adoptedv it Scsevola,Varro, and "
Seneca a thoroughlyfree attitude to the popular

"
religionfound expressionand was justified : though
it is not known that either of them, in the
allegoricalinterpretationof myths, which was so
much in favour with the Scoics and from which
1
Among those portions of 6fr. IIL i. 317, 3) this is
philosophicaltheology which treated as belonging to the
are unnecessary for the people, Stoics universally; but the
cone era ing ^Mch Augustine is Stoic from whom the author
silent, we must reckon the of the Plaeita- here takes his
purely philosophic doctrines, excerpt only have belonged
can
incomprehensibleto him. to the later period, which is

2 Varro says this more defi- also indicated by the appeal to
nitely. Plato, i. 6, 3.
3 In the Placita (cf Phil, d.
.
PAKMTIU" RELATION TO STOICISM. 51
no Stoic could ever entirelyescape,1went

beyond CHAP.
the most general determinations. Pansetius placed

himself in open oppositionto the Stoic tradition,on
a point which the school was accustomed to sider
con-
of the highestimportance "

namely, in his dis-
belief
of soothsaying, mentioned above:2 herein,
he seems to have accepted the criticism of Carne-
ades.3 We cannot, however, on this account convict
him of desertion from the Stoic since
principles,4 the
Stoa of that time acknowledged him as one of its
members.5 His relation to his school is,neverthe-
less,
of quite another kind from that of Antiochus
to the later Academy : he remained true in the
main to its doctrine; yet in his theories,and his

attitude towards the earlier philosophers he mistakably
un-
tends to an understandingwith points of

view regarding which Stoicism had hitherto been
accustomed to maintain a purely hostile position.6
1
Yide Phil d. Gr. III. d. "r.
III. i. 3-10,1, and supra,
p. 325, with, which of. the p. 42, 1) that he alone among
,
quotations from Varro, infra the Stoics positivelydiscarded,
chap. vi. end. at any rate, astrological sooth-
2
Even on this point the saying.
testimonies are not quite unani- 3
Of .
Cic. Divin. i. 7, 12:
mous. Diogenes (vii. 149) itrgere QIICLTB oniittut Car-
says simply : a,vvir6"rrarov avT-fiv neades, quod faeiebat etiam
[rty fj.avTiK^v~] "pT](n. JEpiphan, Pancetius requirens,Jupplter-ne

G. Hcrr. III. 2, 9 : rys /j-avreiascornicem a, larva, corvum ab
KO.T ouSey eTreff-rpeêro. On the dextera canere jussisset.
other hand, Cicero says, JDivin. 4
Epiphanius is entirely in
''
i. 3, 6 : Nee tamen ausus est the wrong when he adds, after
negare vim esse dimnandi^ sed the words quoted in the pre-
dubitare se dixtt. Similarly vious note : ttal ra -n-epl
QeS"v
,
Avad* ii. 33, 107. Meanwhile XeydftevaavtfpGi. eteye yap fyX-tiv-

we see from Du'in. i. 7, 12, a"pov zlvai,rbv ireplOeov \6yov.
that propounded his
he doubts 5
Supra, p. 42, 2.
pretty decidedly, and from 6 Some other opinions quoted
Divin. ii. 42, 88 ; 47, 97 (cf Phil,
.
from Panaetins are unimportant
_,
o
A A
52 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. That Pansetius,in adoptingthis mode of thought,

III.
did not stand alone among the Stoics of that time,
is proved,not only by what we have seen above of

Contem-
poraries
the deviations of Boethus from the Stoic doctrine,
and disci-
but also by what disciples,
we are told of his fellow
jplesof
Pance-
Heraclides and Sosigenes. The former opposed the
tius.
Hera-
Stoic propositionconcerning the equality of all
elides. faults ; ] the latter,like others, is said to have
attempted, not without inconsistencies,to combine
the Aristotelian theoryof the mingling of substances
with that of Chrysippus.2 But we know nothing
further of either of these contemporariesof Pansetius.
In his own school we may suppose that the ception
con-
and treatment of the Stoical doctrine,

which he himself favoured, was predominant. But
here, again, we have to regret the meagreness

of the historical tradition. Though we are quainted
ac-
with the names of many of his numerous
Posidonius
disciples,3 is the only one concerning
so far as his character as a to the mixture, for which

philosopheris
Lyndon
among these
(72
opinion re-
comets
vii. 30, 2) ; his theory that At-
concerned.
sÔ
specting d6"r)s
his
(Sen. Nat. Qu. TroAAa

tica, irepl
mentions
Van
gard
v"rrepov aitovcrai
r""v eipyuLsvcav
Kpdtfecos KOI
cf Phil, d, "r. III. 126
.
Tives
SuvTjflevres,
UTT' eAcetôu
avrol \"yov"riv.
avr"v, rris
sgq.)oi 5e
ÂpLcrroreXovs
on account of its healthy $"v els ""TTL teal'StO)"ny4vf]s,

ercupos
climate, produced gifted men 'Aj/rtTrarpou (cf ibid. III. i. p. 48). .
(Procl.in Tim,. 50 c.s following Because they could not, on

Plato, Tim. 24, c.); the state-
ment account of their other presup-
positions "
that the torrid zone is follow Aristotle tirely

en-
inhabited (Ach. Tat. Isaq. in (this seems the sense of
JPetav. DoctT. Temp. iii. 96). the imperfect text), they fell
1
Diog. vii. 121. into contradictions.
2
Alex. Aphr. IT. /J"e"s 142, 3
Among these the following
a, m. : Of the Stoics after names should be mentioned :
Chrysippus, ol
"Xpvffitrircp
(1) Greeks:
ftev Mnesarchus, of
ffvfjufrepovrat in
(especially re- Athens, who Jaad also heard
SCHOOL OF PAN^TIUS. 53
whose opinionswe possess any details. Of the snc- CHAP.

III.
cessor of Pansetius,Mnesarclms, we can only con-
Diogenes and Antipater, the 73), Damocles of Messene

successor of Pansetius (Cic. (ibid.76, 4).DemetriustheBi-
De Orat. i. 11, 45 ; of. 18, 83 ; thynian(l)?o^.v. 84 ; Ltd. Here.
2nd. Here. Com-p. Col. 51, 4 ; Col. 75), with whom his father
78, 5 ; cf
tyit.Dioff. .
Phil d. Or. Diphilusis also mentioned as
III. i. 33, 2), who likewise heard a Stoic. To him belong, as it pears,
ap-
Antiochus in Athens (Cic.Acad.epigrams the two in An-
i. 22, 69 ; Numen. ap. Eus. Pr. thol.6rr.ii.$"tJac. Dionysius
JEJv.xiv. 9, 2 ; quoting from him of Cyrene, a great geometrician
Augustin. c. Acad. Hi. 18, 40). (Ind. Here. 52). Georgius
Cicero (I.e. c f. Fin. i. 2, 6) calls of Lacedasnion (Ind. Here. 76,
him and Dardanus tirniprin- 5). Hecato of PJiodes, whose
eipes Stoic or um. From Ind. treatise on Duties, dedicated
Here. Col. 51, 53, 78, cf. Epit. to Tubero, is quoted by Cicero,
Dioff.,it follows that Darda- nus' Off.iii.15, 63 : 23, 89 sgg. From
was likewise an Athenian the same treatise, if not from a
and a disciple of Diogenes, separate work of his own on
Antipater,and Panaatius. As he Benevolence, Seneca seems t

was at the same time called the have taken the greater part o"
successor of Pantetius, he would what he quotes from him (Sen.
seem to have conducted the Senef. i. 3, 9 ; ii. 18, 2, 21, 4;
school in common with Mnes- iii. 18, 1 ; vi. 37, 1 ; E$. 5, 7 ;
archus. Their successor was 6, 7 ; 9, 6. Several other works,
probably (as Zumpt supposes, some of them comprehensive,
AM. d."j3erl.Acad.Hist. Phil. are quoted by Diogenes (see
Kl. 1842, p. 105) Apollocio- Ms Index), who, according to
rus of Athens, whom Cicero the epitome (in which Rose
describes as a contemporary of rightly substitutes 'E/car. for
Zeno the Epicurean (N. I), i. Keforwv),
had dedicated to him
34, 93) and the Ind. Here. Col. his own biography. The Bi-
53, names among the disciples thynians Nicander and

of Pansetius, but who is to be Jjjco(Tnd. Here. 75, 5 ; 76, 1).
distinguished from the Seleu- Mnasagoras (JUpit.D). Pa-
cian before mentioned, with r am onus of Tarsus (Ind.

whom Zumpt confuses him. His Here. 74, 77). Pausanias of
leadership of the school must Pontus (Hid. 76, 1). Plato
have fallen in the beginning of Ehodes (Diog. iii. 109).
of the first century, and perhaps P o s id o n iu s (vide infra\
even began before the end of Sosus of Ascalon (Ind. Here.
the second. Apollonius of 75, 1 ; Steph. Byz. De Url.
Nysa, in Phrygia, rS"y Uavairlov JAcTK.), doubtless the same after
-yvapifAcav 1, whom
#/"io'Tos"(Strabo."xiv. Antiochus of Ascalon,
nothing the Academician, had named

48, p. 650), of whom a
further is known. Asclepio- treatise (infra,p. 86, 2). Perhaps

d o t u s, of Nicosa (Ind. Here. Col. after the death of Panaetius he
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. jecture that the Stoicism which, his pupil Antic-elms

III.
(vide infra)found it so easy to combine with the
had still belonged to the school 402). Concerning Scylax of

of Mnesarchus and Dardanus, Halicarnassns, celebrated as an
(which Antiochus also visited), astronomer and politician, we

as an older member. Sotas learn from Cic. Divifi.ii. 42, 88,
of Paphos (Ind. Hero. 75, 1). that he was a friend of Panse-
Stratocles of Rhodes, scribedtius,and, like him,
dean opponent
by Strabo (xiv. 2, 13, of astrology. That he belonged
p. 655) as a Stoic, and by the to the school of the Stoics, is
Ind. Here. 17, 8, cf. 79, 'as a not, however, said. In regard
discipleof Panjstius and author to Nestor of Tarsus, it is not
of a work on the Stoic school. quite clear whether he was a
Timocles of Knosos or Cni- fellow discipleor a disciple of

dus (Itid. Hero. 76, 2). Anti- Panaetius, or lived at a later
dot us also appears to have time. Strabo (xiv. 514, p. 674)
belonged to the school of mentions him. after Antipater
Panaitius or Mnesarchns, as, and Archedemus and before
according to Ind. Here. Col. 79, the two Athenodori (discussed
Antipater of Tyre, seems at first infra, p. 71) ; the Epitome 01!
to have been his disciple and Diogenes, side 'by side with
afterwards the disciple of Dardanus and other disciples
Stratocles. Also the tipater of Diogenes of
poet An- Seleucia,before
of Sidon (Dioff. iii, Antipater. On the other hand,
39), of whom the Anthology according to Lucian, Macrol).
contains many epigrams (ride 21, the Stoic Nestor of Tarsus,
Jacob. Anthol. Gr. xiii. 846), had been the teacher of berius,
Ti-
belongs to the generation after which, as a contempo-
rary
Pansatius According to Cicero of Pansetius, in spite of
(JDe Orat. iii. 50, 194) he was the ninety-two years life here
already known about 92 B.C., attributed to him, he could not
and still living ; and the same possibly have been. "We might
author refers to an event in conjecture that the so-called
his life
(De Fato, 3, 5), which Lucian had mistaken the Stoic
Posidonius would seem to have Ne'stor for the
philosopher of
quoted. Diotimus, or Theo- the Academy of the same name
timus, must have been a temporary,

con- (mentioned infra, p. 102, 1),the
or a little later ; the teacher of Marcellus (who
same who, according to Biog. may also have instructed rius),
Tibe-
x. 3, forged immoral letters and that the Stoic was
with the name of Epicurus a contemporary of Pansetius.

(perhaps also the same person Between Nestor and Dardanus
that is quoted by Sext. Math. vii. the Epitome a introduces
sil
Ba-
140) ; for, according to Athen. ides.
This, however, was
xiii. 611, ", he was executed for probably not the teacher of
this at the instance of Zeno the Marcus Aurelius (iwfra, ch.
Epicurean (Phil. d. G-r. III. i. viii.)butanotherwise unknown
SCHOOL OF PANMTIUS.
doctrine of the Academy already approximated to CHAP.

III.
l
that doctrine in his o\vn expositionof it ; and that
his views resembled those of his master on other
points besides psychology,of which this is expressly

stated.2 Of Hecato, we know that he considerably
departedfrom the strict ethical doctrine of the Stoics
member of the school of genes;

Dio- therefore, we hear in De Orat.
for the former could iii. 21, 78 (supposed elate 91
not have been placed here, and B.C.), of two Balbi who
was no doubt earlier than the were Stoics, one of these must
source of the Stoic biographies be meant together with a third

of the Laertian. "
Besides the of the same name, Besides
Greeks, there were the Romans these the Ind. Here* Col. 74
whom Pansetms had for ciples

dis- names the Samnites Marcius
in Rome, and some of and JSFysius ; which latter
them also perhaps afterwards introduced the "r7rov$ai6TaTot
in Athens. The most important (in distinction from the o-trovS-
of these, Q. JElius Tubero, ctLot)

as a separate class.
Q. Mucius S c se v o 1 a ,
1
Nothing else has ever been
C. Fannius, P. Rutilius quoted from him except an
Rufus, L. JSlius, M. Vi- utterance against imphilosophi-

gellius, Sp. Mummius, cal rhetoric (ap. Cic. De Orat.
have been already named i. 18, S3), a logical observation
{supra, p. 10 Further
""?#.). we (ap. Stob. Eel. i. 436), and a
mention: A certain Piso, of definition of God (ibid. 60).
may
whom nothing more
we know These passages contain nothing
divergent from the general
(Jnd.Herc.Col.li,6),but accord-
ing
to the theory of Comparetti Stoic doctrine.
he was the L. Calpurnius Galen, H. Phil. 20 (Diels,
2
Pi so Frugi, who was consul in DOXOCJT. 615) : Mvfio-apxos$e rrjv

133 B.C.; Sextus Pompejus VTT^XTI^LV
~2,r"aiK.S)V eirLKpivavTO
JDe Or at. L and i. 15, 67 ; add. D.) rb arTrep-
tywilTiKbv(/cai
(Cic. c.
Brut. 47, 175; Off. i. 6, 19; pCLTLKbv TT"pl"'l\."VOL7)6ei$ TTJS

Pktityj).12, 11, 27), a distin-
guished a,l"jQr\rLK.ris
Svyaûews ravra (^
authority on civil law, add. D. p. 206) ^m-îv (Panse-
and the Stoic sophy;
philo- tius did not reckon it accord-
ing
geometry,
andL. Lucilius Bal- to p. 46, 1, siqwa,, as longing
be-
bus (Be Orat.ui. 21, 78 : JBnct. V-spT]JeTTjs

to the
$"VXTI*),
42, 154) ; for that the two last ^X^s $1811 l*-6vovri" Koyucbv Kal
owed their Stoicism to Pange- the latter being
rb a.la-Bf]rLK6v,
tius is most probable. On the naturally again divided into
other hand, Q. Lucilius Bal- the five senses, with which we
to back to Pansetius' six

bus (Cic.2V. D. 6, 15) seems come
be too for this. "When, faculties of the soul.

young
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. in applicationto individual

its details ; ] in this
III.
respect he was certainlyanticipatedby Diogenes ;
but tradition tells us nothing further of these philo-
sophers.
Posido- Bather more has been communicated to us specting

re-
nins.
Posidonius,2 a Syrian of Apamea,3 whose
long activityseems to have extended over, or nearly

over, the first half of the first century.4 A disciple
J
Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 263, 2. one, or the most known
Bake, Posidanii Rhodii
2 Re- 54 Kal els 'IP"fj.Tjj',
eVl
liquiceDoctrine ; Leiden, 1810; MaoKeAAou), and thus shows

Muller, Fraffm. Hist. Gh'"c. iii. himself (as in the statement
Posid. discussed
245 sqq. ; Scheppig, De supra, p. 41, 2) to
Apam. JZerum O-entium Tdrra,- be imperfectly informed as to
rum Soriptore: Sondersh. 1869. Posidonius : and
partly because
Strabo, xiv. 2, 18, p.
3 655 ; we should necessarily expect to
xvi. 2, 10, p. 753; AtUen. vi. find some trace of his presence
252, e. ; Lucian, Macrob. 20; in Borne in Cicero, all of whose
Suidas, sub voce. philosophical writings, and a
4
More precise information great part of his letters, were
we do not possess. Three data written at a later time. haps
Per-
may be made the basis of an the circumstance that
approximate calculation : (1) under M. Marcellus the league
that Posidonius was the ciple
dis- of the Bhodians with Borne
(2) that he
of Panastius ; was renewed (Lentulus, in Cic.
lived to be eighty-four years ad Famil. xii. 15) possibly,
"
old (Lucian, L c.); and (3) that, however, a merely clerical

according to Suidas, he came error"may have caused the
to Borne under the consulate journey which occurred in the
of M. Marcellus (51 B.C.). Ac-
cordingly
last consulate of Marius (infra,,
Bake, and quently
subse- p. 57, 2) to be placed under
almost all the ties,
authori- that of Marcellus. Miiller (I.c.
believe that he was born in p. 245) believes Posidonius to
135 B.C. and died in 51 B.C. have been ten years
younger
But the statement of Suidas than he is represented accord-
ing
(notwithstanding Scheppig, p. to the ordinary theory. He
10) seems lo me suspicious; bases thispartly on the tion
asser-
partly because it is not probable of Athen. xiv. 657, /., that

that Posidonius as an old man Strabo, B. vii., said that he
of more than eighty years had known Posidonius : partly
journeyed a second time to on Strabo, xvi. 2, 10, p. 753
Borne; partly because Suidas (no"rei".
T"JV KaO3 Tj/nas (f)i\o-
speaks as if this visit of donius
Posi- o"6"p"v7roAu/tta06cTTaTosi)
; partly
to -Borne were the only on Plut. Brut, i.,where some-
POSIDONIUS.
of Pansetius,1lie also visited the countries of the CHAP.

III.
West, as far as but
Grades,2 not to seek a spherefor his
thing is quoted from Posidonius well as the latter statement.

which seems to have been It relates, perhaps, not to a
written after Csesar's death. passage in the last part of

But the last is not correct ; Btrabo's seventh hook, but to
the quotation from Posidonins C. 3, 4, p. 297 (e/cre "v efore
contains no allusion to Caesar's UoffeiSc"vios'),
or C. 5, 8, p.
murder. From the Katf ûas we 316, where a report of donius
Posi-
can only infer at most that is quoted concerning an
the lifetime of Posidonius had event that occurred in his period

touched that of Strabo, which of office, which an inaccurate
would also have been the case recollection might have repre-
sented
if Posidonius had died in 50 to Athenseus as an oral
B.C. Meantime Wyttenbach in communication. But if the
Bake, p. 263 sq., shows that the two statements which sioned
occa-
expression is not seldom used, the death of Posidonius

even by Strabo in a wider to be placed in or before 51 B.C.,
sense. The ac ûaintance of concerning his visit to Piome
Strabo with Posidonius may under Marcellus and his meet-
ing
still be held without placing with Stiabo, are both
the death of Posidonius much uncertain, the possibilityis not
beyond 50 B.C. For as Strabo excluded that he may have been

(vide infra, p. 73, w.) went to born some years before 135 B.C.
Borne as a boy before the year and may have died before 51 B.C.
1 iii.
44, perhaps (as Scheppig, p. 11 Cic. Of. 2, 8 ; Mvin.
sq thinks, agreeing with Ha- i. 3, 6; Suid. vide sujjra, p. 41,

,
sen-Miiller, De Strab.Vita, 18) 2.

in 46-7, or even in 48 B.C., he
2
The traces of this journey
might possibly have seen the are preserved in Strabo 's quo-
tations
Ehodian philosopher in his from Posidonius. We
later days. Scheppig fore
there- here see that Posidonius mained
re-
places his birth in 130 B c. a long time in Spain,

and his death in 46 B.C. Even especiallyat Gades (iii.1, 5,
on this assumption sufficient p. ; 138 c. 5, 7-9, p. 172, 174
;
time would not be found for xiil 1, 66, p. 614^) ; from thence
the instruction which nius
Posido- he coasted along the African
received from Panastius. shores Italy (iii.2, 0 ; svii.
to
It is therefore questionable 3, 4, p. 144, 827); that he
whether we can depend upon visited Gaul (iv. 4. 5, p. 198),
the statement of Athensens. Liguria (iii. 3, 18, p. 165),
This statement occurs at the Sicily (vi. 2, 7, p. 273), the
same place where Athenseus Lipari islands (vi.2, 11, p. 277),
also maintains that Posidonius the east coast of the Adriatic
had been with Scipio in Egypt Sea (vii.5, 9, p. 316). That he
(aujwa, p. 40, 5), and may did not neglect this opportunity
be founded upon a mistake as of visitingEome may be taken
58 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. teaching; l this lie found in Rhodes,2 where he was

III.
so completelynaturalised that he is frequentlycalled
a Ehodian.3 His name attracted numerous scholars,
and Eomans
especially ; althoughhe
therefore,, never
himself taught in Eome5 he must certainly be

reckoned among the men who did most for the
4
spread of the Stoic philosophyamong the Eomans ;
for granted. He came a second this from the manner in which

time from Rhodes under the last Cicero mentions him, treating
consulate of Marius (86 B.C.) him throughout as a man well
on business to Rome (Plut. known to his Eoman readers ;
Mar. 45), while, on the other cf., for example, JV". D. i. 44,
hand, the supposed visit in the 123 : Familiaris omnium trum
nos-
year 51 seems to me, as I have Positioning. He himself

shown, improbable. had heard him in Rhodes (Plut.
1 At any rate, we have not Oic. 4 ; Cic. N. D. i. 3, 6 ; Tuso.
the slightestintimation of such ii. 25, 01 ; De Fato, 3, 5 ; Brut.
a design. The chief purpose 91, 316), and kept up a constant
of this journey rather sisted,
con- connection with him
as far as we can gather, (JFin. 1. 2, 6
Legwms
: tamen
in geographical and historical Diogenem, "c., in jprimisqiie
investigation. The date seems familiarem nostrum Posido-
to be the beginning of the first niwti). In the year 59 B.C. he
century, soon after the war sent Posidonius the memorial
with the Cimbri ; cf. Strabo, of his consulate to revise, but
vii. 2, 2, 293. For further jectures,
con- Posidonius declined the sition,
propo-
vide Scheppig,p. 4 sgg. as the memorial could
2 At what time he went to gain nothing by it (Ep. ad Att.
Ehodes and what induced him ii. 1). This is the last definite
to settle there, we are not told ; date in the life of Posidonius.
but as the journey
Previously Pompey in
had madethe west
must have consumed
acquaintance of the philo-
sopher, several the
years, it is to be supposed that and given him repeated
he only commenced his activity proofs of his esteem (IStrabo,
as a teacher subsequently. xi. 1, 6, p. 492; Plut. Pomp.
3
Athen. vi. 252, e ; Luc. 42; Cic. T'uso. I. c. Plin. H. JV.
;
Maerol). 20 ; Suid, From Luc. vii. 112). The story of Pornpey's
Z. G. ; Strabo, xiv. 2, 13,
p. 655 : visit to him, which Cicero
vii 5, 8, p. 316; Pint, Mar. 45; (Tusc. 1. 0.) cites as a proof
we find that he received the of Stoic fortitude under
Ehodian citizenship, and filled sufferings,
is well known. He
public offices "
even that of a was also acquainted with the
Prytanis. older disciple Panfetius,
of Bu-
4 We can at once perceive tilius Eufus (Cic.Off.iii.2, 10).
POSIDOXI17S.
even at a later period lie was regarded as one of CHAP.

IIL
the first Stoic authorities,1
and his numerous writ-
ings were among the scientific works most read.2
In his conception of Stoicism,Posidonius follows His j:Mfo~

t("n"
in the main the tendency of his teacher Pangetius. *?-PJi"t?
d(niGi""*
In critical acuteness and freedom of spirithe stands
indeed as far behind Pansetius 3
as he excelled him
4
in erudition ; and he consequently did not oppose
1
Seneca
repeatedly names xvi. 2, 17, p. Too). What fichep-
Mm as such
(JEp. 33, 4; 104, pig (p. 42 observes
,"?#.) in his
21; 108, 38), together with defence is not convincing to
Zeno, Chrysippus, and Panaj- me, and when he says that the
tius ; and in Ep. 90, 20, he says facilitywith which Posidonius
of Mm : Posidonius tit mea appropriates the most fabulous
,,
fart ojrinio,eas Ms, cpiipluri- narratives about fulfilled phecies

pro-
mum contulenint,
'pliilosopldcs does not signify much,
2 the he
Concerning writings forgets that a person who
known to us, cf .
Bake, 235 sqq. ; accepts the most improbable
MtUler, 248 sq. ; on the stories
graphical
geo- without competent thority
au-
and historical writ-

ings, cannot possibly be a
Scheppig, 15 sqq. There critical investigator of history,
are more than fifty of them, 4
There is but one voice
s^me of them extensive works. among the ancient authorities
What a mine of knowledge and concerning the comprehensive
learning the later authors sessed
pos- learning of Posidonius. Strabo
in them, we s"ee from the (xvi. 2, 10, p. 753) calls him :
numerous Cicero,quotations in
Strabo, Seneca, Plutarch, Athe- and Galen

nseus, Galen {De ffippocrafts says ("e Hippoer. et Plat. viii.
et Platonis Placitis},Diogenes, 1 ; vol. v. 652 jfc)
: TLo"r*i"d"vi("s
""
Stob?eus. "c. But, no doubt,
much besides has been ferred
trans-
without acknowledg-
ment pLerpiav. His
knowledge of
to other expositions. geometry is also
praised by
3 Posidonius shows G-alen
himself, (iv. 4, p. 390). Stray por-
tions
as we shall find,very credulous, of his geometrical works
not merely in his defence of are to be found in Proclus
soothsaying* but in other cases (Bake,p. 178 s$$. ; FriecQein's
where he accepts fabulous Index'}. A proof of his astronomical
statements too easily,for which knowledge is the

Strabo occasionally censures globe of heavens, which
the
him (ii.3, 5, p. 100, 102; iii. 2, Cicero describes, N. D. ii. 34, 88.
9, 147; iii. 5S 8, 173 ; cf. also Of his geograpMcal enquiries
BO ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, the tradition of Ms school with the same dence

indepen-
III.
as his master did. In regard to several portant
im-
pointsin which Pansetius deserted the old
Stoic doctrine,Posidonius returned to it. He held
to the dogma of destruction of the world by fire ; l
and he added some further arguments and theories

to the ingeniousdevices invented by his predecessors
for the defence of soothsaying

:
2 for he ascribed a
(Bake, 87 Scheppig, 15 allow so much space external

sqq. ;
have evidence in to the world, as would be sary
neces-
$"".) we
ytrabo's mimerous quotations. for the world's eKirvpcacris.
Concerning the enquiries into The contrary statement in
natural history which he bined
com- Philo, ^Stern. Mimdi, where,
with his geographical in the passage quoted supra,
descriptions, vide ift/ra, p. p. 44, 1, was read
(previously
62, 3. A mass of historical to Bernays' correction),instead
knowledge must have lain in of "BoyQbs 6 SiScîosr,Bo7]8. Kal
the great historical work, the Tloffiddvios,
is nullified by this
49th book of which is quoted restoration of the true text,
byAthenseus, iv. 168 A. This which also does away with
work treated in fifty-
two books Hirzel's objections (Uiiters.zu
of the period from the clusion
con- Oie. i. 225 5^/7.)to my tion
exposi-
of Poly bias's history of the theory of Posido-
nius.
(146 B.C.) to 88 B.C. For
further details, vide Bake, p. 2 Further details will be
133 s%q., 248 sqq. ; Mailer, 249 found in the passages quoted,
Scheppig,24 sgq. PUL d. Gr. HI. i. 337, 1. We
sqq. ;
1
Diog. vii. 142: irepl5r? ovv there learn that Posidonius had
TTJS *y"V"CT"ca$ Ko.1 T7J$ "pdopasTOV treated of prophecy not only
Z^vtiiv p.sv ev re?
(p-rjcrl
K6crfJLOv in the 2nd book of his "j"vtfiKbs
vspl 'oXov, Xpixwnros 53 Iv r"$ \6yos, but also in a separate
and comprehensive book; that
vios iv wfK"TtpirzplKOffftov, "C. he sought to establish belief in
Jlavairios 5' "$"Qa.pTQV it,and to explain its possibility
airety'fji'aro
TOV KOO-JAOV. That in these words more particularly by other
not merely the discussion, but arguments (ibid. III. i. 339,
the assertion, of the beginning 1 ; 341, 3 ; 343, 5) ; that his
and destruction of the world is acceptance of fulfilled phecies
pro-
ascribed to Posidonius, is self- and dreams was just
evident. In confirmation of as uncritical as his predeces-
sors
this statement we have the Antipater and Chrysippus
remark (Pint.Plao. ii.9, 3 par.} (IMd. III. i. 339, 5). To him,
that Posidonius, deviating from indeed, is to be referred (cf.
Ms predecessors,would only ibid. II. i. 337, 1) the en-
DOCTRINES OF POSIDONIUS. 61
value to this belief that might incline us to consider CHAP.

III.
him not merely a Stoic but a Syrian Hellenist. The
belief in demons was also taken under his protec-
tion
and utilised in support of a belief in phecy
pro-
;
l likewise the immortalityof the which
soul,2
Pansetius had opposed. But on the whole he is,in
his mode of
thought,unmistakably the discipleof
Pansetius. The chief problem of philosophy for him
also avowedly lies in ethics : it is the soul of the
whole system ; 3 a point of view which in and for
tire representation of the Stoic existence of immortal souls

doctrine of prophecy in the has ground for
1st book of Cicero's treatise De
fenerally
enying human
no
souls to be
JMvinatione. immortal. But we also learn
1 Cf. Phil.d. Gr. III. 319,2; from Cicero (/.c. c. 31, 63 sq.}
320, 3 ; Cic.Z"m^.i. 30, 64 : Trilus that Posidonius maintained that
modis censet (Posid.')Deorum dying persons had the gift of
adpiilm homines somniare : WIG prophecy because (for there
quod promdeat animus ipseper is no doubt that this ment
argu-
sese, quippe qui JDeorum him) the
cog- also belongs to
natione teneatur, altero giioci soul which even in sleep de-
taches
plemis aer sit immortalium ani- itself from the body,
morum, in quilnis tumquam and thus is rendered capable
imignitce notce veritatis ad- of looking into futurity,m-iilto
pewea-nt, tert'w, quod ijM Dl magis faciet post worte?]}, cum
cum dormwnti'bvs conloquantur. om-ttitw norj)ore excesserit. Ita-
2 Hirzel Cio.L
(U'lrters.zu 231 que adpropinquante morte niulto
' indeed
sq.') thinks that as donius
Posi- eat divinior. As, moreover, it has
like Pansetius disbelieved never been said in any quarter
in the conflagrationof the world, that Posidonius doubted the
so like him he must have entirely life of the soul after death,
denied the doctrine of tality.
immor- though especially had
Cicero
But even if this were every opportunity of asserting
not in itself unnecessary, the it, we have not the slightest
conjecture is wholly excluded ground for the assumption.
when it has been shown that But whether we are justified
Posidonius entertained no doubt in going still farther,and cribing
as-
of the conflagration of the to him the Platonic

world. Posidonius' belief in doctrine of the eternity of the
demons would already dispose soul
pre- will be discussed infra,
him to believe in a p. 67, 4.
future life (untilthe end of the 3 Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 62, 1,
world) j for he who allows the
62 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, itself was alreadylikelyto cause a certain indiffer-

IIL
ence dogmatic controversies.
to The adornment of
His lave of speech, and the general intelligibilityof dis-

rUetoriG. value which
course had also for Posidonius a they
had not for the older Stoics ; he is not merely a
philosopher but a rhetoricianând even in his scien-

tific
expositionhe does not belie this character.1 If,

Erudition, lastly,be excelled most philosophersin learning,
there lay therein an attempt to work? even in philo-
sophy,
rather on the surface than in the depths ;
and it cannot be gainsaidthat he was inclined to
ignore the difference between philosophicenquiry

Natural and erudite knowledge.2 If the interest in natural
science was stronger in him than was usual in the

Stoic school,this circumstance might also contribute
to tarnish the purity of his Stoicism,and to bring
him nearer to the Peripatetics.3 His admiration
1
Of. Strabo,iii.2, 9, p. 147: even the mechanical arts were
TloffeiddvLos 5e rb irh.r)Qo$r"v invented by the philosophersof

jueTaAAaw (in Spain) eVcuz/""j"teal the Golden age. Perhaps he is
r^v ape-7-V OUK oare^Tai rrjs ffvv- responsible also for what Strabo
'ftdovspriropeias, oAAa vwevdov- says, i. 1, that as philosophy is
"na vireppoXeus. Even the
rais the knowledge of things human
fragments we possess are some- and di vine (Pjiil.el.Gb*.
III. i.238,
times ornate in style, but 3), so 7ro\vpddeiacan belong to
always well written, and show no one except to a philosopher ;
no trace of the tasteless mode geography is consequently a
of expositiondelighting mostly part of philosophy,

in the form of scholastic in- 3
Strabo, ii. 3, 8, p. 104:
ferenceemployed by Zeno and TTOTU) yap e"m rb a.lrLoKojLKbv
Chrysippus. Trap'avr" (ytrabo is speaking
-
According to Seneca, Ep. primarily of his geographical

88, 21, 24, he reckoned mathe- work) icalrb apLffroreXifo^tinep
matics and all liberal arts eiwXivQvffiv ot Tûe'repo:(the
under philosophy. Seneca, Stoics) 5i" r^v e-nlKpvîy r"v
13p. 90, 7 sgq., combats the alriw. Some particulars bor*
statement which Posidonius rowed by Posidonius from Ari*
had tried to establish " that stotle are given by Simplicius
DOCTRINES OF POSIDONIUS.
l
for Plato was just as great (after the example CHAP.
III.
of Panaetius); and in his commentary on the
Timsgus, 2
we may well suppose that he tried to
combine the Stoic doctrine with the Platonic. Even
his agreement with Pythagoras Is of consequence in
his eyes ;
3 and Democritus himself is reckoned by
4
him among the philosophers; to which the earlier
Stoics would have demurred on account of the lation

re-
of Democritus to Epicurus.5 Hence it is mani-
Phys. 64, #. OT. (from Gnminius' of the passage in Math. iv. 2 sqg.
abstract of bis Meteorology.) shows, does not belong to the
De ccelo, 309, ", 2 K ; SchoL in citation from Posidonius. Also
Ariat. 517, ", 31 ; Alex. Aphr. the remark in Theo Smyns. Z. c.,
Meteorol. 116, a, o. that day and night correspond
1
Galen, Hipp, et Plat. iv. 7, with the even and uneven,
421 : Kairoi. K.a.1 rov TlXdrrcavos manifestly taken from the mentary
com-
?s Kal 6 on the Timseus, can

aL 6av- only serve to give a physical
.
T^JS
[jLcifov "v$pa Kal Belov OLTTO- sense to the Platonic utterances,
Ka\"i, ws Kal Trpecr/Beuaji'
avrov TO. and therefore can prove nothing
re TrsplTWV Kal
Tradcav So'yfj.a.Ta. ra in regard to Posidonius' own
fivj/duetov,
"c. adhesion to the Pythagorean
Trepi r""v rTJs^v^s
Posid. ibid. v. 6, p. 472 : Sxrirep6 number system. Patter iii. 701.
riAarwj/ 65i'5a"e.
fjfjLas 4
Sen. 23jp.90. 32.
; Plut. His
5
2
Best. Math. vii. 93 eclecticism would have
Procr. An. 22, p. 1023; Theo gone still further if Posidonius
Smyrn. De Mus. c. 46, p. 162, really, as Hitter, iii. 702, says,

Bull.; Hermias in Pheedr. p. had derived Greek philosophy
H-ijAst., if a commentary on the from Oriental tradition. This,
Pksedrus of his own is not here however, is not correct in so
referred to. That he perhaps universal a sense ; he merely

the said of Democritus that Ms
wrote a commentary on
Parmenides has already been doctrine of atoms was taken

observed, siipra, p. 43, 1. from the supposed Phoenician
3
Galen, I. c. iv. 7, p. 425 ; v. philosopher Mochus (Phil. d. Gr.
6, p. 478. What Plutarch, L c., I. 765), but this tells nothing as
from Posidonius (vide to the

philosophical tendency
quotes
Phil, d Gr. II. i. 659, 1) belongs of Posidonius, but only as to
of the Timseus, his deficiency in historical
to the exposition
not to his own
directly theory ; criticism, which is abundantly
and Pythagorean
the opinion attested by Cicero and Strabo.
Sext. Z. "?.,as the comparison
ap.
64 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, fest that tie must necessarily have approximated the

IIL to the other
other systems to Stoicism,, and Stoicism
A specialopportunity for this seems to

systems.
have been afforded to him, as to his contemporary
Antiochus (vide infra), by the polemic against
scepticism. In order to repel the accusations
which were derived from the conflict of the philo-

sophic
it asserted that in the main
systems, was
they were agreed.1 It does not appear, however,

that he allowed himself departures in material
many
respects from the ancient Stoicism : our sources, at
any rate, only mention one important divergence, his

""$ Platonising anthropology.2 Whereas the Stoic doc-
trine, in opposition to that of Plato and Aristotle,

denied a pluralityof faculties belonging to the soul,
and reduced all the phenomena of life to the one
intellectual fundamental faculty,Posidonius was of
opinion that the facts of the soul's life are not to be
explained in reference to one principle. He found
it, like Plato, inconceivable that reason should be
the cause of that which is contrary to reason and of
the passions; 3 and he believed that the fact of our
1
To this the following pas- definitions, though they doubt-
refers (Diog. vii. 129) : less contain amplifica-
sage many
5o/cet 8' O.VTOLS jU^-re 5ia tions and rectifications of the
r^v dicxpcDviav a""("/rao-0cu (pi\o- earlier theories, tell us nothing
croQias, eVel r"$ h.6yq"rovro) -rrpo- of any departure from the
Aefyeiz/ o\ov rbv (3iov,"s ical Stoic doctrine in connection
Uo(rei5("vt.6s fytiffiveV rols irpo- with his philosophical view of
TpeTTTiKoIy. the universe. It will, there-
'- The observation mentioned fore suffice to indicate the
supra, p. 60,1, concerning empty quotations, Phil. d. Gh\ III. i,
space outside the world is quite given in the account of the
unimportant : and what we Physics of the Stoics,
of his 3
otherwise know physical, Galen, De Hipp, et Plat.
astronomical, and geographical (where this subject is treated
POSIDONIUS. 65
affections being frequently at strife with, our will CHAP.
could only be explained by an originaloppositionof

"
the faculties working in man ; he showed that l
passionatemovements of the mind could not arise
merely from our notions about good and things,

evil
for as soon as these notions are of a rational kind,
they do not produce a passionate movement, nor
have they this result with all persons in the same
manner ; and even an existing emotion does not
exclude a simultaneous and opposite activity of
reason.2 Finally he remarked that the stance

circum-
that fresh impressions affect the mind more
stronglycannot be explained on the presuppositions

of the Stoic theory "
for our judgment concerning
the worth of things is not changed by duration of
time.3 For all these reasons, Posidonius declared
himself for the Platonic doctrine that the emotions
arose not from the rational soul but from courage

and desire,as from two which,
particularfaculties,4
iv. 3, p. 377 5, questions the seat of the

at length) s%. ; v. as
461. soul, and not only in regard to

1 Loc. cit. iv. 7, 424 *#. points which may be decided
2 LOG. (At. iv. 5, 397; c. 7, simply from immediate per-
416 6, 473 ception or self-consciousness.
; v. sg.
3
L.c. I pass over
iv. 7, 416s"2'. As an instance of the latter he
some further arguments. When, brings forward mental condi-

Bitter, iii. 703, repre- tions, and says of them that
however,
sents Posidonius as saying : In they require ov peuepuv^\6yuv
order to understand the doc- n"vr\s Se arafjurfi-
ov5' ouroSeQ-ewi/,
trine of the passive emotions (reas "v l/ecwrrore Tracrxo/uey. But

there is no need of lengthy this does not mean, In order to
and proofs,I cannot understand them there needs no

arguments
find this in the utterance in proof ;but,Their actual constitu-
Galen, v. Posi-
178, ch. (502 jfc). tion is known to us immediately
donius here blames Chrysippus through self -consciousness.
for appealing to passages from 4
Galen, " c. v. 1, 429 : Xp"r-
regard such o%v
the poets in to nriros /xey . .
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. being distinct from reason, are determined by the

III. have
constitution of the body :
l he would these
forces regarded,however, not as parts of the soul
but only as separate faculties of one and the same
essence, the seat of which, accordingto the prevail-

ing
opinion of his school,he placed in the heart.2
Desire and courage must also,he thought, belong
to the animals ; the former to all ; the latter only to
those capable of changing their place: 3 an indica-
Kpicrets
rivet,* elvat rov qui a duolus
eceorsii-s titulis,
iretparai
KoyiffriKOv ra iraQy, 7A\v"*vS5 oil principali, qiiocl ajunt yye/ji.ovi-
ra$ Kpiffeis
auras aXAa ras CTTL- kbv, et a rat'ionali,guod ajunt
avrcus (rvffroXas Kal KoyiKbv,in duodeoim exindegro-
yiyvop."Vct,s
Xvcreis eTrdpffeisKalirrcfxreis secuit, this
T" ras discrimination of
ris iv6fj,Lêyelvai ra irdQ-rj,the yyeiwviKbv from the Xoyutov
shows that we have here to do
vexdeisGTraivsi re aâa KO! irpocrie- with a misunderstanding of
rai rb TiXdrcavos$6yju.a Kal avri- his own in regard to what he
\4yei rolsireplrbv Xp-ucmnrov had found in his authority.
ovre elvcu. ra, irddr}
Kpiffsts 5eiK- For conjecturesas to the origin
vvtav ovre "iri'ytyv6fj."va
/cptn'scrt, of this
misunderstanding, vide
aXXa KLvf](rei$
nvas erepow dvvd- Diels, Doxogr. 206.
^3Galen, Z. o. v. 6,476: tea
crevGTriQvfjiTirLK^v
re juez" o?"v r"v
tcai fluftoeiST?. ^cpw fiverK[vr\r*e"rrl
Ibid. iv. 3, 139, et passim. Kal irpOffiretyvKora SlKrjv (j)vr(av
1 LOG. cit. v. 2, 464 : "$ rfav rcus irerpais tfriffiv erepois rowi)-
iraSyrLK"vKivf}ff""av
rrjs tyvxnseiro- rois, eTTLdv/LLia
fi6vy SioiKe'io'Qai
/j."VO)V aei rf,5ia06"r6i rov "rcafJLaros. Xeyei aura, ra 5' aXAa ra a\oya
2 Loo.
cit. vi. 2, 515 : o 5' (rti/j.irai'rci
rats $vvdfj.e(riv
a/u."po-
re Kal 6 TloffeiScavLOS
'Apio-TOTe'ATjir repaLs xpvjcrdaLrf)r1 "Tn8vjjL7]rLKf}
eiSr) ju.ev ^ fJLepT]"fyvxysou/c bvo- Kal rbv av"ptairov
rfj6v/ULoeide"i, 5e
(which
fj.dfova'n/ he has per-
haps IJLQVQV rcus rpiffl,
TfpoffeL\f]"p"vai
done in inaccurate guage, yap
lan- Kal rty XoyiffriK^v ap-^v.
infra p. 68, 5) dwdfjieis The distinction between mals
ani-
S' eivcLi fj"a(TL
picis ovcrias e/c rys which are capable of
KapSlas6pfjL(t)fj.evr)s.When Ter- motion from a place and those
tull. (De An. 14), departing which are not, together with
from the above exposition, the observation that even the
says Dividitur autem (sc. latter must have sensation and
in paHes . . .
decem desire, is first met with in
qiiosdam Stoicorum, et in Aristotle (cf PMl. .
d. 6fr. II. ii.
duas amplius apud Posidonium, II. ", 498).
67
tion thatPosidonius,in agreement with Pansetius T CHAP,

III,
and held that the faculties peculiarto the
Aristotle,2
less perfectnatures were retained in the higher,and
were only completed by the addition of new faculties.3
Whether Posidonius, like Plato, drew the further
inference opposition of the rational and
from the
irrational soul,that the former, before its entrance
into the body, existed without the latter,and will

4 but if he
exist without it after death, is uncertain ;
held this,even with the modifications requiredby the

doctrine of the world's destruction,his deviations
from anthropology would
the Stoic necessarilybe
multipliedthereby to a considerable extent.
These deviations from the Stoic tradition had not, His

et't"ic8-
indeed, the influence on the other doctrines of Posi-
1 Vide supra, p. 47, 2. fuerint fvturiqiie mnt, \_q\iid estj

2 Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 499. cur ii quid esc quoque eveniat et
3 Cf. Schwenke (Jakrb. / quid qiiamqiiB rem sigmfcet
Class. Pliilol. 1879, p. 136 *#.)" yperspie"re non possint ? If 'this
who here appeals to the servation
ob- agrees with the other contents
of Cicero, apparently of the first book
Posidonius, of
derived from Posidonius, N. D. the pre-existence of the soul
ii. 12, 33 : Plants are endowed (Corssen,"tePosid., Bonn, 1878,
cf PJlil. d. CrT.
crvvexecrQat,
("j"vcr"L . p. 31) must have been found
in.i. 192, 3) witha^^m/ les- there. But the semper and ab
tiis autem, sensum et matum de-Ait omni ester nitate must even then
(sc. natura) Jioc liomini
. . .
be laid to Cicero's account, for
amplius, qiiod addidit ration"m. Posidonius could admit souls to
4 Cicero remarks (De Divin. exist neither before the ning
begin-
i. 51, 115) in order to establish nor after the end of the
foreknowledge in dreams : The world to which they belong1.
spirit lives in sleep li"ber ab It is all the more questionable
s"nsibus. Qui quia vixit ab whether the exposition of this
omni ceternitate versaiusque est Stoic has not beeo here ampli-
fied
cum innumerabiWbus animus, by Cicero, or whether thing
some-
omnia in natura rervm which he hypothetically

QUOB
sunt, videt, "c. ; and in c. 57, quoted from Plato may not
131, he returns to the subject: have been taken in a more
Cumgue animi hominwn sewiper definite sense.
F 2
68 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, donius which, we might have expectedfrom his own
_L_ utterances ; though he decidedly recognisesthe de-

pendence
of ethics upon the theoryof the emotions,1
there is nothing told ns of his ethics which would
clash with the Stoic moral doctrine : for the ment

state-
Diogenes,2that he did not hold virtue to

of
be the only good, and sufficient for happiness,we
have already seen to be untrustworthy; 3 and if he
was of opinion that many things,even for the pre-

servation
of one's country, ought not to be done,4
this,though a deviation,was, in any case, only such

a deviation from the cynicismof the oldest Stoics
as may be considered an amendment in harmony

with spiritof the system.5 Nevertheless, we
the
cannot regard the Platonisinganthropologyof our
philosopher as a merely isolated admission of alien

elements into the Stoic system ; for in this alliance
with Plato and Aristotle there comes to light an
and
internal,historical, not unimportant transform-
ation
of Stoicism. This system had, in its theo-
retical
part,abolished the Platonic and Aristotelian
dualityof form and substance,spiritand matter :
1 Loc. tit. iv. 7, 421; v. 6, (ap. Clem. Strom, ii. 416, B) :

rb fijvBewpovvra rty r"v e6\uv
469 ; 471 S$.
2 vii. 103 ; 128. aAêmz/ /cal T"%LV teal crwyKara-
3 Vide supra, p. 47, 4. ovcevafaz/
af/rbv Kara rb Svvarby,
4 Cic. Off. i. 45, 159. Kara fj.ri""va^pevov inrb rov
5 Even the contradiction a\6yov pspovs ry$ tyv^s, is only
given by Posidonius to an in- a formal extension of the older
adequate explanation of the definitions. The difference be-
requirement of life accordingto tween Posidonras and Ghrys-
nature (G-alen,I. c. v. 6, p. 470) ippus (mentioned Phil, d. 6V.
does not touch the nucleus of III. i, 232, 2), in regard to
the Stoic theory, and his own diseases of the soul, is also
definition of the highest good unimportant.
POSIDONIUS. 69
and in connection therewith had also denied the CHAP.
existence of a pluralityof spiritualfaculties in man.

At the same time, however, in the practicalsphere,
it had demanded the withdrawal of self-consciousness
from externality,and founded an ethical dualism

such as neither Plato nor Aristotle had recognised.
The contradiction of these two determinations now
makes itself felt ; the moral dualism, which marks

the fundamental
tendency of the Stoic philosophy,
reacts on the theoretic view of the world,and obliges
the Stoics in this also,at any rate in the sphere of
to introduce
anthropology, an oppositionof principles;
for we may easilysee that it is not the Platonic
tripledivision of reason, courage, and desire,but
rather the twofold distinction of rational and rational
ir-
in the human soul,with which Posidonius
is concerned.1 Our philosopherhimself clearlyin-
cates this connection when, in his doctrine of the
emotions and their connection with reason, he exalts
as their principaluse that they teach us to recog-

"
nise
in ourselves the distinction of the divine and
rational from the irrational and animal, and to

follow the demon within us, and not the evil and
un-divine.2 Here not onlyis the psychologic

dualism
1 This dualism, is expressed TT\S re avôXoyias KO! rov KCUC"-
also in the notice in Plutarch, SaLôvos J3iov,

r"b ^ Karct. irav
F"r. 1, Utr. an. an eorj). s. (Bgr. c. Iirecrdatr"p ev avrcp Salmon crvy-

6, which says that Posidonius yevei re %VTI teal r^v dpoiay "pv(rw
divided all human activities eôvn r"p rbv '6\ov
fc6a"fjt,ov
5toi-
and conditions into tyvxtKo.,
ff(a~ ttovvrt., r"$ 2"" x"^PoyiKa^ ""*"$**
partita, ffa/JLariKci vepli|/v%V
and Trore ffvvettK\ivovra$(pepecrdai.ol
tyw%tKaTT"plcrw/xa. Se rovro iraptlSdvres
ovre ev rotv-
2
Ap. Galen, v. 6, p. 469 : rb rots fieXnovcri rfyv alriav r"v
^ r"v TTft^wy c"nov, rovrecrri iradoay,ovr3 ey ro7s ireplrrj$
70 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP* which constitutes with. Posidordus the proper nucleus

in.
of the Platonisingtripledivision clearlyenunciated ;
Psycho-
but it is also said that this dualism chieflyappears
logic to the for
philosopher the reason that it is
dualism.
necessary
the presuppositionof
anthropological the ethical
oppositionof sense and reason. The first symptom
of this bias we have alreadynoticed in Panaetius "
in the distinction of tyvxy and foe is ; in its further
development in Epictetus and Antoninus we shall
find,later on, one of the phenomena which prepared

the transition from the Stoa to NeoPlatonism.
A link
between The psychologyof Posidonius therefore appears as a
the Stoic
doctrine
link in a great historical nexus ; that it was not
and Neo- without importance for the later conception of the
Plato-
nism. Stoic doctrine,we may see from the statement of
(Men,1 that he had met with none among the Stoics
of his time who had known how to answer the
objections of Posidonius against the old Stoic
theory.2
Stoics of In the periodimmediatelyfollowing Posidonius the
thefirst
spreadof the Stoic schoolisindeed attestedbythe great
century^
B.C.
ical ofjLoKoyias
evSaifLoviasr opdo- has been shown what is pecu-
liar
tioj-ovtrLV.ov yap fiKtirovcrtv'fai to Posidonius as compared
irp"r"v sffnv sv avrfj rb K."T" with the older Stoic doctrines ;
firjSev virb
"y"crOa.t rov a\oyov re the points on which he is
Kal real
KOKodaifj.oi'OS aBeov TTJS evidence for them, and as such
$VXTJS. *#., and
Of. ibid. p. 470 has repeatedly been quoted in
what is quoted "vpra", 68, 5, from earlier sections of this work,
Clemens. In opposition to the are enumerated by Bake. In his
moral dignity of the spirit, collection,completed by Mxiller,
PosidoniuSjap. Sen. Ep, 92, 10, Fragm, JBRst. Gr. iii. 252 sg$.,
speaks of the body as iwwtiMs and Scheppig, De Posid. 45 sqq."
GO/TO et flitida, taffi* are
recejotandis to be found the historical
turn ciUs JiaMlis. and geographicalfragmentsand
1 LOG. ait. iv. 7, end ; 402 tg. theories of this philosopher.
2 In the preceding pages it
STOICS OF THE FIRST CENTURY B.C. 71
numbers of itsmembers with whom we are acquainted ; l CHAP.

III.
but only a portion of these seem to have occupied
themselves independently with philosophy, and even
of that portionthere was certainlynot one philosopher
to compare with Pansetius and Posidonius in scientific
importance and influence. It is,therefore,

all the
1 Beside those already merated,

enu- In the Ind. Here. col. 52, 1) ;
p. 52 $""., the ing
follow- and Leonides, whom Strabo,
may here be mentioned :" xiv. 2, 13, p. 655, describes as a
(X) Greeks: Dionysius, who, Stoic from Pihodes was probably
according to Cicero (Tiisc.
ii. 11, a pupil of Posidonius. Also
26), must still have been ing
teach- the two teachers of the younger
in Athens in the year 50 B.C., Cato, Athenodorus with the
as Cicero in this treatise repre-
sents surname Cordylio, from sus,
Tar-
him as heard by his whom Cato took with him
young interlocutor in that city. from Pergamum to Borne and
In that case he must be distin-
guished kept with him till Ms death
from Dionysius of (Strabo, xiv. 5, 14, p. 674.
Cyrene, the disciple of Panse- Plut. Cato Min. 10, 16; Epit.
tins (p. 53) ; but he is no Dioy.}, previously overseer of
doubt the
same person spoken library Pergamum the at in
of by Diog. vi, 43, ix. 15, and which he capriciouslycorrected
opposed by Philodemus IT. 0-77- the writings of Zeno (Diog.
jueiW, col. 7 sqq. (as results from vii. 34) ; and Antipater of
col. 19, 4: sq. after Zeno). If Tyre (Plut.Cato, ; Strabo,
4 xvi.
he was the head of the school, 2, 24, p. 757; Epit. Diog.\
he can scarcely have followed doubtless the same who, accord-
ing
immediately after Mnesarchus to Cicero, Off. ii. 24, 86,
(vide supra, p. 53) ; perhaps,as died shortly before the compo-
sition
has already been shown, loo. of this treatise, in
cit.,Apollodorus is to be placed Athens, and had written, it

between them. Further, we would seem, upon Duties; a
have the three disciplesof Posi-
donius treatise of his ireplK6(r/mov,
is
Asclepiodotus
: quoted in
Diog. vii. 139 etpass.;
(Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 26, 6 ; vi. 17, and respecting two other tises,
trea-
3, et passim'); Phanias (Diog. it is uncertain to which

vii. 41) and Jason, the son of Antipater they belong. cording
Ac-
his daughter, who succeeded to 2nd. Hero. col. 79
him as head of the school in (supra, p. 54) he had one or
Bhodes (Suidas,sufi vocc ; while perhaps two disciplesof Panse-

on the other hand, as is tius for his instructors. Apol-
shown, PUl d. G-r. III. i. lonius of
Tyre seems, ing
accord-
48, he cannot be, as Compa- to Strabo, Z.0.,to have been
retti supposes, the anonymous somewhat younger; treatises
discipleof Diogenes alluded to under his name are quoted by

ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. more probable that most of them followed the

ill.
direction which these two men had given ; that
the school period held in the main to the
at that
doctrine of Zeno and Chrysippus,but repudiated
alien elements less strictlythan before ; and partly
Strabo, and Diog. vii. 1, 2, of Sandon, from Tarsus or the

ap.
6, 24, perhaps ap. also Phot. neighbourhood, perhaps a ciple
dis-
Cod. 161, p. 104, 5, 15. Dio- of Posidonius, the teacher
dotus, who instructed Cicero, of the Emperor Augustus, con-
cerning
and who afterwards lived with whom cf. Strabo, xiv.

him, finally having become 5, 14, p. 674 ; Lucian, Macrob.
blind, died at his house about 21, 23 ; Dio Chrysost. Or. 33,
60 B.C. and made Cicero his p. 24 R; Êlian. V. "T. xii. 25 ;
heir (Cic. Brut. 90, 309 ; Acad. Plut. Pojjlic.
c. 17, and Apopti-
ii. 36, 115 ; N. JD. i. 3, 6 ; ad tliegm. jReg. Aug. 7, p.Cm.
JDiv. xiii. 16, ix. 4 ; Two. v. 39, 207 ; Qu. Com. ii. 1, 13, 3, p.
113; ad Att. ii. 20); a disciple 634 ; Dio Cass. lii. 36 ; Ivi. 43 ;
of his, a freedman of the Zosim.-S^. i. 6 ; Suid.JA07p(f". ;
triumvir Crassus, Apollonius Muller. Fragm. Hist. Gr. iii.
by name, is mentioned by Cicero, 485 8%. Whether the
writings
ad Fam. xiii. 16. From Mm and sayings quoted from
must be distinguished the Athenodorus belong to him
Apollonius of Ptolemais in or to another person of the
the Ind. Here. col. 78, whom same name, in most instances
the compiler of that catalogue cannot be discovered with tainty,
cer-
calls (pixos ; for this man,
7)fj.caj" but it seems to me
as is there stated, had heard probable that by the dorus

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

of Cicero, as a boy in his time he was certainly the best
house, long after this date, known man of the name in
enjoyed the instruction of Home ; that he was likewise
Diodotus and
accompanied the same who wrote about, i.e.
Caesar (though not probably in against, the Aristotelian gories,
cate-
extreme age) to the Alexandrian and who was opposed
war. Comparetti (1. c. p. 470, on particularpoints by Conutus,
547) wrongly identifies them. we find from
Simpl. 5, a. 15, 5.
Apollonides, the friend of 41, 7. (Schol. in Arist. 47, ~b,
Cato, who was about him in 20 ; 61, a, 25 54.)32, e. 47, f.;
his last days (Plut. Cat. Min. Porph. itfy.4, 1,21, I (ScJiol.in
65 *#. ; cf. Phil. d. Gr. III. i. p. Arist. 48, 5, 12) ; cf .
Brandis,
48). Athenodorus, the son Abhandl. d. Berl. Akad, 1833 ;
STOICS OF THE FIRST CEXTUUY B.C.
in its learned partlyin the practicalappli-

activity, cation CHAP.
III.
of its principles,
came into amicable contact
on many points with other schools. An example

showing the extent to which this eclecticism attained
in individuals will be presented to us in Arms
275;t. Prantl.
Kl. other Stoics of this name, one
GeseJi. d. Log. i. 538, 19. Some of them from Antioch, tioned

men-
fragments of an historical and by Suidas, 0eW ^pvpv^

geographical character have the other Tithora, men-
from tioned
been collected by Miiller, I. c. by Diogenes, is. 82, we
The ethics quoted in Diog. vii. do not know the dates, but
68, 121, may also belong to the the latter must be older than
son of Sandon; and he is no JEnesidemas.) Lastly, Strabo,
doubt the Athenodorus Calvns, the famous geographer, con-
sidered
who inspired Cicero's treatise himself as belonging

on Duties (Cic. ad AU. xvi. to the Stoic school. His birth
11, 14) ; while on the other must be placed, as Hasen-
hand the author of the icspi-muller says, D" Strab. Vita
irarat, which Diogenes quentlyDiss.* Bonn,

fre- 1863, p. 13 s$.
cites,is more probably (who also discusses the various
the Peripatetic of the same theories),in or before 58 B.C.,
name spoken of infray p. 124:. as in 44 B.C. he saw P. Servilius

To this same period belongs Isauricus, who died in his nine-
tieth
Theo of Alexandria, who cording
ac- year (Strabo, sii 6, 2"
to Suidas. sub voce, p. 568), and saw him in Ptome,
lived under Augustus and was whither Strabo can scarcely
the author of a work on Eheto- have gone before his fourteenth
ric besides an epitome of year. Bis native city was
Apollodorus'Physics. Perhaps Ainasea in Pontus (Strabo,sii.
he be
person luded S, 15, E9, p. 547, 561) ; he lived,
al- the
may
to Ind. Here.
in however, under
the Augustus and
col. 79, in the words "v JAAe"an~ Tiberius at Rome. (At the end
thought by Gomparetti of his 6th book he names
Speus,
to be Dio of the Academy Tiberius as the present ruler
and Germanicus his
(vide infra, p. 100). In that as son ;
case he was a disciple of this passage must accordingly
have been written between 14
Stratocles (vide supra, p. 54)
and only the latter part of his and 19 after Christ.) He
life can have fallen under betrays himself to be a Stoic
If he survived not only by utterances such as
Augustus.
Arms (vide infra,106 : Suidas i. 1, p. 2 (the Stoic definition
1
,
: yeyov^s eiri AiryOTJcrrovof philosophy),i. 2, 2, p. 15"

says
"Apewv) he musfe have but he also calls Zeno 6 ^/teVepos
fjiera
lived to a great age like Ms i. 2, 34, p. 41, and xvi. 4, 27,
master Stratocles. (Of two p. 784 5 vide mj)ra, p. 62, 3*

ECLECTICISM.
CHAP Didyrmis, who indeed counted himself a member of

III.
the Stoic school, but who approximates so closely to
Alexander the Academician, that it seems preferable

to speak of him after that philosopher.
Perhaps Athenodorus, the son of (Parad. Procem. 2, as perfectus

Sandon, have introduced Stoicvs', in Brut, 31, 118 as
may
him to Stoicism whom, he perfectissimus Stoieus ; and in
;
calls (xvi. 4, 21, Pro Mur. 29, 61 attacked on
-ri/juv eTcupos
779), and concerning whom account of Stoical asperities,
p.
he shows himself to be rately
accu- called in De Flnibus the leader
informed 14, of his school, the writings of

(xiv. 5, p.
674). Meanwhile he had also which Cato (iii. 27) earnestly
heard the Peripatetic Tyrannic studied, and after his death one
Oii. 3, 16, 548) and Xen- of the ideals of the Stoics (PJiil.
p.
archus (xiv. 4, 4, 670) and d. ffr. III. i. 254, 3). His teachers,
p.
had had the still more famous Antipater and Athenodorus
Boethus either as a fellow ciple

dis- and his friend Apollonides
or more prohably (for the have already come before us.
word in xvi.
crvj/e"f"i\ocroct"'f)(ras.i."i' Concerning his Stoicism vide
2, 24, 757, permits also this also Pliny, Hist. Nat. vii. 30, 113,
p.
interpretation) as a teacher. xxxiv. 8, 92. M. Favonius,
(Of a third instructor, Aristo- a passionate admirer of Cato's,
demus, he does not say in xiv. respecting whom cf Plut. Brut.
.
1, 48, p. 650, to what school he 34; Cato Min. 32, 46; Cfesar,
belonged, or in what he structed 21
in- ; Pomp. 73 ; Sueton. Octav.
him.) The date of 13 ; Valer. Max. ii. 10, 8 ; Dio
Protagoras, a Stoic, tioned

men- Cass. xxxviii. 7, xxxix. 14. Also
by Diogenes, ix. 56, is Valerius Soraiius, an older
unknown. ("") Among1 the contemporary and acquaintance

Bonaans of this period, the of Cicero's (Cic. Brut. 46, 169),
following are known to us as seems from what is quoted by
adherents of the Stoic trine
doc- Augustine (Civ. D. vii. 11, 13),
: Q. Lucilius Balbus, probably from his treatise on
whom Cicero praises as a tinguished the

dis- Gods (Bernhardy, Rom.
Stoic (JV: D. i. 6, 15) Lit. 229), to have belonged to
and whom, in the second book the school of Pansetius. Some

of this treatise he considers as others who are also occasionally
the representative of the school. reckoned the Stoics, as
among
M. Porcius OatoUticensis, Varro and Brutus, will be spoken
already described by Cicero of later on.
THE ACADEMY. 75
CHAPTEE IV.
THE ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS IN THE FIRST CENTURY
BEFORE CHRIST.
THIS approximation and partial blending of the
schools of philosophy,as has been alreadyobserved,

was accomplishedin a still more decisive manner in c- Tfo
the Academy. We have seen how effectively the way
was cleared for eclecticism, partlythrough the scep-ticism

of the Academy, and partlythrough the theory
of probability connected with that scepticism; and
how in consequence certain traces of this mode of
thought appear even among the first disciplesof

Carneades.1 It was still more definitely
developed
after the commencement of the first century before
Christ,by Philo and Antiochus.
Philo,2 a native of Larissa,in Thessaly,3

was the
and
disciple successor of Clitomachus in Athens.4 In
1 PHI. d. "r. III. i. 526, 2 ; ler Griefsw. 1 869), col. 33, he

when he about
supra, p. 5, 2. came was
2 C. F. Hermann, De PMlone twenty-four to Athens, and here
Lwrissceo : G-ott. 1851 ; ibid. D" for fourteen years attended the
PMlone Lariss. disputatio al- school of Clitomachus, after he
Erische Cicero's had previouslybeen instructed
t"ra, 1855 j on
Academica, G-otting"rStudien, in his native city (according

ii. 126-200, 1845. to Biicheler's
emendation, for
3 Stob. JEcl. ii. 38. eighteen years ; therefore, from
* Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 17 : Clito* his sixth or seventh year ; I
maclw PMlo vester operavi mul- should conjecture : irepl
rather
tos awnos dedit; Pint. Oic. 3; ovceSbj']^,

o/c[rcb or something
Stob. 1. o. According to the JiM. similar)by Callicles,a disciple
JIerc.Academic"rum(ed..'Bviche-of Carneades. According to the
76 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. the Mithridatic war with others

lie fled, on the Koman
IV.
side,to Borne,1 and here gained for himself great
esteem,2 both as a teacher and as a man. Through
him Cicero was won over to the doctrine of the new
Academy, as Philo had apprehended it.3 "Whether

he ever returned to Athens we do not know ; but in
any case he does not seem long survived the

to have
Roman journey.4 As a philosopherhe at first,we
Ind. Here, he had also enjoyed vide Tuso. ii. 3, 9 ; 11, 26.
the
the
but
Athenian
instruction
Stoic, at
text
whether
seems
mentioned
of
least
to
Apollodorus
the imper-
Apollodorus is the
fect
mean
(supra,^.
toric,
this ;
Qwv
KCU
2
Plut. 6^.
T"V
'Pajjjicuoi
KoL
5ia
Sia
rbv
"rbv
3 : $iXa"vos SrfiKova-e
KAeiro/môu orvvii-
\6yav sQcLVfjiaa'av
rp6irov Tiydir-ricra.v.
53) or the Seleucian mentioned Cic. Acad. i. 4, 13 : PMlo,
mag-
(Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 47) seems mis vir. Cf the following note,
.
the more doubtful, as Philo's and also Stob. Eel. ii. 40.
3
own leadership of the school Plut. I. o. ; Cic. Tusc. I. c. ;
(sujpra, p. 53) can scarcely JV".D. i. 7, 16 ; Brut. I.e.,
totum
have begun later than that of ei me tradidi.
Apollodorus of
Athens, and 4 The Mithridatic war broke
as the predecessor of the latter, out in 88 B.C., and
probably
Mnesarchus, was the teacher Philo came immediately after
of Philo'spupil Antiochus (vide this to Borne. We hear of a
infra,86, 1). That he followed treatise he had composed while

Glitomachus as head of the Antiochus was with Lucullus
school, we find from the Ind. in Alexandria ii. 4, (Cic.Aoad.
Herd, and Bus. Pr.
J"v. xiv. S, 9 11), which, according to Zumpt
(accordingto Numenius) ; and (AM. d. Berl. Acad. 1842;
from Cic. Brut. 89, 306, that he Hut. Phil. JZl.p.67),would fall
was the most important philoso-
pher in the year 84, according to Her-
mann
of the Academy of his time I. G. 1. 4, in 87. When
(princepsAcademice} ; Aead. ii. Cicero came to Athens in 79 B.C.
6, 17 (PMlone autem vivo patro- he cannot have been there, as he
einium Academics non deficit}.would otherwise have been
In Athens Antiochus was his mentioned in Plut. Cic. 4 ; Cic.
pupil (videinfra 86, 1). Besides Brut. 91, 315 ; Fin. v. 1, 1. Per-
haps
philosophy he taught rhetoric he remained in Kome, or,
very zealously(Cic.De Or tut. iii. as seems to me more probable,
28, 110). was no longer living. How the
1
Cic. Brut. 89, 306. ing
Concern- statement the
as to length of
the instructions he his life is to be
gave completed can-
not
there in philosophy and rhe- be ascertained. Biiclaeler
PHILO. 77
are defended
told,zealously the doctrine of Carneades CHAP.
IY*
in its whole content; in the sequel, however, he
became unsettled in regard to this doctrine,and
without expresslyabandoningit,he sought greater
fixityof conviction than the principles
of his pre-
decessors
afforded.1 Though it was not in itself con-
trary
to the spirit of scepticism that he should
regardphilosophyfrom the practicalpoint of view,2

timl ms'
yet this mode of treatingit received from him an
applicationwhich went beyond scepticism: he was

not satisfied,like Pyrrho, by the destruction of
dogmatism to clear away hindrances,with the re-moval
of which (according
to that philosopher)
happinesscame of itself;but in order to attain this
end he found complete directions for right conduct

to be necessary. The philosopher, he says, may be
compared physician; as health is for the latter,

with a
so is happinessfor the former, the final end of his

whole activity; 3 and from this definition of its aim,
prefersej-rjKOvrarpla,for lie says eiredvê^ ev olcrfl'5Vi,ra"v

there is no room in the lacuna 6vr"av rvxew, eiva ^ eS"c
for (Inci. HeTC.
epfiojj.'fjKOj'ra v"ra jSaAAooz/avrtis CK"J' .
"
Aead. 33, 18). That Philo had at first professed

1
Numen. ap. Bus. Pr. Uv. the Academic scepticism more
xiv. 9, 1 : At the beginning of unconditionally than he after-

his career as a teacher, Philo wards did, follows from Cic.
was full of zeal in defending Acad. ii. 4, 11 sg. ; vide infrat
the doctrine of the Academy : p. 80, 2.
2
leal ra """o7,ueVa T$ KAem"- Pyrrho had alreadydone this
flaxy i?v"e Kal rots STou/coTs (cf.Pliil. d. 6rr* III. i. 484, 3).
3
e'/copvo-crero xÂ/c^. Sub-
v"po-jri Stob. Eel. ii.40 sy. : eoucevat
sequently, however, ouSev jj.lv 5e (pyffLT"vQi^croipoj'iarpq}

Kara laur^JevJei,
ra f)5e rcav
avra
Kal yap rrj larpiKycnrovB^jiraffa.
avrbv
irad7)]ut.dra)v ave"Trpe"pep ireplrb re\osy rovro 5J %v vyleia,
evdpyetdre Kal dpoôyta. TTO\- Kal ry "f"i\0(TO"plq Treplr)jv

'
73 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. lie derives the six divisions of philosophywhich he

*
IV.
assumed,1 and according to which he himself treated
of ethics in its whole extent.2 Where the interest
for systematicform of doctrine, though primarily

a
only in the sphere of practicalphilosophy,was so
of scien-
tific
strong,there also the belief in the probability
knowledge must necessarily have been strength-
I. c., to maintain that the Stoic

According to Stobseus,
1
they are the following. The ethics agreed so entirely in all

he things essential with those of
firstthing that is necessary,
says, is that the sick man the Academy and Peripatetics,
should be prevailed upon to that Zeno had no occasion to
submit himself to medical separate himself from the demy,

Aca-
treatment, and that other The fourth part treats

counsels opposed
should be " TTspl(Slav,
and fixes the Qecap^-
this \6yos irporpeTrriKbs
is the
"irlrty aperV), which r4\ov$, primarily for the
(jrctpop/JLcay rov
the worth conduct of individuals. The

has partly to prove
of virtue (or,perhaps more by curately,same
ac- problem is undertaken
philosophy) and
of fifthpart, the TroAm/eds,in the
partlyto confute the objections regard to the commonwealth.

againstphilosophy. (The irpo- In order to provide not only
of Philo is thought for the wise, but also for the
rpeirriKos
by Krische, I c. p. 191, and Her-
mann, peffcasSiaKel/j.evoi
Mpcairoi,who
i. 6, ii. 7, to be the pro-
totype are unable to follow logical in-
vestigation
of Cicero's JEFortensius ; the sixth part is
cf ., however, Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. required, the viroQ"-riKbs \6yos,
which coins the results of ethics
63). This being attained, there
must, secondly, be a remedy into rules for individual cases.
the hand, 2 This is evident from the

applied " on one
false injurious opinions concluding words

and of Stobseus,
must be discarded, and, on the p. 46 (in regard to Arius Didy-
other, right opinions must be mus) : auras IJ.GV ofiv
imparted " Treplaya6tav KCU

"
KaKtov rfaos. The third is the

x6yos TT"plreXcav. In this part avrf) rot. Trepl
of Philo 's -ethics Hermann jectures
con-
(ii.7) the source of "c.

the 4th book of Cicero's treatise Any one who agrees with mann's
Her-
JDe Finibus. This, however, conjecture respecting-
not only cannot be proved, but Fin-, iv. has the less right to
it is also improbable, as Philo, dispute this,as Hermann does
and not Antiochus, was the first (ii.
5).
PHILO. 79
ened and the inclination to scepticismweakened ;

l
CHAP.
and Iy-
actuallyfind that Philo withdrew from
so we
the standpointwhich had simply disputed the

pos- Modifier
sibility knowledge. The Stoic theory of know-
of timi "f^
ledge he could not, of course, adopt ; against the If'tlT*
doctrine of intellectual cognition,he Academy-
argued with
Carneades that there is no notion so constituted
that a false notion may not co-exist with it :
2
and
the truth of sensible perception from which the
Stoics ultimatelyderived all notions he denied for
all the reasons which his predecessorsin the Academy
had given ; 3 and little as he could with the
agree
1
Thisconnection Is,indeed, impre"wm effietumqueex eo"
denied by Hermann, 1. o. ; but unde esset,guale esse non posset
as we know (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 cogniti. But this does not
conditioned by right moral Hermann
mean, as (ii.11) as-
views (f"yi"sUxovo-ai86"ai, 0e"- serts, that Philo maintained
frfmara"rt 0fov),and by a whole that if there were a visum like
system of such views, and de- that required by Zeno, no corn-
voted one of the six sections of preJiensio would be possible ;
his ethics expressly to the re- but rather, if the comprehen-
moval of false and the impart- sible must be a visum impres-
ing of true opinions, the in- sum, and so forth,there would
f erence is inevitable that he be nothing comprehensible; the
held true opinions to be neces- statement that is made
same
by
sary, and consequently did not Sest. PyrrJi. i. 235 (infra,p.
maintain"at any rate, for the 81, 2). Of. as to the cone-'
practical sphere the " stand- spending propositions of Car-
point of pure doubt, nor was neades, PMl. d. 6V.IU. i. 501 sq.
satisfied with mere probability; 3
If we have no direct in-
and what we know of him formation this
on point, it
shows that this was not the follows with great probability
case. from what we can gather of
2 Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 18: Cum, the contents of the lost 1st
enim ita
negwet, qutequam esse book of Cicero's Academies
quod eompreliendi posset, . . .
Priora and the 2nd book of
si illud esset sicut Zeino dejmiret the Academica Posterior \ from
a
tale msum . . .
visum igitw Acad. ii. 25, 79, and from the
80 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, adversaries of the Academic doctrine as hitherto

IY" the
understood, he as little desired to renounce
doctrine itself. When his discipleAntiochus vanced

ad-
the propositionthat the school of the
Academy had been untrue to its original

tendency
since the time of Arcesilaus, and that there must
therefore be a return from the new Academy to the
raised the liveliest oppositionto this de-

mand,
old,Philo
and to the whole statement : the new Academy,
he declared,was not distinct from the old, and there
could, therefore,be no question of a return to the
latter,but solelyand entirely of maintaining the

doctrine.1 But when
one genuine Academic we
look more closely,this union of the new Academy

with Plato, as that of Philo with the new Academy,
is only to be attained by subtletywhich even
a his
contemporariesdid not fail to rebuke.2 Scepticism,
fragments preserved by Academy, that of Cli-

Nonius the new
and Carneades, which

(c".the arguments of Krische, tomachus
L "?., p. 154 "#., 182 sg[.; Her- he undertakes to defend against
ii. 10). Antiochus. Of. Augustin, c.
mann,
1 Cic. Acad. i. 4, 13: An- Acad. Hi. 18, 41: Hide (An-
tiocftitnagisterPMlo negcct tiochus) arreptis tterum
. . .
illis
in Wwis, quod coram etiwn ex armis et Pkilon restitit donee
duas Ac"de- morervtur,, et ejus reli*
ijpsoaudiebawius, owinen
mias esse, erroremque eorum, qui q'ttiasTullivs noster oppres"it.

From
itaputarimt("sA.ntioclcms,vidl# Philo are probably de-
infm'),coarguit. The same is rived the arguments of Cicero

maintained by Cicero as an (ap. August, iii. 7, 15) on the
adherent of Philo's doctrine superiorityof the Academy to
(he has justbefore directly ac- all other schools,
knowledged himself a follower 2 When Philo's treatise came
of the new Academy), c. 12, 46. into the hands of Antiochus

In relation to this subject (as Cicero relates, Acad. ii. 4,
Cicero says (Acad. ii. 6, 17) : 11) he was quite startled,and
Pldlone autem vivo patrooimum asked Heraclitus of Tyre, for
Academics non defuit. The many years the discipleof Philo
Academy which he defends is and Clitomachus : Viderenturne
PHILO. 81
Philo believed, was, as against the Stoic arguments, CHAP.
perfectlywell established ; for the rational concep-

'
they had made the criterion,was His theory

tion, which as such
not available : but in themselves things are not un- ledge.

knowable ;
1 and in connection with this,he tained
main-
that the scepticism of the Academy was,
from the beginning, only meant in this sense ; it
was not its design to deny all and every knowledge

2 this denied
of things; was only in opposition to
the Stoics, and with reference to the Stoic rion,3
crite-
while genuine Platonism was maintained as
the esoteric doctrine of the school.4 As the
danger from the Stoics no longer appeared to be
pressing,he considered it an opportune time to go

back to the originaldoctrines professed by the
ilia Pltil"nis, aiit ea "num Tel e pure Carneadean scepticism,

Philotie vel eos ullo Academico the representative of which in
audivisset aliqiiando? to which the first edition of the Aca-
lie repliedin the negative. In demica was Catulus), negat
the same work Philo "s statement Academicos omnino dicere (cf.
concerning the doctrine of the ibid. 6, 18).
described 3
new Academy is as Thus the rise and design
an untruth, and this censure is of the
scepticism the Aca-
demy of
repeated, 6, 18. is represented by Augus-
tine
1
Sext. Pyrrh. i. 235 : ot Be (C.Aead. ii. 6, 14), who no
vt '6ffov fj-ev exl doubt derived this conception
), Tovrecrn TT? from Philo as explained by
aitard-
tyavracriq, Cicero. Cf. sitpra, note 1.
LKy
a elvai TCL fiffov
irpd'yfJi.aTa,Se 4 This statement meets us
often (vide PML d. Gv. III. i.

But the expression 493, 4) ; that it is ultimately
'
must here be taken derived from Philo is probable,
in a somewhat wider sense; partly from its inter-connection
cf. inf. p. 82, 3. with all other presuppositions
2 Cic. Acad. it 4, 12. The of Ms, and partly because it is
arguments of Antiochus against not only found in Augustine,
Philo he will pass over, minus C. Acad. iii. 17, 38 j 18, 40 ; but
enim acer adversariiis est is,qui in c. 20, 43, Augustine expressly
ista" qiLcs sunt lieri defensa (the appeals to Cicero for it.
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. Platonic school ; 1

but lie could not see in this storation
re-
IV. abandonment
of the old Academy any of
the tendency of the new, since he held that the new
departed at all from the original

Academy had not
Platonism.2 Eut if we ask in what consisted this

the is not factory.
satis-
genuine Platonism, answer very
On the one hand, Philo,in agreement with
hispredecessors of the new Academy, denied the
possibilityof a complete knowledge, of compre-
hending
; not merely in regard to the Stoic theory

of ; for like those
knowledge, but quite universally
he
predecessors, lacked a sure criterion for the criminati
dis-
of true and false.3 Notwithstanding.,
to Philo
1
August, iii. 18, 41 (doubt-
less a remigrare in
PMlonis
tutn
qui jam
dentibus
after Cicero) : Antioohus
arbitror
auditor, hominis
oircutnspectissimiy
veluti aperire oe-
Tiostibus portas ccepe-
yuan-
Acad.
tiochus novam.'
as
3
defended
This
an
domum
is evident
ii. 22, 69.
Cicero,
adherent
Philo, has
the proposition,niJiil
e vetere.
After
of
from Cic.
rat et ad Platonis auctoritatem esse gwocL percipi possit, with

Academiam legesque revocare the old sceptical argument, the
(as he saw the enemy in treat,

re- impossibility of findinga crite-
rion
he had begun to open for the discrimination of
the of the city they true and false, he here
gates tinues
con-
were besieging, and to establish

re- : Sed
priiis pauca cum
the previous order AntiocJio, gui TICSG ipsa, yMt? "

which had been interruptedby me defenduntur, et didicit apiid
the war). Philonem tain diu, itt const aret
2
So far Plutarch (Luc. 42 ; diirtim didicisse neminem, et
J3rut. 2) may call Philo the
head of the new Academy, and etidem licecnon acriiis accusavit
Antiochus old ; and
that of the in senectute quam antea defensi-
similarly Cicero (Acad. i. 4, 33 ; taverat qitisenim iste dies
. . .
ii. 22, 70) may describe Antio-

chus inlitxerit,
qucero, g\ii illi osten-
as the man who through derit earn, giiam multos awnos
the renovation of the old Aca-

demy esse negitavisset,veri et fain
fell from Philo notam? Vide the
away following
while he himself conversely sees note.
from
retrogression An-
in Ms
84 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, part with Ids discipleCicero. When, however, we

IV'
find that he did not venture to ascribe to this know-
ledge
the full certaintyof intellectual cognition,
and
consequentlyassumed manifestness to be a kind of
conviction,the certainty of which transcends mere
probability,but does not reach the unconditional tainty

cer-
of the conception this is very characteristic "
of the middle position of our philosopherbetween

Carneades and Antiochus,1 and it was so far not
without reason that Philo was distinguished

from
his predecessors,
no less than from his successors,2
as
the founder of the fourth Academy; while, on the
other hand, this appellationtells in favour of the
opinionthat between the doctrine of Philo and that of

Carneades important divergence had reallytaken
an
place.That directlycertain element, Philo,like Cicero

after him, might seek before all things in the utter-
ances
of moral consciousness, and theoryof know-

so his ledge
might serve him as a foundation for practical

the necessityfor
philosophy, which seems to have been
his determining influence in the theory.3

originating
1 This opinion I believe to 79, 2; 82, 3) that there is no
be notwithstanding
justifiable, nota falsi, niMl
veri at esse
Hermann's contradiction (I.c. qitod yercipi possit. On the

ii. 1 3), for I cannot admit that contrary, when he missed even
Philo's perspicuitas coincides in the Stoic fywraffia Kara-
with the unconditioned cer- A^n/c^ the sign of true know-

tainty, which, according to ledge, and consequently the
Plato, is presentin the intuition nota veri et falsi,he must have
of ideas, and excels in truth discovered it all the more in
the intellectual knowledge of that knowledge to which he
the Stoics. Had this been ascribes such unconditional
Philo's meaning he could not certainty.
possiblyhave maintained uni- 2 Of .
PML d. Grr. III. i. 526, 2.
versallyas he does (vide sugra, 3
Sit/pra,
p. 77 sg.
PHILO. 85
But in itself Philo's scientific position could not CHAP.
long be maintained. He who assumes a certainty.

as Philo did in his doctrine of the self-evident or
manifest, could not,without deny that

inconsistency,
every sure token of distinction between the true and
the false is wanting longer pro-

tofessus ; he could no
the principles of the new Academy; conversely,

he who did professthem could not logically go be-
yond
Carneades' doctrine of probability.If a man
found it impossibleto satisfy himself any longei
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
human thought the capability for the knowledge of
truth. This further step was taken by the most

important of Philo's Antiochus2
disciples,1 of
Ascalon.3
This philosopherhad for a long time enjoyed AntwcTm*
and
Philo's instructions, had himself embarked upon
works advocating the scepticism of the Academy,
when he began to grow uncertain about it.4 This
may have been in great measure the result of his
having attended the lectures not only of Philo,but
1 Of whom those known to Par. 1856; but, as the treatise of

us are mentioned infra,,
p. 99s^. Chappe was unknown in Ger-
2
Concerning him, mde many, this flagrant plagiarism
~K.iische,6rott.Stud.ii"
160-170; was only discovered after the
and C. Chappins, De AntiooM death of its author.
Asc. vita et doctri.na, Paris, 3
Strabo, xvi. 2, 29, p. 759 ;
does not Pint, Luc. 42 ; Cic. 4 ; Brut. 2 ;
1854 ; who, however,
go beyond what is well known. JElian, K.JET.xii.SS. 'AffKaXoivlrys
A literal copy of this disserta- is his most usual appellation,
tion appeared in D'AHemand's *
Sitjpra,
p. 80, 1; 82, 1, 3;
J)e Antioclw Asc. Marb. and Cic. Acad. ii. 2, 4; 19, 63.
6 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, of tlie Stoic Mnesarchus,1 who, as the discipleof

1
Pansetius,had indeed opposed the scepticism of
the new Academy, but at the same time prepared

the for that blending of Stoicism with the
way
Platonic doctrine which in the sequelwas -completed
by Antiochus. During the first Mithridatic war,
2
we find him with Lucullus in Alexandria ; and
'
only then did things come to an open rupture be-

tween
him and Philo.3 He afterwards stood at the
1
Kumen. ap. Ens. Pr. Ev. ing the Stoic whose name the
xiv. 9, 2 ; Augustine, C. Acad. treatise of Antiochus bore, p.
iii.18, 41, doubtless taken from 53, %.). Either in this work or
Cicero j cf. Cic. Acad. ii. 22, in the Kav"w/ca, from the second
69 Quid ? eum
: Mnes"rcM book of which a passage is
pcenitebat? quid? Dardani? quoted in Sext. Math. vii. 201
giii erant Athenis turn prin- (vide sup. 30, 1), but
p. pro-
oipes Stoicorum, He only sepa- bably in the
former, we have
rated himself from Philo at a the source of the whole polemic
later date. Concerning Mne- against the scepticism of the
sarchus and Dardanus, vide Academy, which Cicero (Acad.
siipra, p. 52, 3. ii. 5 $##.)represents Lucullus
2
Cic. Acad. ii.
4, 11 (cf. spoken dis-as repeating from
swpra, 76, 4); ibid. 2, 4; 19,
courses of Antiochus (vide 5,
61. Whether he went straight 12 ; 19, 61). Cf. Krische, I c.
from Athens to Alexandria, 168 sg$. Of the second version
however, or had accompanied of the Aoademica Cicero ex-
Philo to Borne, and here allied pressly says (Ad Att. xiii. 19),
himself with Lucullus, is not %uce erant contra cucaraXiitylav
stated. prceclarecollecta, ab Antioeho,
3
According to Cicero, 1.o.t it Vcvrrarvi dedi ; but Varro had
was in Alexandria that An- now taken the place of Lucullus.
tiochus first saw the work of Cicero also made use of Antio-
Philo, which he was so unable chus by name in the books DG
to reconcile with those doc- JFinibw, the fifth of which is
trines of Philo already known taken from him. Also, in re-
to him that he would scarcely gard to the Topica,Wallies (Zte

believe the treatise to be Font. Topic. Oio.,Halle, 1878)
genuine (w^sz^. p. 80, 2); and shows it to be probable that
this induced him to write a work Cicero follows Antiochus in
against it, called Sosus (vide chapters 2-20. But as in the
-ZVID. i. 7, 16), to which Philo rapid compilation of this short
seems again to have responded treatise he had no books at hand
(vide sup. p. 80, 1, and concern- and consequently wrote from
ANTIOCHUS. 87
head of the Platonic school in Athens when Cicero, CHAP.
in 79-78 was his pnpil l for half a year. About !

B.C., "
ten years later he died.2
Through Antiochus the Academy was so decidedlySis

diverted from the tendency
sceptical to which it had
abandoned itself since Arcesilaus, that it never, as a
whole, returned to it ; and Antiochus is,therefore,

called the founder of the fifth Academy.3 When
he had once freed himself from the scepticismof
Carneades, he made a polemicagainstit the special

task of his own life.4 The sceptic,as Antiochus
believes, abolishes, with the certainty, even the
he himself maintained; for if

probabilitywhich
memory (Top. i. 5) we may mortuus (cf. Pint. Luc, 28, cording

ac-
also discover in it to which Antiochus

perhaps
the substance of a lecture had mentioned the battle at
which he heard while with Tigranocerta, perhaps as an
Antiochus, and with the help eye-witness). Since this battle

of written notes brought away; took place on October 6, 685
is known besides this AJJ.C. (69 B.C.) Antiochus
nothing
of any treatise of Antiochus on must have lived at least till
the following year. On the
Topwa*
1
Plut. C'w. 4:; Gic. Fin. v. 1, other hand, we see from the
L Ind. Sere. 34, 5, that he
1 ; Brut. 91, ; cf. Acad.315
13
4r, ; ii. 35, 113 ; Legg. L 21, died in Mesopotamia in con-
sequence
54. Atticus also had made his of the hardships of

in Athens (Legg* the expedition. Brutus some
acquaintance
Z. c.). To this later time must years later heard no longer
be referred what is said in the Antiochus but his brother Aris-
Ind. Acad. 34, of sions
mis-
Hero. tus in Athens (Cic. JSntt. 97,
Rome and 332, with which Tusc. 8, 21,
(7r/?"flrj3etW)
to v.
the in the does not disagree). More

to generals pro-
vinces. cise
pre-
dates for the life of tiochus
An-
2 We see this from Cic. Acad. it is not possible to fix.
ii. 2, 4:,and more distinctly 3 Phil. d. Gr. m. i. 526, 2.
from c. 19, 61 : Hcec Antiochus 4
Cf. Cic. Aead. ii. 6, 12 ;
et Alexandra turn et mul- Augustine, C. Acad. 6, 15:

fere
tis annis post wmtlto etiam ad- Nihil tamen magis defendebat*
severantius, in Syria cum essst quam, verum percipere
mecum, pûlo ante qztam est
83 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, the true does not allow itself to be known as such, it

IV
_____J cannot anything appears to be true;1
be said that
consequentlyhe not only contradicts the natural

necessityfor knowledge,2 but also makes all action,
impossible; for Antiochus, like Chrysippus,rejected

in action,
the notion that we might follow probability
even without knowledge and assent ; partlybecause,
as we have seen, without truth there can be no
and partlybecause
probability, it is impossible to act
without assent and conviction, or, on the other hand,

to refuse assent to the the
self-evident, possibility
of which a portion of the adversaries conceded.3
This practicalinterest is just what is,in his eyes, of

the highestimportance : the consideration of virtue
is,as Cicero expresses it,the strongest proof of the

of knowledge,for how
possibility could the virtuous
man make a sacrifice to his fulfilment of duty, if he

had no fixed and unassailable conviction ? how would
wisdom
practical be possibleif the aim and problem
? 4 But he also believed
of life were unknowable he
had the better of his adversaries even in the sphere

of theory. The whole question here turns' on the
statement, against which chiefly Carneades had
directed his attacks that true conceptions have

"
tokens in themselves,by which they may be dis-

tinguish
with certaintyfrom false.5 Against this
1
Cic. ii. 11, 33, 36 ;
Acad. In the first of these passages
17, 54 ; 18, 59 ; 34, 109. Lupullussays, in reference to
2
LOG. oit. 10, 30 sg_t Philo's objections against ra-
8 LOG. cit. 8, 24 ; 10, 32 ; 12, tional 79,
conceptions (sitjcra,
37 B$q. 2) : Omnis oratio contra, Acade-
4 LOG cit. 8, 23 ; cf. 9, 27. miam susoipitiura noMs, ut
5 Phil. d. 6fr. III. i. 501 sgg. retineamus earn definitionem,,
and Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 18 ; 13, 40. quern PMlo wluit evertere.
ANTIOCHUS. 80
the scepticshad chieflyurged the -various cases CHAP.

iy-
of deceptionsof the senses, and similar errors. The
existence of these errors Antiochus does not deny,
but he believed we ought not on that account to
discard the dicta of the senses ; it merely follows

that the senses are to be kept healthy " that all
hindrances to correct observation are to be ished,

ban-
and all rules of foresight
and prudence are
to be observed, if the testimony of the senses is
to be valid.1 In themselves the senses are for us
a source of true conceptions; for though sensation

is primarilyonly a change taking placein ourselves,
it also reveals to us that by means of which this
change is effected.2 "We must likewise,as Antiochus

readilyadmits, allow truth to generalconcepts,if we
would not make all thought,and all and
crafts, arts
impossible.3 But if, as

against this,the tions
imagina-
of dreamers or lunatics are brought forward by
his opponents, Antiochus repliesthat these are all
wanting in that self-evidentness which is proper to
true intentions and conceptions; 4 and if they seek

to embarrass us with their sorites,5he answers
that from the of
similarity many things it does not
follow that there is no distinction between them;
and if in particularcases we are obliged to
suspend our judgment,,6 we need not, therefore"

1
LOG. cit. 7, 19 sg_q. 6 That Antiochus after the
3 Sext. Math. vii. 162 of
*#. precedent Chjysippns (Phil.
3 Oic. I, c. 7, 21 8$. d. 6^.111. i. 115, 2) adopted this
4 Loc. cit. 15, 47 *##, ; 16, 51 expedient even in regard to
sq. According to 16, 49, An- purely dialectical objections,
tiochus must have discussed such as the so-called êwJêvas-
this objectionat great length. we see from Gic. Acad. ii. 29*
a
Of. Phil d. Gr* HI. i, 503. 95 s%^
90 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, permanently renounce all claim to it.1 The seep-

IVt
tics themselves,however, are so little able to carry
out their principlesthat they involve themselves
in the most striking contradictions. Is it not
a contradiction to maintain that nothing can be
maintained, and to be convinced of the impossibility

2
of a firm conviction ? Can a person, who allows no
distinction between truth and error, use definitions or
classifications,
or even logicaldemonstration, of
a
which he ignorantwhether truth belongs

is absolutely
to it ? 3 Lastly,how can it be simultaneouslymain-

tained
that there are false notions,and that between

true and false notions there is no difference,
since
the first of these propositionspresupposes this very

difference?4 We must allow that some of these
arguments, especiallythose last quoted, are not

deficient in subtlety,but others must certainlybe
called very superficial,and rather postulates than
proofs.
In any case, however, Antiochus believed self
him-
justified
by such reasoning in repudiatingthe
demand that we should refrain from all cence
acquies-
5
; and in strivingafter a dogmatic knowledge
1 tiochus.
LOG. tit. 16, 49 sq. ; 17, 54 Arcesilaus drew this
SQg. inference : Si ulli rei sapiens
2
Loo. tit. 9, 29 ; 34, 109. adsentietur unguani, alflqucmdo
3 Loc. oit. 14, 43. etiam opinabitur; tmnquam
4
LOG. cit. 14, 44 ; 34, 111, autem opindbitw ; nulli igitu.r
where there is also the obser- rei adsentietivr. Carneades ad-
vation that this was the objeo mitted that the wise man some-
tion which caused Philo the times agreed, and therefore
most embarrassment. had an opinion. The Stoics and
Cic. I. o. 21, 67 8%. He thus
5
Antiochus deny this latter ; but
formulates the relation of Ar- they also deny that from agree-
"cesilaus,Carneades, and An- ment opinion necessarily fol-
ANTIOCHUS. 91
instead of
scepticalnescience. But he was not CHAP.
IV'
creative enough to produce an independent system ;
he therefore turned to the systems alreadyexisting,
not to follow any one of them exclusively, but to
adopt that which was true from all ; and as it was
the mutual contradiction of the philosophical

theories which appeared to give to scepticism its
greatest justification, Antiochus believed that he
could not better establish his own conviction than
by assertingthat this contradiction in some cases went of all
did not exist, and in others concerned only un-
essential points; that all the most important schools

of philosophy were in the main agreed, and only
differed from each other in words. He counted
himself, indeed, as belonging to the Academy ; he

desired to re-establish the Platonism which his pre-
decessors
since Arcesilaus had abandoned, and to
return from the new Academy to the old.1 But
this,in his opinion, did not exclude a simultaneous
alliance with Zeno and Aristotle. The Academic
and Peripateticdoctrines are, he says, one and the
same philosophybearing different names

form of ;
their diversitylies not in the fact but only in the
expression.2The same is the case with the Stoics :
they also adopted the Academic-Peripatetic philo-
l Cic.
lows ; for a man can distinguish Sup. 82, 2 ; Acad. i.
false and true, knowable and 12, 43 ; Fin. v. 3, 7 ; JBrut. 91,
unknowable. The ultimate 315 ; Augustine, "7.Aead. ii. 6,
question, therefore, is always 15 ; iii. 18, 41.
this : whether there is anything 2
Cic. Acad. i. 4, 17 ; 6, 22 ;
which lets itself be known ii. 5, 15 ; 44, 136 ; Fin. v. 3, 7 ;
with certainty, a Qavra"ia 5, 14 ; 8, 21 ; cl iv. 2, 5.
f sup. 87, 4; 88, 5).
.
ECLECTICISM.
*
CHAP. Sophy, and only changed the words : or, if it be
IV.
admitted" that Zeno introduced much that was new
in substance also,2this was of such a subordinate
kind, that the Stoic philosophy may, nevertheless,

be considered as an amended form of the philosophy
of the Academy, and not as a new system.3 Antio-
chus himself adopted so many Stoic doctrines that
Cicero says concerning him :
c
he desired, indeed,
to be called a member of the Academy, but was,
with the exception of a few points,a pure Stoic.' 4
Yet these points,as a review of his doctrine will
show, are of such importance that we can in truth
call him as little a Stoic as an Academician or patetic

Peri-
; and in spite of the affinity

of his mode of
thought with Stoicism, he must be considered an
Jlis eclec-
eclectic.
ticism.
Antiochus divided philosophyin the usual ner,
man-
5
into three parts ; that he did not ascribe the
same value to each of these is clear from the posi-
1 Cic. Acad. ii. 5, 15 ,* 6, 16 ; Of. Plut. Cic. 4. When Cicero

Fin. v. S, 22; 25,74; 29, 88; heard Antiochus. he had
already
N. JO. i. 7, 16 ; Legg. i. 20, 54 ; left the new Academy: rbv
Sext. Pyrrh. i. 235. 2rauVc")j'GK fj.eraftoh.'rjs
depaireiLKav
2 Acad. i. 9, 35 "%. Xojov eV roTs irK^liTTOLs. Sext.
3 Ibid. 1 2, 43 : Verum esse Pijrrli.i. 235 : 6 5Avr/o%oy rfyv
autem, a?'fiitro7',
ut AntiocJw ~
nostro famttiari placebat, cor- a?s real

rea zprja'"a.i
rectionem veteris Academic
potim qiittm aligruam viovam dis- August. C. Acad. iii.
dplinam pirtandam \_St 18, 41.
~
5 Cic. Acad. i. 5, 19 (cf. ii.

4
Acad. ii. 43, 132: Antio- 36, 116). That these two presentations
re-
efiiis,c[ui appellabatur Acade- reproduce the
vvieus, erat gid"em si perpaitca, views of Antiochus, Cicero pressly
ex-
mntavisset, germanissimus Sto- states, Acad. i. 4, 14;

ious ; or, as it is said in 45, 137, Mn. v. 3, 8.
Stoicus perpawa T}aibutien".
ANTIOCHUS. 83
tion lie assignedto them; placed ethics,as for he CHAP.

R
the most important division,first,
physics second, '
and logic third.1 He paid most attention to the

theory of knowledge and ethics.2 Ethics,especially,
is said by Cicero to have been in his opinion
the most essential part of philosophy.3 In his Hi* theory
theory of knowledge the principalthing is that
refutation of scepticism which we nave already
mentioned; for the rest he adhered, according to
Cicero,4strictly to the principlesof Chrysippus ; and

this is not contradicted by the fact that he also held
the Platonic theory; for he seems to have regarded
as the most essential element of the latter those
universal determinations in which Platonism agreed
not only with the Peripateticdoctrine,but also
with that of the Stoics: that all knowledge pro-
ceeded,
indeed, from sensible perception, but in
itself was an affair of the understanding.5The
1 So at least we find in Acad. qiiitur . . .

ant ipsitm Aristo-
i. 5 ###., not only in the enume- telem, . , .
? a Chrysippopedem
ration, but also,and repeatedly, niisguam. So, in c. 28-30, An-
in the exposition of the three tiochus is throughout opposed
divisions. on the
assumption that he re-
2
Antiochus, ap. Gic. Acad. cognises the dialectical rules of
ii. 9, 29, etenwi duo esse JKBG Chrysippus.
5
maxima in indicium
pJdlosop7iia,j Acad.i. 8, 30: Tertia deinde
I'eri etfinem "bonorum, "c. philosophiespars sic trac- . . .
3
Acad. i. 9, 34. tabatuv ab ittrisQiie
(Plato and
4 Acad. ii. 46, 142 : Plato Aristotle) ; quanguam oriretur
aidem omne judicium veritatis a sensibus tamen non esse judi-
veritatemgiie ipsam, dbductam cium veritatis in sensibus.
ab opinionibus et a sensibus, Mentem vulebant rerum esse
cogitationisipsiics et mentis judicem, "c. But the disciple

esse wluit* NumgiiiA horuni of Antiochns speaks in a pre-
probat noster Antioehus ? ille cisely similar manner of Zeno
vero ne majorum gitidemsnwwtm, (11 42). ,
ubi enim aut ênocraten se-

04 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, doctrine of ideas,on the other hand, he abandoned,1

IV.
_and thus, in his efforts for unity, it might well
appear to him at last that the Stoic theory of know-
ledge
was only an extension and closer definition of

the theoryof Plato and Aristotle.2 To what an tent
ex-
Aristotelian and Stoic definitions and sions

expres-
were mingled in his logic,we see in Cicero's
Topica^ supposing this really follows

account
Antiochus.4 In the same superficial

manner, Antio-
chus combines the Platonic metaphysics not only

with those of Aristotle,but also of the Stoics ; for
physics.
he, or Varro in his name,5 represents the supposed
identical doctrine of Plato and Aristotle as follows :
there are two natures, the active and the passive,

force and matter, but neither is ever without the
other. That which is compounded of both is called
a body quality.6 Among these qualitiesthe

or a
simple and the compound are to be distinguished ;
the former consistingof the four,or, according to

Aristotle,five,primitive bodies ; the latter,of all
the rest ; of the firstcategory,fire and air are the
active,earth and water the receptiveand passive.
Underlying them all,however, is the matter without
quality,which is their substratum, the imperishable,
1
Vide Acad. i. 8, 30, pared
com- as he himself remarks, he troduces
in-
with 9, 33 and sup. p. 93, 4. the word qualitas
2 Of. Acad. i. 11, 42 sq. newly into the Latin language
3
Vide sup. p. 86, 3. as a translation of the Greek
4 As "Wallies demonstrates he
7roi(Jr^s, must have found
thoroughly (De Font, Top. Cic. and
-JTOI^TTJS not iroibv,employed
23 "##.). by his predecessor. Qualities
5 Acad. i. 6, 24 sqq. were declared to be bodies by
6 Cicero expressly says, qiiali- the Stoics (cf PMl.
.
d. Gr. III. i.
tas ', and as on this occasion, 99, 111X
ANTIOCEUS. 95
but divisible elements, producingin

yet infinitely CHAP.
IV"
the constant change of its forms definite bodies
All
(qualict). these togetherform the world ; the
eternal reason which animates and moves the world
is called the Deity or Providence,also Necessity ;
and, because of the unsearchableness of its workings,
sometimes even Chance. To the man who could so
entirelymistake the fundamental doctrines of the older
systems, and mingle togetherearlier and later elements

in so arbitrary a manner, the oppositionof the
Stoic system to the system of Plato and Aristotle

could no longer appear speciallyimportant ; and so
in the work we have so often mentioned,1 it is only
said that Zeno discarded the fifth element of Aris-

totle
(aether),
and was likewise distinguishedfrom
the earlier philosopherin that he held bodies alone
to be real. How far even this one distinction tends,
ex-
the eclectic does not seem to suspect. He
expressly confounds mind with sense ;

2
and says
of Aristotle that he represents spiritsas consisting
of sether,for which Zeno substituted fire.3 We may
with certaintyassume that he did not enter into
specialphysics.
In regard to morals also, Antiochus remained
true to his eclectic character. He starts,like the
Stoics,from and the fundamental
self-love, impulse
of self-preservation
as the fundamental impulse of
human nature, and attains from this startingpoint
1 LOG. cit. 11, 39. smimfom est, atque etiam ipsa

2 Acad. ii. 10, 30, Lucullns sensus est, "c.
3
says : Mens enim i^satgw sen,- Acad. i. 7, 27; 11, 89.
96 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, the ground principleof the Stoics and Academics,

'
that of life accordingto nature.1 It is as much a
doctrine of the Stoics,however, as of the Academy

that that which is accordingto nature is determined
for each creature according to its own particular
nature, and that therefore the highestgood for man
is found in a life according to human nature, per-
fected
on all sides.2 But herein the point is already
Indicated at which our philosopherdiverges from
Stoicism. Whereas the Stoics had recognised only
the rational element in man as his true essence,
Antiochus says that sensuousness also belongs to fected
per-
human nature, that man consists of soul and
body,and though the goods of the noblest part have

the highestworth, those of the body are not on that
account worthless ; they are not merely to be desired
for the sake of another, but in and for themselves.3
The highestgood, therefore,accordingto him, consists
in the
perfection of human nature in regard to
soul and body, in the attainment of the highest
mental and bodily completeness; 4 or, according to

another representation,5 in the possession of all
mental, bodily, and external goods. These con-

stituents
of the highestgood are doubtless of un-
1
CIc. Fin. v. 9, 11. joorisper $e ipsum expetit qui
2
Vivere ex hominis n"ttira est maxime e natura. So also
undique perfeota et niMl re~ Varro, as will be shown later
qwvr"wbe (Cic.I. c. 9, 26). on.
3 4
Acad. i. 5, 19 ; 'Mn. v. 12, Fin. v. 13, 37 ; 16, 44 ; 17,"
34 ; 13, 38 ; 16, 44 ; 17,47. Beanty, 47.
health, strength, are desired s Acad.i. in the
5, 19, 21 ."?#,,
for themselves Quoniam enim
: description of the Academic-
natwa suis omnibus expleri Peripateticphilosophy
Jiunc statum cor-
ANTIOCHUS. 07
"equalworth : mental endowments have the highest CHAP.
value, and among these,moral endowments (volun- ______!___

tarice)have higher place than merely natural
a
gifts; l but although corporealgoods and evils have

only aslight influence on our well-being,it would
be wrong to deny all importance to them ;
2
and if
it be conceded to the Stoics that virtue for itself
alone suffices for happiness,

yet for the higheststage
of happiness other things are likewise necessary.3
Through these determinations,in which he agrees
with the old Academy,4 our philosopherhopes to
strike the true mean between the Peripateticschool

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

too little ; 6 but it is undeniable that his whole
expositionfails in exactness and

consistency.
The same observation appliesto other particulars.
If Aristotle had
given precedence to knowledge,and
Zeno to action,Antiochus placed the two ends side
by side, since both depend upon originalimpulses of
nature.7 If the Stoics had maintained the unity,
1
Fin. v. 13, 88; 21, 58, 60. tion) is recognised as an au-
2 Fin. v. 24, 72. thentic source of the Peripa-
3
Acad. i. 6, 22 : In ima tetic doctrine ; so that even
virtute esite positam. 'beatam. here in respect to the Academic
vitam, nee tamen "beati"wmam, school, Antiochus wishes his
nisi adjungerentnr corporis et innovations to be regarded
ft cetera, qucB supra, dicta simt merely as a resuscitation of
*ad virtutis iisum idonea (ii.43, the original doctrine of the
134 ; Fin. v. 27, 81 ; 24, 71). Academy.
G
4 Gf. Phil. d. 6V. ILL 881, 5. Fin. v. 24, 72.
5
Fin. v. 5, 12; 25, 75. 7
Fin. v. 21, 58: Actlonvm
Aristotle himself is thussepa- aictem getiera plura,, irt ol-
rated from his school, and scurentur etlam minora major-
beside him Theophrastus only ilust. Maxima* autem writ
(though with a certain limita- prtmuni consi
H
98 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. and tlie Peripatetics

the of virtue,Antiociius
plurality
IV.
_
declares that all virtues are inseparablyconnected
with one other,but that each of them presents itself
l he does
in an individual activity; not, however^
attempt, as Plato did, to give any deeper account
of their difference. If the Stoic schools were not
quite agreed whether or not community with other
men were a something to

good in the strict sense "
be desired in and for itself Antiochus here again "
seeks to mediate ; for while he most fullyacknow-

ledges
the value and necessityof this relation,2 he

makes a double distinction among things of value
in and for themselves : viz.,those which are directly
a constituent of the highest good (the endowments-
of the soul and the body),and those which are to be
v"rum ccelestiuvi,"c. Delude to the Peripateticschool. Of.

T"nvni yMiemwm adminis- PMl d.Gr.IIîi. 693; 851, 1; 865,
tratio vlrtvtes
vellqiiffiqiie and Arist. Mil. -ZV.viiLl,
1155, a,
. . .
et actiones mrtuti'bws Gonqru"n- 16 sqq,, where it is shown in the-

tes. Of. 18, 48 ; 20, 55 ; 23, 66. same way as by Antiochus that
1 Fin. v. 23, 66 s$. nature has implanted the love
~
3f\n. v. 23, 65 sqq. ; Acad. of parents to children (Â/a)
i. 5, 21. In both passages the and of members of the same
community of men with one race to each

other, Ka
another is treated as something- TOLS '66ev

avdpcairOLS, rovs
inherent in human nature ; and OpdirovscicaLvov/jiev, and it is

in the former it is shown how added : tSot. 5* "v ns Kal *v rcus-
the feeling for this, from its ws frvdpanro?

OIKGIOV
aTras
first appearance in family love, Kal

"pl\ov. The same
spreadsitself in an ever ing
widen- is developed (by Arius Didy-
circle and finallybecomes mus) in the account of the
universal love of mankind Peripatetic ethics, ap. Stob.
(caritas generis liAimani). This J2ol. ii. 250 "#., in a discussion
is essentially Stoic, and more which so distinctlyrecalls the
particularly in the spiritof the manner of Theophrastus that
later Stoicism; but the thought we may doubtless derive it
of a universal love of mankind, from this
Peripatetic,of whom
based upon the natural pendence
interde- something similar is observed,
of men, was not alien Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 851.
SCHOOL OF ANTIOCHUS. 09
desired as an object of activity: only in the

moral
latter class does he place friends, relations, and

fatherland.1 Like the Stoics,Antiochus would only
allow the wise to be regarded as rulers, as free,rich,
and noble ; like them he declares all the unwise to
be slaves, and mad; and demands from the wise
man a complete apathy ; 2

notwithstanding that he
thereby contradicted the doctrine of the older
Aeademy5 and had himself no right to such qualified

un-
statements, considering Ms own opinions

respecting highest good. But when
the we find
him violentlyopposing the closely connected position

pro-
of the equalityof all faults,3this trait may
likewise show us that he was not very scrupulous
about scientific consistency.
Consistency, however, was not the quality on
,.,., ,. "".", -T i i j j
"
AntwcJvus*
,
which the success of a philosopher at that time
chiefly depended. Among the contemporaries of
Antiochus in the Academy, who are mentioned to
only the elder seem to have held to the doctrine

us?
of Carneades ;
4
among the younger generation,on
1 Mn. v. 23, 68 : Itafit ut duo t of Tyre, who

u s is known to us
(Acad* through. Cicero ii. 4,

genera propter se expetendorvni
reperiawtwr, unum, giiod est in 11 *#.) as a disciple of long
iis, in quibus comyletur illud standing of Clitomachus and
etvtremum, cû(s sunt aut animi Philo, and a distinguished re-

aut corporis: hcee avtem, %uce presentative of the new Aca-
swt eaitrinsecus ict amid, demy ; for the Academy is cer-

. .
.
tainly meant by the pfoilosopMo,,

utparentest ut Uteri, ut propin-
dimissa
qui, lit ipso, patria, swot ilia qua nunc grope revoca-
quidem swz sjponte eara, sed tur, as will be immediately

eodem in ilia, non shown. Through a misunder-
genere, quo
standing of
expression, the
sunt, "c.
2
Acad. ii. 44, 135 ^Zumpt (JJeb"rcLenBestand der
sq.
3 IHd. 43, 135 sq. Phil* SGML in Athen.} Abh. d.
4 This is true of Heraclei- fieri. AJtad. 3842; H-isrt.PMlol.
100 ECLECTICISM.
the contrary,1Anti.och.us successful,that,

was so
accordingto the testimony of Cicero,the doctrine
Kl. 67 sg.)has "been misled into besides his brother.

consideringthe discipleof
tomachus
same
in
and Philo
person
the
He
of whom
2nd.
as
it
a
is perhaps the
is
patetic. moral
Peri-
said
Here.
the
Acad.
same
sophers
character
Cli-
(Brut. 2) places his
higher than his
"%is tv\6yoi$.Also Dio, doubt-
who
less
(according
33, 4, to
Plutarch
Strabo, xvii. 1, 11, p. 796 ;

that he was seventy years old. Cic. Pro Coel. 10, 23; 21, 51)
Among the Romans who pied
occu- perished as a member of an
themselves with Oreek Alexandrian embassy to Rome

philosophy,0. Gotta is tioned
men- in 56 B.C., and is the person
(who was consul in 76 mentioned by Plutarch as the
B.C.) by Cicero (IV.D. i. 7, 16 author of table conversations
$".)as an acquaintance of An- (Plut.Qu. Com.
tiochus, Pro. 3). Also,
but a disciple and according to the Ind. Here. 34,
adherent of Philo. He cises
criti- 6 sgg. (where by avrov any other
the
Epicurean (I. o. i. 2J philosopherthan can Antiochus
"#".)and (iii.1 sgg.") the Stoic scarcely be intended), Apol-
theology from the standpoint las, of Sardis; Menecrates,
of the new Academy. As of Methyma j and M n a s e a s ,
hearers of Philo, Cicero also of Tyre. Concerning Aristo

{Aead. ii. 4, 11) mentions and Cratippus, who went
Publius, Caius Selius, and over to the Peripatetic school,
Tetrilius Bogus. Diodo- vide infra , p. 121, 2. Aristus
rus, a partisan of Mithridates, seems to have been followed by
is also mentioned in this period, Theopompus, whom Brutus
who held to the Academic school heard in Athens (Plut. Brut.
(Strabo,xiii. 1, 66, p. 614) ; but 24) in 44 B.C., and who is tioned
men-
he can scarcely be counted by Philostratus (v.
among the
philosophers. i.
$0jp7i. 6). At the same date
1 Pre-eminent among their there lived in Alexandria at the
number isAristus, the brother court of Ptolemy XII. sus)
(Diony-
of Antiochus, who succeeded Demetrius (Lucian, De
him in his position of instruc-
tor Calwim. 16), of whom we
at Athens (Cic. Brut. 97, know, however, no further
tiling ;
332 ; Acad.
ii. 4, 12 ; i. 3, 12 ; but, at any rate, he was a
Tusc. v. 8, 21 ; Plut. Britt. 2 ; worthier member of the school
2nd. Here. 34, 2 sq. In 51 B.C. than the Philostratus tioned
men-
Cicero (ad Att. v. 10 ; Tusc. v. by Plutarch (Anton. 80).
8,22) met him there, and scribes
de- Among the Bomans, besides
him as the only man Cicero, Varro, of whom we
who formed an exception to shall have to speak more par-
ticularly
the generally unsatisfactory later on, was also
state of philosophyin Athens. a disciple of Antiochus. M.
According to the Tnd. Here., Brutus had been instructed
lie had heard many other philo- by Aristus (Cic.Brut. 97, 332 ;
SCHOOL OF ANTIOCHUS. 101
of the new Academy was in Ms time almost entirely CHAP.

IT.
abandoned.1 JSnesidenms says the same thing; and
Acad. i. 3, 12 ; Fin. v. 3, 8 ; to which he was notlivingwhen
Tusc. v. 8, 21), whom lie sembled
re- Cicero wrote De Finibus).
both personallyand in 1
In Acad. ii. 4, 11, Cicero
his opinions. Cicero (Acad. I.c. ; mentions, as we have observed,
ad Att.. xiii. 25) classes him as Heracleitus the Tynan : Homo
a follower of Antiochus with sane in ista, -pltilowpltia*
qua*
Yarro, and in Par ad. Pro. 2, nunc jyrope dlmlssa revocatur,
with himself. In Brut. 31, 120 ; prolattiset woHlis. That this
40, 149, he enumerates him philosophy can only mean the
with the followers of the old new Academy, is clear from the
Academy, and (Tusc. I. c.}puts context. For when a disciple
a proposition of Antiochus into of Clitomaclras and Philo is
his month. Plutarch also (I.c., mentioned, we can but conclude
cf. DiOi 1) says that he was that the philosophy in which
indeed well acquainted with he distinguished himself was
all the Greek philosophers,but the philosophy of these
men;
was himself an admirer of An-
tiochusand Cicero says expressly that
and an adherent of the Heracleitus opposed Antiochus,
old Academy, as opposed to the the rival of the Academy (of
later and new Academy. His Carneades, "c.),dispassionately
talent and knowledge are indeed, but zealously. The new
praised by Cicero (ad Att. xiv. Academy, therefore, which in

20 ; ad I)h\ ix. 14 ; Brut. 6, Cicero's time had been almost
22 ; Fin. iii. 2, 6 ; his writings universally abandoned, was by
in Acad. i. 3, 12 ; Tusc. v. 1, 1 : him revived. Cicero says the
Fin. i. 3, 8 ; vide also,in regard same thing most distinctly,
to his writings, Sen. Consol. ad _T. D. i. o, 11 : JVec Tero deser-
Heh\ 9, 4 ; Mp. 95, 45 ; Quintil. tawnn relict arum giie rerum pa-
x. 1, 123 ; Charisius, p. 83 ; troehiium smcepimiis (through
Priscian, vi. p. 679 ; Diomed. the defence of the doctrine
p. 378. On the preceding,vide of the new Academy) ; non enini
Krische, Gott. St.ud.ii. 163 sq$.) Itom i n urn mteritu sent entice-
M. Pi so also heard Antiochus qiiocpie occidunt, sed lucem, awc-
with Cicero
(according to Cic. toris fortasse denderant^ lit IICKG
Fin. v. acknowledged
sg?([.}"
1 in pliilosopliia-
ratio contra owi~
himself his disciple(I.c. 3, $#.),

7 nia dmer"ndi nullamque rem
and expounded his ethical prin-
ciples aperte judicandi grofecta, a-
(c.4-25), bnt in such a Socrate, repeMta "b Arcesila,
manner that he still wished to confirmat a a Carneade mgue ad
retain his loyaltyto the patetic ywstram
Peri- "tatem
trigitit ; gitam
school into which his nunc yrope orbam esse in ipsa"
housemate Staseas, of Naples, Acedia, intelligo. If these dences
evi-
had introduced him (I.c. 3, 8 ; are considered to be proved
dis-
25, 75; De Orat. i. 22, 104). by the saying of tine,
Augus-
Cf. ad Att. xiii. 19 (according C. Acad. iii. 18, 41 vide-
102 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. with these testimonies everything that we know

IV.
regardingthe tendency of the Academic school l
until
nearly the end of the first century coincides. Our
knowledge of this school at that time is certainly

very incomplete,2 but that the eclecticism of Antio-
chus still maintained itself there,is plain from the
supra, p. 79, 2), according to cannot be definitelyfixed, but

which Cicero would only have who seems to have lived earlier
had to finish suppressing the than Thrasyllus, we find from
raUquia of the false doctrines Albinus, Introd. in Plat. 4 ;
of Antiochus opposed by Hiilo. Procl. in Tim. 7, B. ; Porph.
This is to ascribe
an importance ap. Simpl. Phys. 54, ", ; 56,
to Augustinian
the phrase 5, that he had composed a
which clearlydoes not belong great work on the Platonic

to it,since it is plain that the philosophy, from which perhaps
notion of Cicero's refuting the the extensive astronomical ment
frag-
eclecticism of Antiochus is false. in Theo Smyrn. Astron.
1
Ap. Phot. Cod. 212, p. 170, c. 40 8Q., and the smaller excerpt
14 : of 8s a7r" TTJS 'A/ca$7ftu.fas,
in Proclus in Plat. Hemp.
ra rrjs vvv, KCU 2rwi- (quoted from. A. Mai, Class.
"(f"cus,Aiiot. i. 362, by Martin on Theo,
ai ez/iore
ra\-r]des elieeiv,Sreol- p. 74) are taken. Thrasyllus

KOL tyaivovTai 'Srca'CKo'ts, became
fj.a%6fj.evoi acquainted in Rhodes,
Cicero and others judged in a perhaps his native city, with
similar manner of Antiochus; Tiberius, to whom he succeeded
ride supra, p. 92, 4. in making himself sable
indispen-
2 Of the heads of the Athe-
nian as an astrologer(what is
school we know none related,however, as to the proofs
between Theomnestus (vide of his art in Tacit. Ann. vi. 20;
mi-pro) and Ammonius, the Sueton, Ti7)er. 14; and, still
teacher of Plutarch
more, in Dio Cass. Iv. 11 ; Iviii.
; of other
members sides 27, is embellished
of the
be- Academy, with fables).
Eudorus, Nestor of Tar-
sus He then lived, from the last
(Strabo, xiv. 5, 14, p. 675, years of Augustus (Sueton. Aug.
expressly distinguishes this 98 ; Dio Cass.lvii. 15), in Rome,
Nestor from the previously- and died
a year before Tiberius,
mentioned Stoic of, the same 36 (Dio, Iviii. 27). He is
A.D.
name " vide supra,, p. 54 : the chiefly known to us through

former, according to him, was his division of the Platonic logues
dia-
the teacher of Marcellus, son into tetralogies {vide
of Octavia) and the Tubero Phil. d. Or. II. i. 428). He is
spoken of in PMl. d. 6V. III., mentioned as a Platonist with
ii. 7, 5, only Dercyllides Pythagorean tendencies by phyry,
Por-
and Thrasyllus. Even of Plot. 20. But as both
these we are told very little. Thrasyllus and Dercyllides
Of Dercyllides, whose date seem to have been gramma-
EUDORUS. 108
example of Eudorus,1 a philosopherof Alexandria,2 CHAP.
and a contemporary of the Emperor Augustus.3 '
This philosopheris denominated a member of
the Academy,4 but he had expounded the works of "f
Aristotle,5
as well as those of Plato,6and had coursed
dis-
lengthon the Pythagoreandoctrine,which

at
he apprehended in the sense of the later Platonising
Pythagorism.7 This many-sided occupation with

xians rather than ap.) Stob. Z.
phers,
philoso- 4
(Ar. Did.
it may here suffice
7AK"âv^p"0 to rov
refer, in regard to Thrasyllus, JJ.LKOV "pi\off6"pov. Simp. ScJwl.

to K. F. Hermann, De TJtrasyUo in Arist. 63, a, 43 ; Achil. Tat.
(Ind. Schol. Getting. 1852); Isag. ii. 6 (in Petav. Doctr.
Miiller, Fragm. JHist. GT. iii. Temj).Hi. 96 ; Endorus is also
501 ; Martin on Tlieo. Astron. quoted in Isag. i. 2, 13, p. 74,
p. 69 sq. ; and in regard to 79).
Dercyllides to the work last 5
His commentary on the
mentioned, p. 72 sqq, Categories is often quoted in
1
Concerning Eudorus, vide that of SimpUcius (cf.Schol. in
vii.
Eoper, Pliilologus, 534 sq. ; Arist. 61, a, 25 sqq. ; 63, ", 43 ;
Diels, Doicogr. 22, 81 sq. et 66, ", 18 ; 70, ", 26 ; 71, Z",22 ;
73, I, 18 ; 74, ", 2, and Cat. ed.
2 Stob. Eel. ii. 46. Tide in- Basil. 44, e. 65, e). That he also
,Jra,p. 104,1. expounded the Metaphysics
3 The date of his life cannot does not certainly follow from
be determined with
accuracy. Alex. 3Ifftaph.44, 23; Son.
Strabo (xvii.i. 5, p. 790) de-scribes
Schol. 552, b, 29.
him as his contemporary.
"
Pint. De A}). Procr. 3, 2;
Brandis ( TJeber die Grieali. Au$- 16, 1, p. 1013, 1019 "q., seems
legerdes Aristot. Organons,AbJi. also to refer to a commentary

derS"fl. Acad. 1833 ; Hist. Phil on the Timtsm.
XI. p. 275) infers that he was
7 In the fragment quoted in
earlier than the Ehodian An- PHI, d. Gr. I. 331, 4, from Simpl.
"
dronicus, from the manner in Pliys.39, a, not only are the
which Simplicitis{Scltol.in two Platonic principles,the
Arist. 61, a, 26 ; 73, ", 18) com-
pares One and Matter, attributed to
him with AndronicnSj and the Pythagoreans, but these
the latter passage, at any rate, principles are themselves ferred
re-
seems to me conclusive. If,on (in agreement with the

the other hand, Stob. Eel. ii. Neo-Pythagoreans, cf iMd. .
HJ.
46 sqq. is taken from Arins ii. 113 "".) to the One or the
Bidymus (on this subject,ride Deity as their uniform basis.
infra), he must have written The same theory, however, is
before him. ascribed by Eudorus even to
104 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. the older and

philosophers, his digest of
especially
IV.
the Aristotelian would
categories, at once lead us
to suppose that the Platonism of Eudorus was not
entirelypure ; and this is confirmed by the ments

state-
of Stobseus concerning an work

encyclopaedic
of his,in which we are told he treated the whole of
science problematically
: i.e.he gave a summary of
the questions with which the different parts of
philosophyare concerned, and compared the answers

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

to us from this work, the classification and logy
termino-
2 and doubt
is rather Stoic than Platonic ; no
Plato, when, according to Alex. concerning the question el TTOLV

(uLMetaphA. 6, 988, a, 10),after rb KaXbv Si' aurb atperbv.These
the words ra yap efttyrov ri extracts also, as far as p. 88,
ecrrtv ctfna rois a\\oi$, ro?s S* are no doubt borrowed from
efSecri rb ev, he added KO! rp vXy. Eudorus by Arius Didymus
On this theory, in agreement whom Stobseus is here scribing.
tran-
with the Stoic monism (on
3
Having divided the whole
138, 145 $#.) though without of philosophy into ethics,phy-
sics,
its materialistic interpretation, and logic, Eudorus tinguishes
dis-
even the vXy must have sprung three parts in ethics :
from the Deity or the primal One. irepl
rr/v Qzcapiav
rrjs /ca0' GKOLcfrov
1
Eel. ii. 46 : frriv odv Ei^-
pov rov
"$"iXoff6$ov
Siaipetfis
rov Kara riit6v).The first of these
\6yov, parts then falls into two tions:
sec-
ev (j"
Tracrav (1) the ends of life,and
rty
irpofi\ii{J.artK(os (2) the means for their ment,
attain-
The above explanation of this and each of these into a
expression results from

p. 54 number of subdivisions among-
""""" w^1"re the author, after which we find the truly Stoical
he has given Eudorus' division titles ire pi rQv
vpo'riyovfji.Gvwj',
of ethics, continues, apKreov irepl epcaros, Trepl ffvjj.iroo'i"v-
3e rtav and then
"7r/"o#A'fyuctra"j", (cf PMl. d. Gr. HI. i. 260 sq. ;
.
gives the views of the ous

vari- 241, 1 ; 273, 7 ; 283, 2). Even
philosophers " first concern-
ing the doctrine of virtue, one of
the TeAos, then ing
concern- the sections of the second
goods and evils, lastly division (for this must be-
EUDORUS. 105
it was the same with the details of Ms ethics,1so CHAP.

IY.
that Endoras in this respect entirelyfollowed the
precedent of Antiochus. That he did not confine

himself to ethics appears from what has been already
quoted, and from certain other indications.2
How widely spread,in the second half of the last
divided by the words, p. 50, be taken from Eudorus, cially

espe-
rb fj.ev ear i vepl rcav apeT"v, "C., from p. 60 : tbroreAis 8'
before whicli ov or roiirov 5e ecFTi T"5
trp"TQjsOLKG'IQV rov (j/j"ov
may probably have been lost) Trades,a"p'ov KaT'fjpâro crvvaiff-
primarily indicates the Stoic Qa.vearQa.1 TO fapovTTJS

view, though among the four aurou, ovTrca Ao-ytK^v aAA.J
cardinal virtues, (ppovyo-istakes
%.\oyov,Kara s Kal robs
the place of the Platonic crocfu'a.
ff-rrepfjLarLKovs Xoyovs: y"i/6~ .
The second main division of fj.evav yap r" ""jiov t$K i nvl
ethics treats partly of the 6pfj.7] TrdvrcasevQvs l|apxys (Phil.d. Gr.
generally and partly of the III. i. 208 "#.)" How B^dorus
xa077, which are defined quite was allied with Antiochus in this
in the Stoic manner, into ^pfrJ?is shown by a comparison of
irAeoz/a^bvtra
and appcaffr^fjia. the words immediately follow-
ing
The third main division is "7T6peffrly wrorcAls, Keirai 8'
separated by means of ordinateev

sub- TIVI rpicav* fyyap ev Tjfiovrj
rcoy $
classes into eight sv aoy^kficria.
fyei/ rots vptarois Kara
TOVOL : 'jrapajJLvdirj'TiKbs,
nra0oA0- fpvcnv}with what Cicero, JFYw. v.
s, ireplacr/d?crews, ire pi Kadij- 6, 16 (vide iUd. III. i. 518. 1),
"av, irepl Karopdafidraiv, irepl quotes from Antiochus.
rcav, ireplfticav,Treplydfj.ov. 2 According to Strabo, xvii.
How closely this whole classifi-
cation 1, 5, 790, ludorus and Aristo
resembles that of the the Peripatetic mutually accused
Stoics will be seen from Phil, d, each other of plagiarism

Gr. HE. i. 206 sq. Bucloras is so in regard to a treatise on the
completely in agreement with Nile (Strabo will not decide who
what is there quoted from Sen. is in the right,but he says that
JBfp.84, 14, and the commence-
ment the language of the treatise is
especiallyof Ms classifi-
cation more like Aristo's).AchiL Tat.
quoted by Stobseus Isag. 96 (169), mentions that
bears such strikingresemblance Eudorus, agreeing with Panse-
to the passage of Seneca, that tius, believed the torrid zone
either Seneca must have lowed
fol- to be inhabited, and the same-
Eudorus, or both must writer (as Diels shows, Doxogr-
have followed some common, 22) quotes something further,
and in that case Stoic,source. taken by Eudorus from Dio-
1
This is clear from the next dorus the mathematician, and
section of Stobseus, which, as from Diodorus bv Posidonius.
before observed, seems also to
106 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. century before Christ,was this eclecticism of which,

IV.
as we have seen, Antiochus was the foremost sentative,
repre-
Ii. Arius the of Arius
is also clear from example
Didym m*
Didymus.1 For though this philosopheris reckoned

with the Stoic school,2his views approximate so
1
He is no doubt the same Didymus this does not justify
"ApeTos of Alexandria who is us with Heine
in distinguishing
known to us (from Plut. (Jalirl. f. Class. Phil. 1869,
Anton. 80 sq. ; Reg. Apoplith. 613) the friend of Augustus
Aug. 3, 5, p. 207; Prcec. from Arius Didymus the Stoic.
Ger. Reip. 18, 3, p. 814 ; It is rather an instance of that
Sen. Consol.
M"rc. 4 sq. ; ad which Diels, Doxogr. 86, asserts,
Sueton. 89 ; Dio Oass.
Octav. and of which he adduces many
Ii. 16, lii.36 ; Êlian. V. 3. xii. examples in this period,that the
25; M. AureljViii.31 ; Themist. same man is designated some-
times
Or. 130, ", Pet. ; Julian, 23j".
2. by his own name, times
some-
51, p. 96, Heyl. ; cf. Or. viii. by the addition of his

265, C ; Strabo, xiv. 5, 4, p. father's,to distinguishhim from
670) as a teacher of philosophy, others bearing the same name,
a confidant of Augustus and and sometimes by both names
friend of Maecenas. He was together: e.g. the well-known
so highly esteemed by Augustus Ehodian rhetorician Apollonius
that, as we read
in Plutarch, is sometimes called 'A-TroAAdmos
Dio, and Julian, he declared "5 MoAwj/os, sometimes 'ATTOAA.CC$-
to the people of Alexandria, by Ms VLOS 6 Wi6\caj/ "
and even
after the capture of that
place, discipleCicero, Apollonius (Cic.
that he pardoned them for the ad Att. ii.1 ; Brut. 89, 307 ; 91,
sake of their founder Alexander, 316) ; Molo (De Or at. i. 17, 75 ;
their beautiful city,and their 28, 126 ; De. Invent, i. 56) ; and
fellow citizen Arius. From a the Stoic Musonius Rufus is
consolatory epistleof Arius to called by Epictetus, Rufus only,
Li via,after the death of Drusus and by others, as a rule, Mu-
sonius
(9 B.C.), whom Arius must only {ride infra, ch. vi.).
have survived, Seneca, I. "?., As in the case of Arius times
some-
quotes a considerable fragment. the name and sometimes

It is true that in none of these the surname stands first,we
passages is Arius called mus,
Didy- cannot be certain whether
while on the other hand "ApeLOS or Ai8v[j,oswas the
none of the authors who have original name of this philo-
sopher
transmitted to us fragments ; but Diels, 1. c.3 seems
from AiSv/Aosor "Apsios

AiSvpos, to show that the latter is the
describe him as an Alexandrian more probable.
or a friend of Augustus. But 2 The Epit. Diog. (vide PMl.
as none of these authors had d. 6V, III. i. 33, 2) mentions
any occasion to enter into the Arius between Antipater (the
personalcircumstances of Arius Tyrian, concerning whom vide
ARIUS DIDTMVS. 107
closelyto those of Antiochus that we should be CHAP.

IV'
tempted to consider him his if there
disciple,1 were
_
notexpress testimony as to his Stoicism. We are
only acquainted, indeed, with historical expositions

of his,of the older doctrines,probablytaken from
one and the same work ;

2
but among these there is
sujyra, p. 71, n.) and Comutns, which is quoted anonymously

the contemporary of Xero.
myself shared this opinion row TlXdrcavi (rvvrera.'yfLfV^v^)
1 I bv
(supported by the Mpit. ZHoff.) Eusebius, I. c. xi. 23, 2 sg. ; and by
in the second edition of the Stobseus,Eel. i. 330. Likewise
present volume: and in con-
nection (4) the remarks on two maxims
with it the supposition of the seven sages quoted by
that in the notice of Suidas, Clemens, Strom, i. 800, B, from
AiSujuos'Ai-fjios(^ "ATTZOS)XP7!" Bidymus ; and (5) a statement
jjiaricras "piX6aro"pos 'A/caS^/taZkbs, respecting Theano, I. c. 309, C,
the word 'A-rtji'oshad been sub-
stitutedfrom AidvfioseV r"pirepl TlvBayo-
for vAp"ios. I must pLK?is"ptXo"ro"j)las. Lastly (6) a
now abandon that theory. The passage is quoted in Btob.Moril.
Atejus Didynms who wrote two 103,28 (e/cT^?AiStfioveViTOft^s),
books iriQavSiv KO! "ro"f"iaij.dTcev
concerning the Peripatetic doc-
trine
this passage,
of evdaifjLovta "
more probably be the double of however, is found, as Meineke

the Alexandrine grammarian discovered (MiitzelTs Zeitsokr.
veos, afterwards
AiSvfjLos quoted, fur cL 6ri("inasialm.lS5y, p. 563
'to whom also viBava are sgd-J in the exposition of the
ascribed ; but this too is quite Peripateticethics,ap Stob. Eel.
uncertain. ii. 274 ; and
,s-#. thus it is shown
-
A number of fragments that not only this whole section
from this work are quoted (from p. 242-334), but also the
under its name and that of its corresponding section on the
.author. Such are the ing
follow- Stoic doctrine, p. 90-242, is
:
"
(1) An exposition of the borrowed from the epitome of
Stoic theories of God and the Arras. From the same source
world, cbrb TT)S emrofiris 'Apeiov Stobseus has probably taken

Afitfjiov(ap Eus. Pr. Er. xv. also the four preceding sections
15). (2) The Stoic psychology', of the same (sixth) chapter,
from the 'Ap"touAiStiftou,beginning
sTri.rojj.fy at p. 32. We fore
there-
Hid. c. 20, chap, xviii. $q., cerning
con- possess very considerable
the conflagration and fragments from the work of
renewal of the world, seems to our philosopher, which show
be taken from the same source. that it contained a sive
comprehen-
"3) To the same treatise no survey of the doctrines of
doubt belongs the account of all the earlier philosophers.
the Platonic doctrine of ideas The proved or supposed frag-
108 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. a review of the ethics,which

Peripatetic approaches
IV.
so nearly to the ethics of the Stoics,and so entirely
agrees with opinionsof Antiochns as represented
the
by Cicero,that it is scarcelypossible to mistake its

ultimate source ;
l
and though the work is ostensibly
ments of this treatise relating d. Gr. HI. i. 258, 3). Like chus,
Antio-
to physics have bean, collected he then seeks to show that
by Diels, Doxogr. ^45-472, with from this point of view belong-

some limitations of Meineke's ings,f riends ,countrymen,human
conjectures. The same writer society generally, are to be desired
treats of Arms and his works, for themselves ; also praise
1. c. p. 69-88. and glory, health, strength,
1 As Antioclms, in his count
ac- beauty, corporeal advantages of
of the Peripateticethics all kinds : only the goods of
(which for him coincided with the soul are incomparably more
those of the Academy), pursued valuable than all others (p. 246-
the double end of defending 264). His discussion of the
the Platonic-Aristotelian trine
doc- natural love of all men for each
against the attacks of the other (already mentioned) pecially
es-
Stoics, and of combining it with reminds us of

his decessors
pre-
the Stoic doctrine (vide supra, in the Academy. Like
sg$.),so do we find with Antiochus (vide sitflra, p. 97,
p. 95
Arius. Like Antiochus, he takes 1), he classes the iroXiriKal Kal.
as his basis the commonly cognised KOWcaviKal
re- and the 6"api]TiKal
demand of life accord-
ing irpdîs together as equally origi-nal
to nature, and this in its problems (p. 264 sg.); like
Stoic acceptation. The ^VO-LK^ him, he distinguishestwo kinds
oLKetaxris is the point of view of goods those which are to be "
according to which it is decided considered as constituents ("ru^c-

what is a good, a Si' atirb atperbv TrXypariKa) of happiness, and
(of the atperbvitself a definition such as only contribute some-thing
is given, p. 272, corresponding to 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,,
instinct of self-preservationis reckon under the first,but the
acknowledged as the mental
funda- second class: '6n TJ fj.ev
impulse : ty-bcrei yap
irpbssavrbv (Stob. 246
qucei"ffdaL "ru^7T"7rX^/3curai
"eew:r (p. 266 S$. ;
sq. ; 252, 258; cf what .
is quoted, cf p. 274
.
for the distinction tween
be-
Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 209, 1, about Ka\a and avcry/ccua, the
the Stoics, and, supra", p. 95 /jLepr]"v$aifjioviasand "v OVK tfivev*)
j
sqq., about Antiochus); the KaOrj- he opposes, like Aristotle,the
Kovra (this conception also is theory that the virtuous man is
Stoic) are reduced' to the "K\oyt) happy even in the extremity of
r"v Kara Qvcrtv and the airenXoy^
suffering;also the Stoic position
pro-
Tiav irapa "pv"nv (p.250 ; cf .
Phil. concerning the
POTATO. 109
and chieflya mere reproduction of the Peripatetic CHAP.
still it
"doctrine, is clear that Anns could not have
brought that doctrine so near to that of the Stoics,,

"or adopted an older expositionwhich, did so (thatof
Antiochus),1 if the distinctive doctrines of the dif-
ferent
schools had had the same importance for him
as for the ancient Stoic if he

authorities, had not
shared the mode of thought

inspiredthe which
expositionof Antiochus, and had not been disposed,

like Antiochus, to disregard
the opposition of Stoics,
Academics, and Peripatetics, as compared "with their

common conviction.2
With Anus and Antiochus we must connect m. p0ta-
mo'
Potamo of Alexandria, who, accordingto Suidas,was
neia sibility /CQTTJ]. In Ms (Economics

virtue, and the impos-
of and
of losing it; and the Politics he keeps entirely to
statement that there is nothing Aristotle,only that he calls the
intermediate between ness
happi- third of the right constitutions
and
nnhappiness (p. 282 ; not Polity,but Democracy, and
cf.'p. 314) ; thus showing him-
self its defective counterpart Ochlo-
cracy,
in these particularsless and introduces,beside the
.strictthan (sup.p. 97, rightand wrong forms of govern-
Antiochus ment
3). On the handother (p. (p. 330), the mixed forms
566), the Stoic doctrine of the compounded from the three
efaoyos c"yu'y})(PMLd.Gr. HI. first (those of Dicasarchus, cussed
dis-
I. 305 *0.) is also forced upon in PMl. d. Gr. II. ii. 892).
the Peripatetics1 For the trine
doc- 1
Their common use of this
of virtue, Arlus makes use philosopher may perhaps plain
ex-
especiallyof Theophrastus (jride why Cicero and Arius

ibid. Il/ii.860, 1) as well as Didymus, in expounding the
Aristotle; and the
disciple of ethics of the Stoics,use the very
Antiochus (Cic.Fin*v. 5) quotes same words (cf.ibid, HI. i. 226,
only from these two sophers
philo- 6 ; 227, 4; 232, 2).
(siijjra, 97, 5) ; but in -
He seems at times entirely
expounding the doctrine (p.314 ) to forget that he is merely giv-
ing
he uses the Stoic distinction of an account of the doctrines
the and
KofiiiKQVTCL KaropBcajmara of others, for he passes from direct
in-
(III. i. 264 an^

""?#.)" imports to direct narration (cf rib.
.
into it (p. 280) the Stoic Tpo- III. i. pp. 256, 270, 276, 322).
110 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP.
IV.
a contemporary of Arius,1while Diogenes Laertius
speaksas though,lie had lived not long before his-
own time, therefore towards the end of the second
Christian century;2 perhaps, however, he may be
here merely transcribingthe statement of an older
writer.3 That which his predecessorshad actually

attempted, the settingup of a system which should
combine in itselfthe true out of all the philosophical
schools of the time, Potamo also avowed as his express
design ; for he designatedhis school as eclectic ; 4

and the little we know of his doctrine certainly
shows that he had not chosen this name without
cause; for it apparentlycombines, regardlessof
Said. #iib. voee : or to reconcile them, and to

discover something more about
Trpb Avyovffrov real fter' avr"v the life and circumstances of
(probably /car1 avr'bv is here to Potamo, cf. Fabric. Bibl. 6V.
be read). iii.184 sgi.Harl. ; Brucker, Hist.
2 PTOcem. 21: en 8e irpb C?-it.PMLii.
193 sqq. ; J. Simon,
oXtyov Kal tKXGKTLK'f]ri$ JFIistoire de
a'lpecfts VJEoole d'Alexan-
eifffixQy fab noTctjU-covos-
rov 'AAc"- drie, i. 199 sqq. In these tnere
avtipews$KX"%a(j.4vov TO. apecr/covra is also a review of the other

e| "/cacTT7]S T"V atpeffsuv.(The men of this name known to us "
same, but with the omission of the rhetorician

Potamo, My- of
the expression still more suitable
un- tilene,who, accordingto Suidas,,
to Mm, Kpb ohiyov, is sub. wee (cf. "eJ5. r"x5. and
found in S. II.
Suidas, a'ipecfLS, Atff"dbvaZ,where the rhetorician
48 B.). is called ""iA(4cro""os),
taught
This theory, advanced
3 by under Tiberius in Rome; and
Nietzsche (RJiewi. Mus. xxiv. Potarno, the ward of Plotinus
Qnellmli.(I, (Porph. v. Plot. 9), whom, ever,
how-
205 sg.; JBeitr. ".
Diogenes Jj"ertws, 9), and vocated

ad- the new editions call
among others by Diels Polemo. There is also the
(Doxogr. 81, 4), ascribes to Potamo from whom some-
Diogenes greatwant of thought, mathematical observations are
but not, on the whole, more quoted, according to Alexander,

than might be expected in in Simpl. D" Ccelo, 270, a, 42 ;
him. Concerning the different 289, a, 23 K ; Sclwl. in AT. 513,.
attempts to decide between the i, 8 ; 515, a, 42.
accounts of Diogenes anciSuidas, 4
Vide precedingnote.
POTAMO. Ill
Platonic ]
logical consistency, and Peripatetic ele- CHAP.
ments with an essentially Stoic foundation. In the L_

_
question of the criterion, he allied himself with the
Stoics, only that, instead of the c

intellectual notion,'
he substituted a form of expression, the
vaguer
'most accurate notion.' In his metaphysics he
added quality and to substance and efficient

space
force as the highest principles that he reduced, like

;
the Stoics, efficient force itself to substance is not
stated. The highest good, he thought, consisted in
the perfection of the life, the most essential dition

con-
of which lay in virtue, for which, however, in
agreement with Aristotle and the older Academy, poreal

cor-
and external goods were found indispensable.2

Scarcely original thoughts are to be found in
any
this superficial combination and modification of
older doctrines and so the c Eclectic school,' except

;
for the one mention of it by Diogenes and his
Byzantine followers, has left no further trace in
history.
1
According1 to Snidas, he fyavracriav. ap^cis re TUSV
wrote a treatise on the Platonic rfo re %XT]V Kal rb TTOLOVV,

iroi6-
Repnblic. TTJTO -re

KO! T6irov e" o" yap
Kal
2
sAp""r/cei S' (continues ""' Kal Kal ev "y. reAos
avry ov iroiep
Diog". 1. "?.)" KaOd 5e elvai l^"* ^ irdvra

(j"i](nv ev a"rot-
.
,
etvai rb fikv "$ yiveTai ^ "VGV arâros Kal rS"v

v"p ov OVK rcav TOV
Kpicris, TOUT6CTTI r"b TjyefjiQviKbVy i-b "Kr6s.
Se "s 8? ov,
olov r
112 ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTER V.
THE PERIPATETIC SCHOOL IN THE FIRST CENTURY
BEFORE CHRIST.
CHA P.
SIMULTANEOUSLY with the tendency which was troduced
in-
V.
into the Academy by Antiochus, the school
D. The. the also received a new
of Peripatetics impulse and
Peripate-
tic
School pursued a partiallyaltered course. As Antiochus
Its later
wished to bring back the Academy to the doctrine of
direction.
their founder, so the Peripatetics turned anew to the
works of Aristotle : it is to the expounding of these

works to which for whole centuries, down to the
times of JSTeo-Platonism,their entire strength is
directed,and in which their
principaltask consists.
Here also there is displayed the phenomenon so
characteristic of this whole period: the more mistakable

un-
and pressingis the feeling of mental

lassitude,and the stronger the mistrust of its own
scientific power, of which scepticismhas been the

formal expression,the more obvious becomes the
necessityto return to the old masters and to lean
upon them. No other school, however, has so
zealouslyand carefullycarried on the work of position,

ex-
and none has produced such a long and
connected line of commentators as that of the Peri-

patetics.1
1
Concerning these, 'wide Zumpt (Ucb"r d. 13estand "le"r
THE PERIPATETICS. 113
The scientific activity of this school, since the CHAP.
middle of the third century, had already,so far as

'
we can "judge from the accounts we have received, J/*e Cmn-

J
.
went a tors.
confined Itself to the propagation,exposition, defence,
. .
and popularisingof the doctrines of Aristotle and
Theophrastus ; and even Critolaus, its most portant

im-
representativein the second century, did

not go beyond this. After Critolaus the school itself
seems to have lost more and more the preciseknow-

ledge
of the Aristotelian doctrines and writings.

Cicero l and Strabo 2 expressly tell us so, and the
assertion is confirmed by the circumstance that,
excepting the approximation of Diodorus to the
Epicurean ethics,3 not a single scientific proposition

has been handed down to us from any of
the successors of Critolaus, during a period of
nearly a century. Andronicus of Ehodes first Atidro-
-, ,1 ."/" T.C .c -L-

n'tcvs of
gave a new impulse to the scientinc iiie ol nis
school. This distinguishedman was, in the second

third of the first century before Christ, head of
the school in Athens.4 His edition of Aristotle's
ScJtuL
PJiilosopJi. in Athen.) pateticsare not here mentioned,
AbJiandL der JBerL AJtade-mie, it cannot be supposed that the
1 842 ; Hist. Phil. "2. 93 sq. : great mass of the philosophers
Brandis, TJeber die Griecli. of the time were unacquainted
Ausleger des Arixt. Organons, with Aristotle's writings,if they
ibid. 1833, 273 were not neglected in the Peri-
sq.
1
Top. i. 3. A distinguished patetic school itself.
rhetorician had declared that In the passage quoted, Phil.
-
the Topica of Aristotle was un- d. "r. II. ii. 139, 2.

known to him : Quod quidem, 3 Cf .
ibid. II. ii. 934,
minime SUM admiratus, ewm
4 Andronicus was, according
vhilosqphum rhetori non esse to Plut.^ZZ^,25, a contemporary
coanitum, qui ab i_psis pMlo- of Tyrannio (vide infra, p. 115,
sopTtisprater admodum paucos 1); and as Tyrannio appears to
ignorcLTctur. Though the Peri- have only come to Kome in 66

114 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, works,1for which. Tyrannio the grammarian furnished'

V.
B.C., and Andronicus used Ms himselfarranged the writings
transcripts of Aristotle's ings
writ- of Plotinus
: /J.tfj.r)ffd/j.evos . . .
for Ms own edition of them, 'A.v$p6viKov

-rbv TrepiTrcmjTi/cbz'j
this must certainly be placed who ra 'Apio"rore\ov$/cal "eo-
after 60 B.C. His invariable els Trpayfj-areias
"ppdffrov SieiAe^
surname 6 el?6dio$ designates ras oiKeias vTrodeareis els ravr'bv
Ms birthplace; Strabo mentions crvvayay"v. This statement, as
him among the celebrated losophers as that of Plutarch
phi- well (Sulla,
"
of Rhodes (xiv. 2, 13, 26) : -Trap'

avrov
p. 655). That he was head

of the Peripatetic school (in cravra rSsv a.VTiypd"pGw
(supplied
Athens) is asserted "by David, with transcripts by Tyrannio)
Scliol. in Arist. 24, a, 20 ; 25, 5, eis ^"ffov Be'ivat,
can only be
42 ; Ammon. De Interpret. Z. c. understood of an actual edition
94, #, 21 ; 97, a, 19. He is here of Aristotle's works, especially
called the evfiettaros a.irb rov if we remember that, according
'ApicrroTeXovs
; following the to Plutarch, the Peripatetics
Scholium in Waitz, however, before Andronicus had dered
wan-
(Aristot.Org. i. 45), which is from the doctrine of their

also ascribed to Ammonius, his founder on account of their
disciple Boethus was this scanty acquaintance with Ms-
eleventh philosopher. ing
Accord- works. When the same writer
as we give the preference adds to the words already
to the one or the other ment,
state- quoted, Kal
avaypdiâtrovs vvit-
and reckon Aristotle self,

him- (pspofjievovs irivaKas,we must
or omit him, there will be understand by these lists of
wanting to the number of the writings a supplement to the
known heads of the school edition which probably did
(Aristotle,Theophrastus, Strato, not confine itself to a mere-
Lyco, Aristo, Critolaus, Dio- enumeration of the works, but

dorus, Erymneus, Andronicus) embraced also enquiries as to
one, two, or three names. If their genuineness,contents, and
three are found deficient, I arrangement. In any case, An-
dronicus
should be inclined to insert had instituted such
them, not with Zumpt (JPML d. enquiries, as is shown by his
G-r. II. ii.927, 1) between Aristo condemnation of the so-called
and Critolaus,but in the evident Post-'prcecLiGamientaj
and the
gap between Erymneus and book vcepl
sp/j,r)V"ias
(cf PJtil. d. .
Andronicus. It seems to me Gr. II. ii, 67, 1 ; 69, 1), and

most probable, however, that the reasons he gives for it. The
only two are wanting, and that, proposition (cf. David, SchoL
according as we reckon, An- in Arist. 25, 5, 41) that
dronicus the
or Boethus might thus study of philosophy should
be called the eleventh (counted begin with logicmay also have
not after,but from Aristotle "
been brought forward in this
GCTT^'ApICTTOT"A.OUS). connection. On the other hand,
1
Porphyry (Plot.24) says he what David says (Z.c. 24, a, 19)
ANDRONICUS. 115
him -with,the means,1 did them inestimable service by CHAP.

V.
promoting their universal diffusion and more matic
syste-
study.2 At the same time by his enquiries
into
their authenticity and arrangement.3 and by his
4 several of them, he showed
commentaries on the
on the division of the telian

Aristo- his copies (cf.preceding
from
quotation
TreplKofffLov
of
writings
Andronicus
Andronicus
from
; and
cannot
because
the
De
the
be
treatise
Divisione
ceived
taken
of the
treatise
note, and
Whether
come
received
recension,
to
Phil. d. ffr. II. ii.139).
Andronicus
Eome,
copies
is not
or
had
of
stated.
also
had
Tyrannic
merely
"s
(Boet. De Dims. p. 638) cannot 2

This, at any rate, may be
have dealt with the division of conceded, if even the further
the books of Aristotle. statement that the principal
1
This
great scholar was born works of Aristotle were lutely
abso-
in Amisus in Pontus. When the wanting in the tetic
Peripa-
place was conquered by Lu- school before the time of
cullus, he became the slave of Andronicus cannot be tained
main-
Miirena, was then set at liberty, (Phil.d. Gr. II ii.139 "?.)"
and taught in Eome (cf. Phil, 3
Vide supra, 114, 1.
d. Gr. II. ii. 139, 1). Here he 4
Of these his exposition of
gained considerable property, the categories is most quently
fre-
collected a famous library,and quoted. It is mentioned
died at a great age (Suidas, by Dexipp. in Cat. p.
sub voc" ; Plut. Lucull. 19). 25, 25 Speng. (Svhol. in Arist.
Strabo (xil 3, 16, p. 548) says 42,^,30): Simpl. in Cat. Sclwl
that he had heard him lecture. 40, 5, 23; 61, a, 25 s$$. ; and in
That he belonged to the patetic
Peri- about thirty other
passages.
school is nowhere serted,
as- At p. 6 e. 7, 5. (Schol. 41, 19 25 "+
but his study of totle's

Aris- 42, a, 10), Simplicius seems to
writings shows that he, describe the work of Androni-
cus
like so many other gramma-
rians, as a mere paraphrase ('AvSp.
was connected wifch it. irapcuppdfav
rb r"av KarrjjoptSiy
He is to be distinguished from "i$\ioy). Meantime we see
his namesake and disciple,the from other statements, as those

freedman of Terentia. Cf. which quoted
are below, that
Suid. Tvpav. vecor. the paraphrase was only a part
Tyrannic had found tunity
oppor- of the task which Andronicus
of making use of Apel- had set himself, and that he
lico's library,which Sulla had afterwards entered into the planation
ex-
brought to Eome; and many of words, criticism of

besides himself made copies of texts, andquestions as to the
the Aristotelian works therein genuineness of particular sec-
tions
(Strabo, xiii. 2, 54, p. 609). (cf Phil. d. 6V.IL ii.67, 1 ;

.
Through him Andronicus re- 69, 1) and philosophicinvestiga-

i 2
116 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. school
Peripatetic the way in which from henceforth
v.
their criticism and
exegesiswas to proceed. He did
not confine himself to mere explanation,hut sought
to maintain as a philosopher the same independence
with which as a critic he departedfrom tradition in
the treatment of weighty questions. This we see
from various and not altogetherunimportant deter-

minations
by which in the doctrine of categorieshe

diverged from Aristotle,1and still more clearly.
lion of the contents. 1 Of. Bran- Hermes, ii. 212. Andronicus
dis, I.e.273 S". That Andronicus cannot possibly have been cerned
con-
had also commented on the with either them.of

Physics does not certainly fol-
low 1
According to Simpl. Cat. 15,
from Simpl. Phys. 101, a ; e. (Sclwl.47, ",25),he regarded
103, "; 216, a; although it with Xenocrates (cf. Phil. d.
is probable from the first of Gr. II. i. 865, 4)" this division,
these passages. Simplicius, however, is in the main Platonic
however, does seem not
to (cf.I. e. 556, 4)" as the funda-
mental
have had this commentary in categories, the /ca0' avrb
his own hands, or he would and the irp6sTL (the Aristotelian
have quoted from it more quently.
fre- definition of which he expounds,
The observations on ap. Simpl. Cat. 51, j8. y. ScJiol.
Arist. De An.
i. 4, 408, 5, 32 66, a, 39 ; Porph. '""777."f. r.
$gq., and the Xenocratic tion
defini-
Karriy. 43, a}. The /m0' aurb
of the soul there
discussed, he must then have divided still
which is quoted from cus
Androni- further,for (accordingto Simpl.
by Themist. De An. ii. 56, p. 67, 7. 69, a ; Scliol. 73, ", 10 ;
li; 59, 6 Speng., point to an 74, ",29) he added to the four
exposition of the treatise on the Aristotelian kinds of quality
soul (vide infra,p. 117, 2). The (cf.Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 269, 2) a
definition of ird6o$, ap. Aspas. in fifth kiod under which ness,
thick-
Hth.N.(infra,p 1 IS, 3) is taken, heaviness, "c., must fall,
perhaps, from a commentary but which, as he observed,
may
on the Ethics. Of the two itself be reckoned under the
treatises still in
existence,bear-
ing iradfiTLKalTtWr^res "
and it is
the name of Andronicus, one, only with reference to the gories
cate-
the treatise De Animi Affec- arising from further
is the work
tionibits, of Andro- division that he can have serted
as-
iiicus Callistus in the fifteenth (Simpl. 40 f ; SoJwl 59,

century, the other, the mentary
com- ", 41; cf. 60, a,, 38) Relation
on the Nicomachsean to be the ultimate category of
Ethics, is written by Heliodorus, all. Observations of his are
of Prusa (1367); cf. Eose, also mentioned concerning the
117
from Ms view of the soul, which in the spiritof CHAP

V.
Aristoxenus and Dieaearchus,1
and consequentlyin
approximation to the Stoic materialism,he held to
be a product of the bodily organism.2 His whole
standpoint, however, we must assume to have been
that of the Peripatetics, though he strove to improve
the doctrine of his school in regard to particular
points.
The work of Andronicus was continued by his
of Sidon,3who is often mentioned 8idon-
disciple Boethus
%"ts (Simp!. 55, ". ; SchoL 59, 6 sqq. Sp.) the well-known
65, a, 7), TToieiy, and trdtrxetvdefinition of Xenocrates (PJdl.
(Simpl. 84, ".), and those d.6fr. II. i. 871). While censuring
conceptions which he called Aristotle because in Ms objec-
tions
Indefinite magnitudes, and desired, to that definition he kept
therefore, to reckon not exclusively to the expression
only under Relation, but also rovvopa rov apiBfiov, he himself
under Quantity (I. c. 36 5. ; perceived in it the thought that
Sclwl. 58, a, 37). Lastly, lie all living natures consist of a
wished to substitute Time and mixture of the elements formed
Space for the irov and Tore, and Kara, rivas \oyovs Ktd api6jjLovs
;
to reckon under these categories so that it coincides in the main
not only TTOV and irore, but all with the reduction of the soul
other determinations of Place to the harmony of the body.
and Time. Simpl. 34, ft.36, ft. But when he "adds that this
87, a. 88, a. ft. 91, ft.; Seliol. 57, number is called a self- moving
a, 24: ; 58, a, 16 ; 79, ", 1 ; 30, number (aurT? yap earn? y î"%7?
37 ; 80, Z",3 ; cf also Brandis, .
Tijs Kpdcrecas
TavTys atria Kal rov
l.o. p. 273 sq. ; Prantl, Ge*c7i. d. \6yov Kal rrjs fjiil~"(0$

reap irp"rtov
Log. i. 537 sq. (rroixeiuv),this does not agree
with Galen's statement, accord-
ing
2 This is maintained by to which it was in the first
Galen, Qit. Animl MOT. 4,

c. place a product of the Kpacns j
vol. iv. 782 sq. K. As cus,
Androni- and it is questionable whether
he says, was wont to speak Galen has not missed the ing
mean-
freely and without obscure cumlocutions,

cir- of Andronicus.
he plainly clares
de- 3
Strabo mentions that he was
the soul to be the Kpaa-is a native of Sidon, rvi. 2, 24,

(sc. TOV enûaros)
or the "Svvaju.i$
p. 757; Andronicus names as
his teacher Ammon. in Categ.5

"Trofj."V7irfjKp"ff"i.In the same
sense he explains (accordingto (ap. Zumpt I. c, 94) ; that he

Themistius, De An. ii. 56, 11; was also a follower of his seems.
118 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. with. him. He? too, acquiredconsiderable fame l

as
V.
an expounder of the Aristotelian writings: the best
known of his works is a commentary on the ries
catego-
2 but found of commentaries
: some traces are on
the Physics and the Prior Analytics perhaps also "
5
on the treatise '
De Anima and the Ethics.3 In his
to result the from

Sclwlion,, is frequentlyquoted in
quoted
find
44
su_pra, p.
B.C.
1,1) and Trebonius

113, 4. But,
opposition to this theory, we
that in
Cicero
in
(in Cicero's
the
that of
of Dexippus.
years
himself
In
45
mentary
Simpliciusand also that
it, perhaps,
and
(Off.i. Syrian,
was
a,
the
in
Metaph.
statement
893,
7, contests, that the Platonic
Sehol.
which
Ep. ad Fam. xii. 16) mention ideas are the same as class-
only Cratippns as teacher of conceptions. A separate tise
trea-
the Peripateticphilosophy in of his on the irpos n is
Athens. Eoethus is not tioned,
men- mentioned by Simplicius,42, a,
whereas this pher,
philoso- Sclwl. 61, b, 9.
1. "?.,desig- 3
whom Strabo, nates That there was a mentary
com-
($""TUl'"(f)t\QG'0"pri(ra,ljL"V7][Jt,"t$011 the Physics is
TO, 'ApLcrroreXeia)as his own shown by the quotations in
teacher, survived this date by Tliemistius,PJiys.145, 14 ; 337,
at least one decade, perhaps 23; 341, 9 Sp. ; which plicius,
Sim-
several. Strabo also would, no no doubt, has borrowed
doubt, have said if he had heard from him (PJiys.46, a ; ISO, a ;
him lecture in Athens. Boethus, 181, 5),as in the last of these
therefore, must have been a three passages he expressly
teacher of philosophyelsewhere. quotes the words of tius,
Tliemis-
Perhaps Strabo may have and only in them those of
availed himself of his instruc-
tions Boethus ; and nowhere adduces
in Eome. anything from Boethus' Physics
1
Siinplicius (Cut.1, a. 41 ". ; except what he finds in his pre-
decessor.
SclioL 40, a, 21 ; 61, a, 14) calls An exposition of the
him and
Qavjp.a.G'Los eXXtyi/nos ; First Analytics may be jectured
con-
and on page 309 j8.; ScJwl. 92, from the quotations of
"a, 42, he praises his acuteness. the pseudo-Galen Ela-ay. StaA.
Cf. p. 3, 7. ; JSoJwl. 29, 0, 47 ; p. 19, and of Ammon. in Arist.
"ra TOV Boydov TTO\TJS a.yxtvoia.sOry. ed. Waitz, i. 45, from the
"yGfjLoyra,. doctrine of the syllogism; an
2
According to Simplicius exposition of the books on the
(L a) one of those which fiadv- soul (though less certainly)
Tepcus veplavro (the Aristotelian from what Simplicius (De An.
book) swoiais GxprjcravTO, but at 69, 1) tells concerning his
us
the same time (7,c. 7, 7. ; ScJwl. objections against immortality ;

a continuous
42, a,'S*) exposition an exposition of the Nicoma-
Ae^ty, This com- chsean Ethics from what Alex-
BOETHUS. n
of
"apprehension the Peripateticdoctrine he likewise, J;HAP.
Y-
so far as we can judge, shows much independence,
and an Inclination to that naturalism which in the
Immediate followers of Aristotle had already powered

over-
the Platonic and Idealistic element, and
whichespeciallyprominent in Alexander
was of
Aphrodisias. This also appears in the fact that he
"wished the study of philosophyto be commenced not
with logicbut with physics,1When, moreover, he

denied that the universal of nature was priorto the
and
particular,2 would not allow form to be regarded
as a substance in the strict sense (737x0
TT; over la),
but only matter, and in one aspect, that which
Is compounded of matter 3 and form "
this presup-
poses
a theory of the value and priorityof matter
In things,which divergesfrom and

Aristotle, rather
approaches to the materialism of the Stoics. The
same mode of thought is apparent in his utterances
.
concerning immortality,which place him on the side
of those who understood the Aristotelian doctrine
ander (De An. 154, #.) says of entirely waives the enquiry
Ms observations on self-love concerning VOTJTTI and cr(a/j.a.riK^
and the Trp"rov oltceiov; and over/a, but only because it
,
what Aspas. (ScJtol. ui JStlt. does not belong to the same
'Classical Journal, xsix. 106) connection. He desired (vide

"ndRose(Arutot.Pseuflo-I!pi"/r.Themist. PJtys. 145, 14 Sp. ;
109) says of his and Andronicus' Sim.pl.PJtys.46, ci) that mat-
" definition of the irdBos. ter should be called {'AT?only

1
David, SeJtol. in Ar. 25 ", in relation to the form which
41. For what follows, Prantl's it has not yet assumed, and
Gesch. Loc/ik,i. 540 sqq. has
der in relation
viroKeifievov to the
.
been gratefully made use of. form imparted to it, but this
2
Dexfpp.inCWfcy. 54:Speng. is merely a matter of verbal
Sohol. in, Arist. 50, ", 15 sqc[. expression. What Simplicius
3
Simpl. Categ. 20 ^8 gg. ; quotes from BoSthus (24 f "j.
.SeJiol. 50, ", 2. At the begin- SeJwL 53, a, 38-45) seems to
oring of this passage, Boethus me of small importance.

120 ECLECTICISM,
CHAP. as a simple denial of it ; 1 and in further agreement

v.
with, these tendencies we learn that in
sphere the
of Ethics he maintained that the primary object of"
desire for everyone (theirp"rovol/csiov)
was naturally
his own self,and everythingelse must be desired
only because of its relation to one's self.2 In other
instances, Boethus now and then sought to justify

the Aristotelian determinations,3 and sometimes fended
de-
them, especiallyagainst the Stoics ; 4 but
1
Simpl. De An. 69, T" : *iva N. viii. 1, 1155, ", 16 sqq. ; ix*
? cos 6 Boijdbs olydJa/jLev

rfyvT|/U- 8, 1168, a, 35 sqq. Our text
names the 9th and 10th books,
evidently by a confusion of
(Jievovcrav rbv ddyarov tiriovra, e|- the alphabetical designations
of the books (0 1) with the-
""VTL oLTr6x\vffQoLL. This refers corresponding numerical signs.
to Plato's ontological proof 3 To these 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 appli- cability
only the man (because death, of the opposition of
according to the Phccdo, 64 C, fyen'ia. and K.ivr\ffi$to qualitative
consists in the separation of change ; (2) the demonstration
soul from body, and therefore in which Theophrastus had
denotes the dissolution of man already anticipated him, that
into his constituent parts, and the syllogisms of the first and-
not the destruction of those second figure are perfect (Am-
parts as such) ; but he thinks mon. in Analyt. Pr. i. 1, 24, 1),
the continuance of the soul 18 ; ap Waitz, Arist. Org. i, 45) ;
does not follow from this. Eu- (3) the doctrine evolved from
sebius (Pr. Efa. xi. 28, 4 ; xiv. the hypotheticalsyllogisms as
10, 3) gives extracts from a the av(x.Tc6""iKTOLand irp"rot "v~
treatise of Porphyry, Trept î/%r}s-, airdSetKToi.(Pseudo- Galen. EiVay,
in which he defended tality
immor- SiaX. p. 19 j Mm. ap. Prantl, p.
against Boethus. From 554) ,* (4) the remarks on the
the former of these passages it question whether time is a
is clear that Boethus had also number or a measure, and
attacked the proof derived whether it even existed without
from the kinship of the human the soul that reckons it, ap.
spiritwith God (P7i"$do,78, B Themist. Ptys. 337, 23; 341, 9
*"??")" Sp. ; Simpl. PJiys.180, a, 181,
2
This view is ascribed by " ; Simpl. Categ, 88, " ; ScJwL
Alex. De An. 154, a, to Xen- 79, 5, 40.
archus and Boethus, who appeal 4 Thus hedef ends (ap.Simpl.
in support of it to Arist. Etli. 43, a, "; Sokol. 62, a, 18, 27)*
ARISTO. 121
what has come down to us In this connection is of CHAP.
little importance as the specialcharacter

affecting of
his philosophy.
A third interpreter of Aristotle's writings,be-
longing
.to the same period, is Aristo,1 a disciple
of Antiochus, who afterwards went over from
the Academy to the Peripatetics.2But we know
the Peripatetic doctrine of tlie iii. p. 277 Hi Id. (where he is

"jrpSs rt against the Stoic doctrine rightly censured for this)added
of the irpos n -rrcas %Xoyi to the Aristotelian syllogistic
while at the same time he tried forms (perhaps in a commen-
tary
to apprehend Aristotle's finition

de- on the Prior Analytics)
more exactly, in the three modi of the first and two
way pointed out by Andronicus of the second figures,and to
(Simpl. 51, j8 ; Sehol. 66, a, 34 ; whom, in the following pas-
sages
cf Simpl. 41, " $4. ; 42, a ; Sclwl.
. (where Frantl, Gesch. der
61 a, 9, 25
sq#. b, 9). He dered
consi- Logilii i. 590, 23, restores the
the division of Trouiiv and Arista of the MSS. instead of
iracrxeiz' as two distinct ries

catego- Aristotle),an account of the
(Simpl.77 " ; Schol. 77, J, 18 syllogisticfigures is ascribed.

sqq.\ and also the category of He is likewise the Alexandrian
Having, which he examined Peripatetic Aristo whom Bio-
particularly(Simpl. 94: e; Schol. genes mentions (vii.1G4 ; also
81, a, 4") as well founded. ride siij)7'a,p. 105, 2).
1 He Tnd. Acad. Hercul. col. 35:
is mentioned by Simpl. 2
41, 7. ; ScJwl. 61, a, 25, together [Antiochiis had for disciples]

with Boethus, Eudorus, nicus,
Andro-
and Athenodorus among SpeTs Kal KparfTTTTOv TL
the TraXaiol r"v I^TJ- aiv 'Api(TTOov
TS-arriyopiav [/lev]Kal
jTjral,and, consequently, no
doubt the author of a mentary

com-
on this book, and not Cic. (Acad. ii. 4, 12) shows

of a mere treatise on the irp6$ him and Dio to us at dria
Alexan-
TI, which Simplicius in his tion
men- in the company of An-
of him in- this place as tiochus, with the observation
well 48, a as at p. ; 51, 0 ; SeJiol. qmlus ille (Antiochus) secun-
63, ", 10; 66, a, 37 alone dum fratrem ^lurimum tri-
s$g.
allows. In the latter passage luebat. If Seneca (Eg. 29, 6)
the definition given also by resorted to Mm, he must have
Andronicus and Boethus taught of the in Borne in the latter
TTpos TL v"as GXOV is marilypart of Ms

quoted pri- life; meanwhile,
from him, with the the lepidus philosophic A*risto"
remark that Andronicus has the of whom Seneca here relates
same. He is no doubt that certain anecdotes, must mean
Aristo of Alexandria, who, cording

ac- another person of the same
to Apul. Doffm. Plat. name ; not only because Seneca

322 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. little about him, and that little does not lead
V.
us to suppose him a great philosopher. Concern-
ing
the philosophyof the other of the
Peripatetics
Cratij)-
2)us.
first century before Christ "
Staseas,1Cratippus,2
reckons this man among the In the years 50-46 B.C. we
circulatores meet
giti 2)liilosoj)ltiam with him in Mytilene
Jionestius -neglexissent
quam von- (Cic. De Univ. 1 : Brut. 71. 250 ;
dunt, but also because the Plut. Pwip. 75). Soon after
Julius Gfrsecinus,from whom a this he must have settled in
remark on him quoted, only
is Athens, where Cicero got for
died under Caligula; whereas him the Eoman citizenship
the discipleof Antiochus, who from Cffisar,but at the same
was with Mm about 84 B.C. time induced the Areopagus

(vide sity. 76, 4), scarcely sur-
vived to request him to remain
the beginning of the in Athens (Plut. die. 24). Here
reign of Augustus, or at any about this time Cicero's son
rate cannot long have survived heard him (Cic. Off. i. 1, 1 ;

it. The Aristo of Cos mentioned iii. 2, 5 ; ad Fam. iii.16 ; xvi.
by Strabo, xiv. 2, 19, p. 658, 21) and Brutus visited him
must not be taken for our (Plut. Brut. 24). That he was
Aristo (as Zumpt supposes, the head of the school is not

Alh. d. IJerL Alad. 1842 ; Hist.
expressly stated, but is very
PML Kl. 68), for the
probable. Cicero, who
former iswas a
described as the discipleand great friend of his, speaks with

heir of the well-known tetic,
Peripa- the highest appreciation of his
Aristo of Julis (Phil. d. scientific importance (Bwct. 71,
Or. II. ii. 925). 250 ; Off. i. 1, 1 ; iii. 2, 5 ;
1
Staseas of Naples, the in-structor
Divin. i. 3, 5 ; De Univ. 1), but
of Piso, who resided this praiseis scarcely altogether
with him (Cic. De Orat. i. 22, impartial, As to his views,
104 ; Fin. v. 3, 8, 25, 75 ; rifle nothing has been transmitted
suj}. p. 100, 1, end) is also called to except what we
us are told
by Cicero,noMlis Peripateticiis;by Cicero,JDivin. i. 3, 5 ; 32, 70
but is censured by him for SQ. (cf.Tertullian,De An. 46) :
ascribingtoo much importance that he admitted prophecy in
to external fortunes and real
corpo- dreams, and ecstasy (furor},and
conditions(Fin. v. 25, 75). that he based this theory upon
An unimportant theory of his the Peripatetic doctrine of the
is quoted in Censorinns, Di. divine originof spirit, and upon
Nat. 14, 5, 10. As Piso heard the numerous cases of fulfilled
him lecture about 92 B.C. (I.c. prophecies. The anthropology
De Orat.')he must have been presupposed by him in this is
at least as old as Andronicus. the Aristotelian: animos homi-
2 This philosopher, born in num quadami ex parte extrin-
Pergamus, was likewise nally secus( 0*Jpa0ej/,
origi- from "
the divine
a disciple of Antiochus. spirit) esse tractos et haustos
NICOLAUS OF DAMASCUS.
Nicolaus of Damascus,1 and others,our information CHAP.

T.
Is too scanty, and too unimportant to detain us with
jjarte?n,qitte sen sum,

earn concerning the gods. He is. ~(lf
- . . Damtts
called in Athen. vi. 252
-gu(B mot urn, C[iiceadjjetitum ka- /. : ~us
"*
*
beat, non. csse ab actione coiyjoris 266, e\ x. 415, e\ xii. 543, a"\
sejiigatam; the sequel,however, iv. 153 f., an adherent of t-iic
sounds rather more Pi atonic: Peripateticdoctrine (nepxTrcmj-
animi rationis TIK^S-)to which he had early
qiice antem pars
himself (siuid. NZKQA.J
atque iHteUiyentiasit jjartieeys,allied
cam turn majciine rigere, cum and to which he devoted a
jjlurimtonaJjait a cor pore. portion of his writings. Himpl.

1 Nicolaus (concerningwhom (JJe C'telo,tit'JwL in Ar. 41)3, a,
vide Miiller, Hist. Gr. lii. 343 23) mentions his treat.it-
e Kepi
born
""?#.), in Damascus about 'ApiCTTOTeAouS "plAO(T0"plQ:S(OUt
64 (therefore B.C. called d of which may perhaps be taken
Athen.
AafjLaa-KTivbs, iv. 153 f et
.
the quotation from hih 6etapia
_pa$s. ; fcstrabo,
XT. 1, 72, p. 719), r"v 'ApiffroreXovs
/xera TO, "pv"iKa.
and carefullybrought up by his in the inscription to Theo-
father Antipater, a prosperous phrastus' metaphysical frag-
ment,
and respectableroan ,
lived many p. 323, Brand.). A second
years at the court of the Jewish work, Treplrov Tlavrbs, which
King Herod, was one of his treated Trep!wdvToiy TWV Iv Ttjp
confidants and came in his Kofffjua /car' ; Id.
(not /cat)eTo-3?
company and, some years later, /. c. *40t",
a, 6; a third, itepl
(8 B.C.) for the second time, Qe"v, from which statements
on Ms affairs, to Rome, where concerning Xenoplianes and

he gained the favour of tus.
Augus- Diogenes* of Apollonia are ported,
re-
After the death of Herod is mentioned by Simpl.

the Great he accompanied his (Phys. tJ,a, I ; 32, a, 1) ; an
son Archelaus thither,and from. ethical work Treplr"v Iv ro7s
this journey he never seems to
have returned, but to have
the latter part of his life mentioned by "Simpl.
passed juareia, as
in Rome (vide the references in In Ejjict.JSncldr. 194, c. ; here

he perhaps have said of
Suidas, AvTLTrarpos and Ni/cdA. : may
Nicol. Frag in. 3-6, taken from Epicurus, what Diogenes asserts
(Diog. 4). In of these

the Escceryta de Yiitutilus', x. none
however, is any losophical

phi-
.Joseph. Antiquit.xii. 3, 2 ; xvi. 2, passages,
3; 9,4; 10,8; xvii.5,4; 9,6; 11, proposition quoted
-3,who also, like Suidas, follows from him.; and Xicolaus was
Nicolaus' own statements in doubtless far more of a scholar

The theory that he than philosopher. Suidas
Miiller). a
was a Jew, shared also by calls him IlepnraTTjTf/c"s

T? IIAa-
Renan, Tie de Jesus, p. 33, is reovucbs,which might point to
at refuted by what we his combination of the views of

once
Suid. 'Aj/rfrr.
) Plato and Aristotle, if any pendence
de-
read (ap ing
respect-
an offering to Zeus, and could be placed upon
124 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, them.1 But Xenarehus 2 and his treatise againstthe-

V.
Aristotelian theories respectingthe aether may here be
chus. the passage. As an historian lie Ithodian, named by Quint illian,,

is censured by Joseph as {An- Inst. ii. 17, 15, with Critolaus as
tiquit.xvi. 7, 1) on account of the enemy of rhetoric (cf .
Phil.
his partiality for Herod ; and d. G-i\ II."
ii. 930, 2) ; and haps
per-
his life of Augustus was no the author of the nepiVaroi
doubt only a panegyric. For quoted in Diog. iii. 3 ; v. 36 ;
the rest yule, concerning' his vi. 81 ; ix. 42. When he lived
historical works, Miiller ; cf .
we do not know, but he seems
Dindorf. Jalirbueli"r filr Clans. to be later than Critolaus,whom

Phllol vol. xcix. H, 2, places before
107 Mm.
Quintillian
sqt[f Meyer's supposition Borne, according
that to InCicero,
he wrote the treatise irspl "pvrS}vy there must already have been,
is discussed Phil. d. Gr. II. about the beginning of the first
ii. 98, note. century, persons acquainted
1
Among them, the owner of with the Aristotelian sophy
philo-
Theophrastus' library, A p e 1 and writings, if M. An-
-
lico, o" Teos {Phil d, G-r. II. tonius and Q. Lutatius

ii. 139); but though this man Catulus really spoke as he
occasionally occupied himself {Orat. ii. 36, 152 ^#.) repre-
sents.
with the Peripateticphilosophy We have no warrant,
{Athou. v. 214, d), and posed
com- however, for supposing that
a treatise on Hermlas this representation is historically
and Aristotle (Aristocl. ap. Eus. true ; indeed, Cicero self
him-
Pr. Ei\ xv. 2, 9), Strabo (p. implies clearly enough
609), no doubt rightly,calls both here and in c. 14, 59, that
him ""iAdj8i/8A.osfj.a\\ov 3) "piX6- Antonius was not acquainted,
fro""os. As little does A th e 11 io so far as he knew, with -Greek
or Aristio (cf.PhiL d. G-r. III. literature; and though it may
ii. 934, 3) deserve a place certainly have been otherwise
among the pliilosphers,even with Catulus, we are hardly
supposing he really taught the justifiedin ascribing to him an
Peripateticphilosophy. what
Some- accurate knowledge of that
later we have ander,
Alex- literature, and particularly of
the teacher and friend of the Peripateticphilosophy. The
M. Crassus, the Triumvir (Plut. only Roman adherent of this
Crass. 3); At h emeus, of Se- philosophy of whom we hear
leucia in Oillcia,in the time of in the first century B.C. is that
Ctesar (Strabo,xiv. 5, 4, p. 670) ; Pi s o of whom we have spoken, ,
Demetrius, the friend of supra, p. 100, 1, end; "but, as

Oato, who was with him in his is there shown, he also attended
last days (Plut. Cato Mm. 65, the instruction of Antiochus,
67 sq.}; D io d o t u s
,
the brother whose eclectic principlesCicero
of Boethus of Sidon (Strabo, puts into his mouth.
2
xvi. 2, 24, p. 757). To the
Xenarchus, of Seleucia, in
Peripatetic school belong also, Cilicia,
passed the greater part
no doubt, At hen odor us, the of his life as a teacher in Alex-
TItEATI"E ON THE COSMOS. 125
mentioned l
polemic againstso integral
; for this
a por- CHAP.
tion
of the Aristotelian V.
physicsaffords a further proof
that the Peripatetic school was not so absolutelyunited
by the doctrine of its founder as to preclude many
departuresfrom, that doctrine its members.
among
But there is still stronger evidence of this fact
in a treatise which
perhaps dates from the first cen-
tury before Christ,and has been transmitted to us
as the work of Aristotle " the book of the Cosmos.2

The l~arhlUS
authenticity of this work was already questioned -1
Tkeofies a
in antiquity/ and denied by Melanehthon 4
in to it*
;
andria, Athens, and Rome. It "
"Weisse, Aristateles von dtr

was in the first of these cities Seele und von der Welt, 1829,
that Strabo probably heard p. 373 sqq. ; 8tahr, Aristoteles
him. Befriended by Arius, and bei Momcrn,
den 1834, p. 163
patronised by Augustus, he sS$'i Osann, Seitrb'gecu (frieefi,
died in Piome at a gTeat age und jRom. ZMeraturgegch.i. 143
(cf Strabo, xiv. 5, 4, p. 670).
.
sqq. ; Petersen in the review of
1
Tide concerning this tise
trea- this
treatise,Jahrb. f. icissensefi*
and the objections de-
velopedErit. 1836, 1, 550, Ideler,
sqq. ;
in it against the Aris-
totelian Arutot. JfeteoroL ii. 286 sq. ;
doctrine : Bamasc. De F. Gieseler, iib. d. Verf.d. SucJis
Casio,8c7wl. in Arist. 456, ", 6 ; r. (L W. ZtscTir.f.Alterthumsn*.
460, 5, 15 ; Simpl. De Ccelo, 1838, Nr. 346 sq.-t ISpengel,De
Stihol. 470, ", 20 ; 472, a, 22 ; A'rist. Libra X. Hist. Anim.
472, #, 38 sqq. ; 473, a, 9 ; 43, 7;, Heidelb. 1842, p. 9 sqq. ; Hil-
.24; (9, a, 11; 11, 5,41; 13, ", debrand, Apnlej* Opera ,
i. 44
6 ; 36 ; 14, a, 19 ; 21, ", 32 sqq. ; ?qq* ; fiose, De Arist. Li'br,
25, I, 4 : 27, 5, 20-34, a, IS K) ; Or dine et Avct. p. 36, 90 sqq. ;
Julian. Or at. v. 162, A, sq. Sini- Adam, DeAuet"re Lilri Pseudo-
plicius calls it : a: TT/J^S- rfc Anstotelici -*. K. Berl. 1861;
TrejjLTTTTjv ovcriav aTropfai, irpbs Barthelemy Saint-Hilaire, Me-
TO.
T$]V IT. OVCT. 7J7TOp7JjU6I/a01" *y"- teorologied'Aristcte, Par. 1863.

ypaftjuLzva. In the same treatise p. 88 sqq. ; Goldbacher, Ztsclw*
were perhaps to be found the f. Oesterreicli. Gymn. xxrv.
observations against Chrysip- (1873), 670 sq. ; Z. Rritil ran
pus* doctrine of empty space, Apul"jus De MvndOj "c.

ap, Simpl. I c. 129, ", IS K. 3
Procl. in Tim 322, B
.
: ;Aptcr-
His concerning the
opinion TOTeATjs, efwep GKCLVOV rb ire pi
"jrp"Tov otKe'tov (sKjjra, 120, 2), KOCT/JLOV jSijSAfoz'.
and Ms (Aristotelian)definition 4
ed. Bretsclnu
Physica, Q]?]?.
of the soul (Stob. Eel. i. 798) xiii. 213 *$.
are also quoted elsewhere.
126 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, modern times it has found some advocates,1but is

'
nevertheless quite untenable. As little,however.,

can the treatise be ascribed to any other school than
the Peripatetic,
or regarded,not as a writingfoisted
upon Aristotle,but as the work of a younger sopher,
philo-
which did not itself claim to be Aristotelian
" or even the elaboration of such a work. In

modern times its authorship has been assigned
sometimes Chrysippus,2 sometimes
to to Posidonius,3
sometimes to April eius,4but against each of these

conjecturesthere are most important objections. In
regard to Chrysippus it is highly improbable that
he should have sent forth a work under a borrowed
name, and quite inconceivable that he should have
adopted for the purpose that of Aristotle ; but that the
work claims Aristotle's name for itselfis incontestable/
1 Its authenticity has been against the supposition that the

finallymaintained most confi- work was designedly foisted
dently by Weisse. I am the npon Aristotle. Both in manner
more willing to spare myself a of exposition, he says, and in
detailed exposure of the weak- substance, its unlikeness to-
nesses of this attempt, as that Aristotle is so unmistakably evi-
has already been fully accom- dent, that only a person entirely
plished by Osann, Stahr, and unacquainted with Aristotle,or
Adam (p. 14 sgq. "c.),and as a fool,could have indulged the
the decisive points in the matter fancy that it could possibly be
will be brought forward in the regarded as the work of that
followingpages. philosopher.But this,the only
2
Osann, I. "?., seeks to es- argument that he adduces, tries
tablish this theory at length. to prove too much. How many
Ideler, 1. #., followingAlclo-
3
are the forged writings in.
brandinus, Huetius, and Hem- which wet at the first glance,
sius. can detect the forgery ? From
4
Stahr, I. "?.,and, in another this it does not follow that
way, Adam. Barthelemy Saint- they are not forgeries,
but that
Hilaire follows the former, they are not clumsy forgeries,
without naming him, In the present case, however, the
5
Osann, indeed, declares forgery was not clumsy enough
himself, p. 191, very decidedly to prevent numerous persons
ITS OEIGIX. 12T
and -when Osann would separate its dedication to CHAP.
Alexander1 from the rest of the work, this is an __.H_

arbitrary proceeding which is whollyunjustifiable.2
Moreover, the exposition of Chrysippus, according
to the unanimous testimony of antiquity and the
specimens in our possession,is distinguished as
much by its learned prolixity,as by its dialectic

pedantry and contempt of all rhetorical adornment ; 3
whereas KoV/ôu exhibits through-
the treatise Trspl out
the most oppositequalities,
so that even on this
ground it is quite impossibleto attribute it to Chry-

sippus. No less,however,is such a theoryexcluded
by its contents. That it has adopted many Stoic
doctrines and definitions,and expresses some of
these in the formulae which, after had

Chiysipptis,
been transplanted into the Stoic school,is indeed
undeniable; nevertheless,as will immediatelybe

shown, this work so entirelycontradicts the most
important distinctive doctrines of the Stoic school
and even philosophers and with Ms theory of the author

criticsof our own time " Welsse, of the book. Apart from this
for example "
from being de- there is no trace either in
ceived. And would a work external evidence or the in-
that was evidently not written ternal character of the passage
by Aristotle pass more easily that it was originallyabsent,
for his if it were anonymous Even in C. 6, 398, ", 10, the
than if it went forth under his language is such that the Per-
name ? sian empire must he supposed
1
Naturally Alexander the to be still existing,and if the
G-reat ; for that this Alexander writer, in Ms necessarily nu-
was another man of the name inerous references to older

of whom nothing further is philosophers, has carefully
known, no reader
Osann's of avoided every definite allusion
book (p.24 6) will easilybelieve, to what is post-Aristotelian,
2 Osann (p. 246 sy.} has no we see from this that he wishes
further proof to give than that his work to pass as Aristotelian,
the dedication is incompatible 3 Cf . p. 42.
128 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, as compared with the Peripatetic,that it might be

'
ascribed to any author rather than to Chrysippus.

Lastly, though we will not here anticipate the more
particulardemonstration of the date of this book, it
is sufficient for the refutation of Osann's hypothesis,

to observe that Chrysippus's work on the Cosmos
consisted of at least two books, and that quotations
are made from it which are nowhere to be found in
the writing we are considering.1 The same ments
argu-
hold good in great measure against those
who conjecture Posidonius to have been the author
of the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise. Its ornate
language, however, can with far more probability

be attributed to him than to Chrysippus ; and there
are many particulardetails which approximate much
more to the time of Posidonius than to that of
Chrysippus : indeed, we shall find that the author
probably in a considerable part of his work made
direct use of this philosopher. But that Posidonius

should have forged a work of Aristotle is as wholly
unlikely as that Chrysippus should have done so ; and
though we can certainly remark in him concerning

specialpoints, a leaning to the Academic and Peri-
patetic
philosophy,this never makes him untrue (like

the author of irsplKoayôu) to the fundamental trines
doc-
of his school "
so as to deny the substantial
presence of God in the world, the destruction and
conflagrationof the world, or to distinguishaether
1 Stob. Eel. i. 180 ; Alex. Against Osann, of. Petersen, p.

ApTir. Anal. Pr. 58, I (supra, 554 sag. ; Gieseler, SpeneeL
Phil. d. Or. III. i. 158, 1). Adam, I. c.
THEORIES RESPECTING IT. 129
.and all elementary bodies whatever.1 As to Apu-

leius this objection,It Is true, would not hold good :
in his treatise on the Cosmos he has entirelyappro-

priated
the contents of the so-called Aristotelian
treatise. But how are we justified

In regarding him
not merely as the translator or reviser,but also as the

author of the latter ? If the work is not mentioned
before Apuleius,2In the remains of ancient literature
which we possess. It does not follow from this that it
did not though Apulelus, In the introduc-

exist : and
tion
to his Latin recension, speaks as if It were not a
mere translation, but an independent work on the
foundations of Aristotle and Theophrastus,3 there Is
no proof whatever that he was sufficiently scrupulous

about literaryrightof property, and sufficiently free
from boastfulness, not to found a claim of original
authorship on the minor alterations and additions by

which his work is distinguished4 from Aristotle's.5
1 For these reasons the hypo- TheopUrastum auctorem secuti,

thesis of Posidonius is opposed quantum yossiimus cogitatlom
by Bake, Position. Rel. 237 sq. ; contingere, dlaemns de omnl Jiae
Spengel, p. IT ; Adam, p. 32. coekstl ratime^c. The words in
2 The quotation in Justin, parenthesis are wanting in the
Cohort ad 0r. c. 5, cannot be best MSS. ; but are neverthe-
placed earlier than Aptdeius, less to be considered genuine,

since the authenticity of this Of. Goldbacher, 1. p. 690.
c.
treatise, as has lately been 4

Concerning these, mde Hil-
shown by Adam (p. 3 *"#.) in debrand, A}ml. Opp. I. xlvin. sq.
opposition to Semisch, has cle- 5 The ancients, as is well
cisive reasons against it. known, had much less strict
3 At the end of the dedication ideas than we have on this
to Fanstinus, which is distin- snbject ; and
many others be-
"ndshed from that of the sides Apuleius behave in such
pseuclo- Aristotle to Alexander matters with a surprising laxity,
only by unimportant alterations Eudemus, e.ff.,seems nowhere
and omissions: Quare [-nos to have said that his work
,
vrwleniiwiMtm et on
*
Physics' was only a new
pWosojJwrum'] et edition of Aristotle's nor does

ISO ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. Closer investigationleaves no doubt that his Latin

Yt
work on the Cosmos is not (asStahr and Barthelemy
Saint-Hilaire the model, but only a
assert) revision
of the Greek work which is to be found in our lection
col-
of Aristotelian writings; for the latter has

throughoutthe conciser,sharper,more originalform
of expression,while the former has the character of a
paraphrased translation: the flowerylanguage of

the one too often in the other becomes bombast,
which is sometimes hardly comprehensible without
a comparison with the Greek text ; and while there
is nothing in the Latin which cannot be
regarded as a
paraphraseor translation of the Greek, the Greek,
on the contrary,has passages which could not possibly
Lave arisen from the Latin, but must evidently
have been before the eyes of the Latin writer.1 But
to admit this,and to make Apuleius the author of
the Greek book which he then himself translated

into Latin,2is equally impossible. For in the first
placewe thus abandon the onlyground on which

the hypothesisof his authorshipcould even plausibly
be maintained viz., the credibility
" of his own
he say so of his Ethics. He named the sources of a treatise

speaks,even where he adheres which has taken so much from
quite closelyto Aristotle, as an Stoic authors and Stoic doc-
independent author in his own trine ?
name ; and so does the writer l
Some of the most striking
of the Magna, Moralia.
Cicero, are these : vepl K6"r/u.ov
392, a,
too, notoriously translated, or, 5 j 325, #, 7 : 398, b, 23 ; 400, #,
at any rate, transcribed exten- 6 ; #, 23 ;
compared with the
sive portions in Ms writings correspondingApul. De Mundo,
from the Greeks, without men- c.1, 12, 27, 33, 35, p. 291, 317,
tioning the sources from which 362, 368 Oud. For the rest I
they came. And would Apu- must refer to Adam, p. 38 sg%. ;
leius,in his Arlstoteles et Theo- Gfoldbacher, 671 sq.
2
phrastus auctor, have really Adam, I. "?.,41 sgq.
APULEIUS NOT THE AUTHOR. 131
assertions; regard it as impossible that he

we CHAP.
^*
should have represented his writing as an indepen-
dent work if it were merely the revision of the
work of another, but we unhesitatinglycharge him
with having foisted his own work in its Greek
original upon Aristotle.1 In order to clear him
from the imputation of boastingwe attribute to him
a forgery.2 But in the second place this theory-

would lead us to the improbable conclusion that
Apuleius? the Latin rhetorician,had expressed himself

far better, more simply and to the point, in
the Greek language than in his own ; and that, in
spite of his being himself the author, he had not
unfrequently in the Latin version confused and
obscured, nay, completely misunderstood that which

in the Greek is perfectly clear.3 Finally,passing
over other from
difficulties, the evidence furnished
by his other writings of his philosophicalcapacity,

we can scarcelyascribe to Apuleius so important a
1 That the anthor of the would be nullified by each

Greek treatise asserts it to be other.
3 A
Aristotelian has been already number of the most
shown, p. 127, 2. Apuleius also striking proofs, not only of the
designates it as such in the dependence of Apuleius on one
supra, p. 129, 3,
quoted Greek text, but also of the
passage
from the
Prooemium, and c. 6, misunderstandings which beset
300 Oud., where he says, in him in the reproduction of it,
p.
reference to irepl K6fffj.ov, 3, 393, some of which arise from false
a, 27: \_Mare'}Afrimim, quoilreadings, are given by Gold-

giiMem Aristoteles Sardinimse bacher, p. 679 sgq. The same
maliAt dlcere. writer shows, p. 674 s$., how

2 Nor would his forgery have untrue is the statement of
answered his purpose ; for if he Adam, that Apuleius, according
declared the Greek version of to Ms own assertion, was in the
his book to be the work of habit of composing the same
Aristotle, and the Latin to treatise in Latin and Greek,

be his own, these statements
132 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, work as the treatise undoubtedly is ;

on the Cosmos
^
v*
and we must necessarilyhave expectedto find in this
writing,if it had emanated from him, much more
distinct traces of those Platonising metaphysicsand

theology,and especially of that demonology, which
we shall presentlydiscover in Apuleius. This third
attempt, therefore,to find a definite author for the
book must also be considered and

unsuccessful, the
question for us can only be, not by whom it was
composed, but to what period and school its author
belonged.
Its stand- That this author reckoned himself among the
"
point and
character.
.
Peripateticsseems probable irom the name of
Aristotle,which the work bears ; for by that name
it claims to be considered one of the genuine

records of the doctrines of the school. The same
is confirmed, however, by its contents. Though

the conceptionof the world which it advances is far
enough from the truly Aristotelian conception, and

though it is full of foreign constituents,yet its
fundamental features are taken from the Aristotelian
doctrine,and approximates at least as closelyto

it
it as the philosophyof Antiochus, for example,

approximates to the Platonic philosophy. The
metaphysicalfoundations of the Aristotelian system,
the author leaves,indeed,in the spiritof his time,
unnoticed, but in his presentation of the universe

and its relation to God, he chieflyallies himself
with Aristotle. He does so when he asserts the
distance of our world from the higher world, its
changefulnessand imperfectionin contrast with
DOGTRISES CONTAINED IS IT, 133
the purityand invariability

of the heavenlyspheres,1 CHAP.
and when he makes Y"

the perfectionof Being gradu-
_._
allydiminish with the distance from the supreme

heaven ;
2 and when he expresslymaintains the dis-
tinction
between the aether,of which the heavenly
bodies consist,and the four elements, in unmistak-
able
contradiction to the Stoic doctrines.3 Further,
while the divine essence, according to the Stoic
doctrine,permeates the whole world even to the
smallest and
ugliestthings,our author finds this
presentation of the Divine Majesty altogetherun-worthy
; he declares himself, on the contrary,most
decidedly
for the Aristotelian
theory that God, re-
moved
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
C. 6, 897, 5, 30 *#. ; 400, a, the theory of the treatise v*pl
5, 8%. 21 sqq. K6"riJLQv concerning the asther
3 C.
6, 397, 1),27 s$%. is Aristotelian ; it is,therefore,
3
C. 2, 392, ", 5, 29 sq. ; c. 3,392, all the more astonishing that he
5, ; cf.Phil, d. ffr.II, ii,434, s$.
35 can believe Chrysippus to have
How closely this work adheres also advanced the same theory ;
to Aristotle's expositions has for our treatise declares itself
heen already observed, /, c. p. expresslyagainstthe Stoic iden-
437, 6. That it should speak tification of sether with fire
(392, 5, 35 a, 8) of five "rro#e*a, (I.c. in. i. 185, 2, 3) ; and, as we
sether,fire,"c., is unimportant, see from Cic. (Aead. i 11, 39),
Aristotle himself had called the this was one of the most
asther "rroixetoy
irpfoTov (cf .
PJtil. notorious points of contest
d. fc".H.ii.437,7),andifhe de- between Stoics and Peripa-
scribed it as /col0""J-
erepov crto/na tetics. The question is not
repo? rcev /caXov/ieVwvcrrorê W unimportant, for

discri- on the
(Gm. An. ii.3,736,",29)the trea- mination of the aether from the
tise means the same in 392, a, 8, four elements Aristotle bases
as (rroix"overepo*' rav rerrdpoty^the antithesis of the world
atcfipardy
re Kal Qelov. Osann, p. below and the world above.
168,203 sc[.,
moreover allows that
134 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. However manifold the forms it may assume in the

v.
world.1 Still less, of course, can he admit the
identification of Grod and the world : a Stoic tion
defini-
which only adopts after
expresses this he
having altered its pantheisticlanguage.2 Finally,

the author shows himself to be a Peripateticby
expressly defending3 the eternityand unchangeable -
ness of the world (alsoa distinctive doctrine of
this school)against Stoicism. Though it is clear
from all this that the work cannot have been

written by a Stoic or by any leader of the Stoic
school,such as Posidonius Chrysippus,yet in

or
it the endeavour is very perceptibleto unite the
1 TMs occupies the whole of K6fffjt.o$,

in which it shows semblance
re-
the sixthchapter. Here again not only to the Stoics

the polemic against Stoicism is in general, but more larly
particu-
unmistakable (cf. p. 397 ,5, 16 to that exposition of their
sqgi. ; 398, a, 1 sg. 5, 4-22 ; 400, doctrines from which Stob. JEel.
5, 6 *".)and the theory (Osann, i.444(PULd. 6-V.III. i.!47,l)has
207) that the divergence from given us extracts. The tions
altera-
it is only a concession to the which are found necessary
popular religion is quite in-
admissible;
in the treatise are all the more
the ligion worthy
popular re- of note : K.6fffj.ov
"5',we
is not at all in question read Stob., elvai tyyviv 6 Xpv-

in
here, but the Aristotelian logy;

theo- ffunros ffvarryiLia e" ovpavov Kal
if Chrysippus, however, yrjs Kal rfav eV rovTOis ^(reajv,$)
wished to support the popular rb e/e Qe"v Kal avdp"ircav
(TiKTryfjia
religion,he was quite able to Kal e/c T"V eVe/ca ro^rcov 7670^-
do this,as we have seen, without rcav. XeyeraL 5' erepajy K^CT/JLOS
6
contradictingthe fundamental
principlesof his system. We Kal r"\"iovrat. Our treatise
may quote as a specialindica-
tion takes the first of these tions
defini-
of the Peripateticorigin and
literally, passes over
of our treatise the passage
that the second; for the third it
398, ", 16 sqq. seems to have substitutes these words : Aeysrat
reference to I)e Motu Anim. 7,
701, ", 1 sqg. rd"tsre Kal dia.K6crfj.7ja'
is, v^rb 0ea"y
2
The treatise wepl K6cr/j.ov,re Kal Sia Qefov ^vXaTro/xe^.
begins, after the introduction, 3 0. 4, end ; c. 5, beginning ;
c. 1, with definitions of the I. c. 397, "", 14 s$. 5, 5.
AFFINITY WITH STOICISM. *
Stoic doctrine with the Aristotelian,

and partially CHAP.
^'
to admit even those determinations to which an
unqualifiedrecognitionis denied. TVith the Stoic
writingswhich the author has employed, and even
transcribed,1he has also appiopriated Stoic trines

doc-
to a considerable extent; and this may be
said not merely of
eosmological, the
astronomical,
and meteorologicaldetails which Osann bringsfor-ward,2
but also of definitions deeply affecting the
whole system. Quite at the beginning of the
cosmological exposition,3we encounter a Chrysippean
definition of the Kocr/ios. Further on it is de-

monstrated,
in the spiritand after the precedent of
"the Stoic system, that it is preciselythe contrast
between the elements and parts of the world, on

which depends the unity and subsistence of the
whole : 4 this unity itself is called,
in Stoic language,
sympathy : 5 and that his harmony with the Stoics

shall not escape us, the author does not hesitate to
"quote,expresslyas a witness in his own behalf,6

the great authorityof this school,Heracleitus. In
histheory of the elements, he allies himself with

the Stoics, though he divergesfrom Aristotle in
making cold the fundamental quality of air.7 He

-adoptsthe Stoic doctrine of the Trvsvpa, with which
1
This will be proved later 7 C. 2, 392, b, 5 : d % . . .
on.
""v teal irayer"STisT^V
(o(j"("'8T]$
2
Page 208 *##. "pv"nv. Likewise, as is shown p.
3 C. 2, beginning; vide my. 183, 2, the Stoics,against whom
p. 134 2.
Aristotle (cf.Phil d. Or. H. ii.
4 C. 5. 444) maintains cold to be the
5
C.4, endjolrwywaflwy 6poi6- fundamental determination of
water, and moisture that of
"nrres.
6 C. 5, 396, ", 13 ; cf .
c. 6, end. air.
186 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, there are points of contact even in the Peripatetic

v*
doctrine.1 But his approach to Stoicism is most
strikingin regard to theology. While repudiating

the Stoic Pantheism as such, the diffusion of the-
divine substance through the world, the author quite
approves of its propositions as soon as they are
applied,not to the divine essence, but the divine

force 2 he
; and accordingly teaches that the active
influence emanating from theDeity only extends,,
indeed, primarily to the outermost sphere of the
universe, but spreads from this to the inner spheres,
and so is transmitted through the whole.3 Grod is, ,
therefore,the law of the whole ;

4
from Him proceeds
the order of the world by means of which it is
classified into the various species of existences,
through their individual seminification ;
5
and cause
be-
of this, his all-governing influence, Grod
bears the manifold names, the enumeration and
explanation of which in the treatise irsplKScrj"ov

are stamped with the most genuine Stoicism. The
name, the predicates,and the origin of Zeus are-
here explained quite in the Stoic sense;

1 3
0. 4, 394, 5, 9 : \cyertu 5e 0. 6, 398, 5, 6 sg$. 20 sq. ;
Kal erepcos Trvet/jaa tfre ev fywrols cf. 396, #, 24 $q.
Kal "c*"oi$tealSiot,iravrvv Si^Kovcra 4
C. 6, 400, #, 8 : v6/j,osy"p "
fy-fyvxtsT" K"d ytvLfj.os ovcria. Of. IffOKXiv^s6 Beds.

"fytuV The con-
the quotations, PJdl.d. 6rr. III. i. ception of v6p.osfor the order
p. 138, 191, 1; 331, 3.
1 ; of the universe Is, as is well
2
0. 6, 397, ", 16 : Sib Kal r$"v known, pre-eminently Stoic.
TraAcucDj/ eiTreTy rives 7rpo^%077"ray Cf .
Phil. d. 6fr. III. i. p. 140,
#Ti Trdyra ravrd ecrr* dewy ?rAea 222 sg. 303 sq.
ra Kal lv"a\\6/j."va
"5i' o"t"6a\fj,wv 5 C. 6, 400, 5, 31 This
sg.
/cai 5*' aKorjs
fjjULtv Kal irda"r)s
alff- exposition likewise reminds us
rfj jjikvOslo. Swapst

077"re"w", Trpe- of the Stoics, in the doctrine
TTQj/Ta /cara/SaXAoVevoiXoyov ov of the \6yoi or7T"pfj.arLKot.
pfyvTTJ y" ovcrta.
THEOLOGY. 187
Nemesis, Adrasteia, the CHAP.
Moirse, are referred to him by means of Stoic etym-

ologies; and for the confirmation of philosophic
doctrines, the sayings of the poets are interspersed ,
after the manner of Chrysippus.1 It is clear that
the author wishes indeed to maintain the Peripatetic

doctrine, but also to combine with it as much
Stoicism as was possible without absolute sistency.2
incon-
That Plato likewise agrees with his
proposition is indicated at the close of the work,

by the
approving citation of a passage from the
c
Laws' (IV., 715, E.), and we are again reminded
of Plato, when Grod is extolled not merely as the
Almighty and Eternal, but also as the prototype

of beauty.3 But this, like all eclecticism, was
naturally only possible by the relaxation of the
strictlyphilosophic interest and philosophic de-
finiteness; and thus we see in the writing rrspl

Kocr/ôu, side by side with the cheap erudition played
dis-
especiallyin Chapters II. to IY., the popular

theological element decidedly preponderating over
the purely philosophical element. In the sions
discus-
on the transcendental character of the divine
essence this religiosityeven assumes a mystic

tinge when the dignity of (rod and His exalta-
trines of the school to which

7 ; cf. Osaxm. p. 219 sqg.
1 C.
2 That he, therefore, ceased he belonged and desired to
to be Peripatetic and
a conse- belong.
quently Zellems *
ipse suwni 3 C. 6, 399, ", 19 xpfy : ravra
sententiami egregie refellere KO! irepl Qeov SwcC/iei

Siavo"iar8cu
vide"ur* (Adam. p. 34) is a sin- p.ev faros IcrxvporaTov, /caAAet

^
gnlar assertion. As if no 5e eunr/jewetrrarau, C"j? 5e a0co/a-

philosopher had ever mingled TOU, apery 5e Kparlcrrov,
"c.
foreign elements with the doc-

138 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. tion above all contact with the world is made the
V.
chief argument against the immanence of the
divine essence in the universe. We see here how
eclecticism accomplished the transition from pure
philosophyto the religious speculationof the neo-
Platonists and their predecessors. The road of
strict enquiry being abandoned, and those results of
speculation alone maintained which commended
themselves to the universal consciousness as true
and expedient, metaphysics must necessarilybe

replacedby theology,in which the majorityof man-
kind
satisfytheir theoretical wants ; and if,at the

same time this theologywere based on the Aristotelian
doctrine of the transcendency of (rod,and the Stoic
idea of his omnipresent influence on the world,
there resulted at once a theory of the universe in
which the Peripateticdualism and the substantial
Pantheism of the Stoic school were reconciled in a
system of dynamic Pantheism.1

Probable To what period the attempt at such a tion
reconcilia-
date of contained in the book we have been ing,
consider-
com/posi-
tion. assigned,is not certain,but it *may be
may be
approximately determined. The revision of the

treatise by Apuleius shows that it was in circulation
as an Aristotelian work about the middle of the
second century after Christ. The only question is,

1 The view above developed, first preparation of this work,
of the character of the treatise independently of Petersen, to
Ktar/jLov,
"jrepl has also in the whose book my attention was
main been advanced by Peter- first drawn by Adam, this will
sen (I. G. p. 557 "?#.)" As it be in favour of its ness.
correct-
had already been the result of
my own investigation,in the

EVIDENCE A3 TO DATE. 139
therefore,how long before this date it was com- CHAP.
posed ? That we cannot placeit earlier than the first '
-centurybefore Christ,is probable from the evidence

of external testimony. If the first trace of its exis-
tence
is met with
Apuleius; if a Cicero and an
in
Antiochus to whom, by its intermediate

"
positionbe-
tween
the Peripatetic and Stoic doctrine,its distinct
arrangement, general comprehensibility, and rhetori-

cal
language,it would so greatlyhave commended

itself never
"
betray by any indication that it was
known to them, we can scarcelysuppose that it was
written earlier than the beginning of the first cen-
tury
before Christ. But its whole character would

lead us still more to assignit to this cen-
definitely tury
or the century immediately following. For

before the attempt could have been made to put
into the mouth of the founder
Peripatetic of the
.school,such important concessions to the Stoics,
the individuality of both schools must already,in

great measure, have disappeared, and the knowledge
of them become obscured ; in a word, philosophic

eclecticism must have attained a development,
which, accordingto all other traces,it did not attain
before the time of Antiochus, the Academician.
When, therefore, Eose1 would place the date of

this work before the middle of the third century
before Christ,the proof for this assertion must be
"very strong to counterbalance the opposite bability.

pro-
2
But this is so little the case that we are
2
1
De ATist.lilr. Ord. etAuct. Eose's arguments are the
-36, 97 s##. following: (1) The passage
140 ECLECTICISM.
GHAP. rather constrained by decisive facts to suppose that

V.
the work Trspl
KOCT/AOVmust be later than Posidonius,,
one or more of whose writings the author employs,,
irepl~K.6criJ.ov
c. 6, 399, ", 33 to himself says that others even
"400, #, 3, was Hipparchus set up other

already scribed
tran- after
in the telian
pseudo-Aristo- computations : Artemidorus, for
treatise example, in agreement with the
TreplGavfj-acricav
aKovcrpdrav (c. 155, p. 846), trepl K"r/xou,gives the length of
which cannot be more recent the terrestrial plain as more
than Antigomis of Carystus, than stadia, and
68,000 its
who died about 220 B.C. But breadth more than 39,000 (Plin.
which of the two works Sfat. Nat. ii. 108, 242 sq. Of
has borrowed from the other Posidonius we know only that
cannot be discovered from a he reckoned the length at
comparison of the passages; 70,000 (Strabo, ii. 3, 6, p. 102);
moreover the passage in the what he said of the breadth
treatise Trepl6av/jia(riuv CLKOVCT- tradition does' not inform us.
which
fjidrav, Bose believes to How anything concerning the
be copiedin KScrpov,
irepl belongs date of the treatise,therefore,
to a section which he himself is to be deduced from its vergence
di-
considers to be a later addition from Eratosthenes
(cf PMl.
.
d. Gr. II. ii.109, 1). On and Hipparchus, it is hard to
this argument, therefore, thing
no- see, (3) According to c. 3,
can be based. (2)Eose ob-
serves 393 5, 23, as Bose asserts,,
that in Kutrôv (c.3, between
irepl the Caspian and Black
393, ", 18) the breadth of the Seas there is crrev^raros IffOpbs
;
habitable plain of the earth, and this could not be maintained
$s tpaffivoi ei" y"ccypa(f"'f)"ravT"$, after Eratosthenes had
is given as nearly 40,000 stadia, placed the breadth of this
and its length about 70,000 isthmus at 1,000 (?)stadia,and
stadia; and this proves that Posidonius at 1,500 (Strabo xi.
the work was written not only 1, 5, p. 491). Our author,,
before Hipparchus, but also however, does not maintain
before Eratosthenes; for tosthenesthis
Era- ; he says, the boundaries
reckoned its length of Europe are yuvôl H6vrov"
at 77,800, and its breadth at
38,000 stadia ; and Hipparchus, els rbv H6vrov
whom the later
mostly writers i.e. the
5r#/ce*, Caspian Sea at
followed, counted 70,000 for the place where the isthmus
its length and 30,000 for its between it and the Pontus
breadth (Strabo, i, 4, 2, p. 62 (which designated as
was also
sqq. ; ii. 5, 7, p. il3 $##.)" But the boundary between Europe
how do we know that our and Asia, according to Dionys.
author must have kept pre-
cisely Perieg. Orl). Desor. v. 20) is
to these predecessors if narrowest. The further servations
ob-
he were later than they ? Bose of Bose I venture to*
LATER THAN POSIDQNIVS. 141
and from whom lie has,perhaps,

borrowed the greater CHAP.
V.
part of the natural science he imparts to us.1 The
pass over, as, even supposing y"vias ol

jSpacrrai, 5e
they are correct, they would Ttt KQXa.
only prove possibility

the and ot Se a; avoi-
not tlie probability or truth yovres Kal yijv av
of his theory. ffiKTai.

KaXovj/rat. Biog. vii. Cf.
1
It has already struck other 154 : TOVS yivea-Qai
(T"L{r]J.ovs 5e
"writers how points of
many irvevfâros els ra KoiX"fiaTaTTJS
contact are presented by our yrjs evfivovTQS ^ [/cai]
/caSefp%0eV-
treatise with the fragments of TOS, KaBd JlOff"l$d0VlOSIv T7J
(pTjffl
Posidonius ; and the non
phenome- eivai
oyfioT}' 5' avr"v TOVS juev
deserves all consideration. (Teicrfj-artaSf TOVS 5e %a"r/iarias,
Thus we find in it. K. c. 4" TOVS Se KXiftaTias, TOVS 5e fipacr-
895, at 32, the definition : ?/ns ftarias, albO Sen. Nat. Qu. vi.
21, 2. In c. -i we read that
there are two kinds of vapours,
Kal KoiXcg (Tweê! irpbsfyav~ and moist
KOU dry ; from the latter
Tacriav ws iv K.a.TO'RTpq} $eo)povjj.4vri
arise fog, dew, hoar-frost,
KaTa This
Tr"pi"f""p"tav.
KVKXOV clouds, rain, "c. ; from the
singular definition is quoted by former, winds, thunder, light-
ning,
Diogenes, vii. 152, with the "c. Compare with this,
same words and with only Seneca, ~Kat. Qu. ii. 54 : J\Tune
slight and unimportant ences
differ- ad opini"nem Pasidonii rever-
from
Posidonius, Merew- tor : e terra terrenisque on-
poXoyLK*].In c. 4, 394, b, 21 m'bits j?ars Jiumida t\$latui\par"
sqq. our treatise maintains that, mcca etfmnida: Itrecfulminibus
of the east winds, /ecu/das is the alwientwm est, ilia, i-mbribus
wind that blows from the place (which Posidonius himself
of the sun's rising in summer, must naturally have given
uirriXLtJOT-nsthat which comes much more at length). If dry
from the Iffyuepwal, zvpos from are shut in the
vapours up
the avaToXal
x"ifjL"pival clouds, they"
of the through break
west winds, blows
them, and this causes
apyecrrys thunder.
from the QepivfySvo-is, fe"pvposWith this explanation of thunder
from the itrnficpudj, Aty from the our treatise also agrees (c.
XGifAeptvT] Svcris. These very de-
finitions
4, 395, a, 11) : "tXr)6evSe 7n/eu/ia
are quoted by Strabo, ev V""f"GiTraê? re Kal voTepip Kal
i. 2, 21, p. 29, from. Posidonius. Si* avTov fitaicas fayvvov
In c. 4, 395, ", 33, we read: iX^]p,araTOV V""J"QVS,
Earthquakes are occasioned by "p6fj.ov Kal Ttarayov peyav aireip-
winds being pent up in the "yacraro, ^povT^vX"y6fievov. With
cavities of the earth and seek- ing the explanation of snow quoted
to escape : T"V 5e O'SIG'IJ."V by Diogenes (vii.153),and no
ot JAW 7r\dyia creiovres "rar'
els doubt abbreviated from donius,
Posi-
o|efa"ryawlas eTriKXipTat. KO.XOVV- the somewhat more
Taty ol 5e "vca finrrcvvres

KOU /carw detailed account in ire
142 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. work cannot, according to this,have been written

V.
before the middle of the first century before Christ ;
harmonises (c.4,394,0,32). The beyond those of the treatise irepl

definition of the creXas (ap. Kocrpov ; whereas the latter book
in all that it says concerning
Diog. I. #.)" which is most
taken, like most of those subjectsbears the charac-
ter
probably
the meteorologicalportions of of
summary, a not pursuing
his expositions of Stoicism, but

enquiries, only comparing
from Posidonius, we again find results ; how can we then think
in irepl K6a-fjLOv (4, 395, I, 2). it more credible that Posido-

nius
Also what is there said (c. 2, should have taken his

the opinions from this compendium
391, ", 16 ; 392, a, 5) on
stars and the ether, reminds than that the author of the
of the description of the compendium should have rowed
bor-
us
Stobasus quotes his from the work of

forpov, which
from Posidonius. Posidonius? And if this had
518)
(jEfcZ.i.
That the agreement of our ever occurred, how is it plicable
ex-
treatise with Posidonins in that later writers

these is not merely dental
acci- should have referred them all
cases
is manifest. As little to Posidonius, without a lable
syl-
their mony
har- of allusion to their
can we suppose that
is the result of their ancient and well-known source,
common dependence on a third attested by the name of Aristo-

tle
which in that ? But if we gard
disre-
exposition, case even
could have nothing less

been all this, the theory will
than a complete meteorology ; not suffice to origi-
nality
save the
for in the first placePosidonius and higher authority
in these matters enjoys great of our treatise unless, with
cannot Hose, that the
reputation, and we we assume
ascribe such dependence to exposition of the Stoic mology

cos-
him ; and in the second, it (ap. Stob. JEcl. i. 444)

would be inexplicablethat he was likewise taken from it.
and not his predecessorshould That this exposition, however,
be named the altogether contradicts such a
always as thority,
au-
whom he must have theory will be shown diately.

imme-
followed closely if he Who can believe that
very
him word for word. instead of the Stoic doctrines
copied
Still more untenable is Eose's being foisted upon Aristotle
theory (I. c. p. 96) that donius

Posi- out of Stoical writings by the
borrowed from the trea-
tise the
Peripatetic, Stoic doctrines
the in which he have been taken out of Aris-
totle
passages
resembles it. We know that himself? I have, ever,
how-
Posidonius wrote comprehen-
sive dwelt too long upon this
works on meteorology, hypothesis,which is manifestly
geography, and astronomy, the only a device to escape from
result of his own investigations,a difficulty. The passages
the contents of which went far quoted above place it beyond
ABOUT THE FIRST CENTURY B.Q. 143
probablyit is rather later ; but we cannot assign it CHAP.

V.
to a later date than the first century after the com-
a doubt that the author of from our treatise : in it there is

the treatise has made abundant also wanting the second of these
use of Posidonius, and even definitions,
and the third (as is
copied from him. If this is shown I. c.} is conceived in a
certain, may we with great manner which can only be es-
probability derive all his

by the design of the plained
graphical
geo-
and
meteorological Peripateticto bring the defini-
tions
dissertations (c. 3, 4) from ready to hand in the
the Stoic philosopher whose Stoic authority into harmony
achievements in these depart-
ments with his own standpoint. Now
are celebrated. To him the passage of Stobaaus only
the detailed discussion on the claims to be an account of the
sea especially points; Posido- Stoic doctrine, and we clearly
nius had written a separate see that it is not taken literally
work on the sea, and therein from a Stoic work. But it is
had asserted, what our treatise equally clear (and its ment
agree-
(c. 3, 392, ", 20) also strongly with our treatise places
enforces, that the whole of the it beyond a doubt) that it is
inhabited earth is surrounded abstracted from such a work.
by the
sea (Strabo, ii. 2, 1,5, p. That this was Chrysippus'sirepl
94, 100 ; i 1, 9, 3, 12, p. 6, 55). K6ff]j.ovy as Osann supposes,
There is another portion of the seems to me more than doubt-
ful.
treatise which I should pose,
sup- Stobseus himself ascribes
from its contents, to be the two first definitions of the
borrowed from Posidonius. K"j"r/*os
to Chrysippus. But
Osann (p. 211 $"#.)has already this statement he may also
shown that the section from owe to a third writer, and
the beginning of c. 2 to c. 3, that it is so, and that this
392, 5, 34, is almost point for third writer was no other than
point the same as the sition

expo- Posidonius, is probable for
quoted ap. Stob. i. 144 three reasons : first,the same

definitions which
doubt Chrysippus,
$g. (which Stobseus no
borrowed from Arius Didymus) according to Stobasus, set up,

there be quoted in Biog. vii. 138,
even though may are
slight differences in the rangementfrom

ar- the perecapohoyiK)] ffroi-
and the conceptions ; XeiacrLs of Posidonius ; nius

Posido-
and that our treatise here also must, therefore, have re-
peated
must be a copy and not an them here; he would

originalis evident from what no doubt have mentioned sippus
Chry-
is quoted p. 134, 2. For as the as their author. Thus
in Stobseus the section of our treatise
excerpt names
the for which coincides with the

Chrysippus as source sage
pas-
the two first of its three tions
defini- of Stobseus is so closely
of the jc4"r/xo?, this quota-
tion connected with the following,
cannot have been taken in which the employment of
144 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, mencement of our era : since it had alreadybeen

^-
handed down to Apuleius as a work of Aristotle,and
Apuleius in his copy must have found some false
readingsl which still exist,the probabilityis that it
was composed a longer or shorter time before the

end of the first century, B.C.2 However this may
be. It is,at any rate, a remarkable memorial of the
eclecticism which, about this time, had found trance

en-
even into the school.

Peripatetic
Posidonius can be proved, that transformation
no
what
from
and
break
that
another
the dissertation
is
is borrowed
source.
on
perceptible
between
comes
from
predicate Ao|-J?
an
Loxe, is accounted
which compre
into the
island, Oxe
nius
Posido-
for by the
Lastly, still existing variant, Ao|^
the islands, KaXovfjievri,instead of Ao"^ irpbs
of
name
or
the
of
and the assertion that the r)]i'oiKOV}jLev'nv('ir.K.3,S9$)

1",15).
supposed mainland is also an
2 To fix the date of its position
com-
island (Stob. 446 ; irepl KJo-ôv, more exactly would

c. 3, 392, 5, 20 $##.) seems to hardly be possible. That the
suit Posidonius (as we have author wrote before Strabo
already observed) exactly. It would seem probable,because
seems, therefore, probable that his description of the sea (c.
it is the same work of nius,
Posido- 3, 393, a, 26) is less precise
Ms o"roi%e"-than
/jLtrGcapoXoyLKTi Strabo's (ii.5, 19 s$. p.
rwcris, from the first section of 122 "?.). Meantime this ence
infer-
which Stobseus Arms
(i.e. Didy- is the more unsafe if the
mus) gives an excerpt, and author in the geographicalpart
which the author of the -n-eplof his work has simply followed
K6"r{j.ov
has used in its whole Posidonius. The $p6vr\(ri$is
extent, in which case not much apportionedto the
of knowledge
the which he to the 6v/j.o"t^"$the
parades (c.2-4) can be placed and avbpeia,to the "T
to his own account. the ffuxppQcrvv'nand
1
As G-oldbacher shows (p. to the whole soul the Sucaiocrvvr],
681 $#")from JLpul.Procem. p. GXsvdepLdrifis,
ju-eyaXotyvxta
and
288, c. 7, p. 302 Oud.). In the likewise the opposite failings.
first of these passages Apuleius' Of these duties and faults
unnatural translation is plained
ex- somewhat definitions
superficial
by the suppositionthat are given; lastly, it is shown
in IT. K. 1, 391, 0, 22 he may by what conduct they are
have read with some of our manifested; and many other
MSS. uepovs ovf oliertffftev
; in sub-kinds of virtues and faults
the second, the otherwise in- are brought forward.
TREATISE OST VIRTUES. 145
Another remnant of that eclecticism we probably CHAP
possess in the short treatise on virtues and vices, also V".
to be found in our Aristotelian collection. The doe-
trine of virtue is here based on the Platonic discrimi- an virtues
and rl"es*
nation of the three faculties of the soul, and the four
chief virtues ; to these the author tries to reduce the
virtues treated of by Aristotle and the ing

correspond-
;
vices to the evil nature of the parts of the soul
relating to them ;
while at the same time he
passes
in review the tokens and manifestation of the ferent
dif-
virtues and vices in the descriptive manner
of the later ethics, as seems to have been ally

especi-
customary in the Peripatetic school after Theo-
phrastus. With Stoicism there are scarcely even
external points of harmony.1 But this short treatise
is not of sufficient importance to detain us longer.2
1 IFor have allied

Instance, perhaps, the would hardly
remark
from
ejrcuyeTck
2 Even
to
that
beginning
the
and
its
the
ê/CTa.
origin
whole
opposition
to
is
end
not
tetic
treatise
is
of
quite
voted
de-
the
himself
course,
writer
Tpijj.epovs
as
does
in
to
if
Plato
it
the
in
were
c.
way
1,
so
1249,
tingly,
unhesita-
matter
that
",
the
30
of
certain; but, from its sion

admis- fj.4w)s K.O.TO. HXarcava^ "c. There
into the Aristotelian lection,

col- is also an indication of a later
and Its whole ment

treat- period in the mention of mons
dae-
of the subject, it is between the gods and

bable
pro-
that it emanated from parents in c. 4, 1250, ", 20;
the Peripatetic school, and not c. 7, 1251, a, 31, tinder the
from the Academy ;

and if its head of piety and godlessness ;
date cannot be precisely fixed, perhaps after the precedent of
assign it, generally the Pythagorean Golden Poem

we may
speaMng, to the period of (v. ft).

Eclecticism. An earlier Peripa-
146 ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTEE VI.
CICERO. VARRO.
CHAP. FROM the

precedingchapters it will be seen how,
VI.
in the first century before Christ, the three scienti-
fically
K
most important schools of philosophyhad
Eclecti-
cism
of tJie
coincided in a more or less strongly developed
first eclecticism. This mode of thoughtmust have com-

mended
century itself the more

B.C.
readilyto those who, from
the outset,had concerned themselves rather with the
Its practi-
cal fruits of philosophic
applicable
practically studies than
cha-
racter,
with strict science. Such was the case with Cicero.1
exempli- Cicero's youth falls in period in which
fied in
only a not
Cicero. the influence of Greek

philosophyon Eoman culture,
but also the approximationand partialblending of
the philosophic schools had alreadybegun to develop
themselves strongly.2He himself had become quainted
ac-
with the most various systems, partly from
the writingsof their founders and representativesand
1
Concerning Cicero as a Gruler's Allg. Mncycl. sect. i.
philosopher,cf besides Ritter 17, 226 s$q. ; Bernhardy, Rom.
.,
(iv. 106-176), Herbart, Werke, Litt. 769 sqg. ; and the treatises
xii. 167 *"#.; Kuhner, M. T. named in the passages quoted
Ciceronis PMlo"opMcwn
in infra, pp. 148,5; 149, 1.
2
Merita, Hamb. (this is
1825 Cicero, as is well known,
only to be regarded as a ious
labor- was born on the 3rd January,
collection of materials); 648 A.U.C. (i.e. 106 B.c,),and
concerning his philosophical therefore some years after the
works, cf. Hand in Ersch. uncl death of Panaetius.
CICERO'S EDUCATION. 147
partly from Ms teachers. In Ms earliest youth, CHAP.
the Epicurean doctrine had commended itself to him
_..
l
through the teaching of Phasdrus ; after this
PMlo of Larissa introduced Mm to the Academy 52
new
whose adherents he persistentlyreckoned

among
himself; at the same time he enjoyed the instruc-
tion
of the Stoic Diodotus who also remained at a
him 3 before the

later period in close proximity to ;
commencement of Ms public career4 he visited
Greece, attended the instructions of Ms old teacher

Phaedrus and those of Zeno, the Epicurean/ "but
with specialeagerness those of Antiochus,6the cMef
founder of Academic eclecticism,and he entered into
a connection with Posidonius,wMch continued tillthe
death of that philosopher.7Also in rature

lite-
philosophical
he had taken such a wide survey that we cannot
withhold from Mm the praiseof wide reading,though

at the same time Ms knowledge of that literattire is
neither independent nor thorough enough to warrant
his called of great erudition.8 He self

him-
being a man
based Ms fame not so much on his own enquiries
1
Up. ad Fam. sili. 1 : A s The writers on philosophy
PJifsdro, q\ii nobisy cum, piieri to whom he most commonly
"essemtts, antequam Philonem refers and most frequently
coanovimus, valde i(tgMlosophus quotes are Plato, Xenophon,
probabatur. Aristotle (of whom, however,
. .
2 Vide siipra, p. 76, 2, 3.

he only to have known
seems
popular and rhetorical

3 Vide mpra, p. 70, 3. some
4
In 78 and 77 B.C. ; there- works), then Theophrastus and
fore in his 29th and 30th year ; Dicsearchus, with their political
Pint. Cic. 3 sa. writings, Crantor, Panastras,
5 Phil. d. Gr. HI. i. 373, 2; Hecato, Posidonius, Clitoma-
374 \ chns, Philo, Antiochus, PMlo-
'
6
Supra, p. 87, 1. demus (or Zeno).
7
Sitpra,p. 58, 4.
1,2
148 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, into philosophyas on the art with which he had-

YI-
clothed Greek philosophyin a Koman dress,and
made countrymen.1 He only
it accessible to his
arrived, however, at this literaryactivityin his

more advanced age, when he had been compelled to
renounce and thus his manifold

public service,2 and
tolerablyextensive philosophicalworks are pressed

com-
into the space of a few years.3 But our
astonishment at the rapidityof his work will be

lessened when
considerably we look more closelyat
his mode of procedure in the compilation of his
works.
philosophical In one portion of these he
does directlyexpress his
not own views, but allows
each of the most important philosophicschools to
explain theirs through one of their adherents,4
and for this purpose he seems almost throughout

to have made free use of the several expositions
which lay ready to hand, and to :have confined
himself mainly to the comparison, representa-

tion,
and elucidation of their contents.5 And even
1 Of the merit which he ber 3rd, 43 B.C., his activity as

claims for himself in this re- a philosophicalwriter occupies
Cicero often speaks while only abont three years,
spect
defending Ms philosophical 4 As in the Academica, De
works against censure, e.g. Finibus, De Natiwa Deo"rwniy
Fin. i. 2, 4 s$t[.; Acad. 1 3, 10 ; De Divinatione.
Tmc. i. 1 sgq. ; N. D. i. 4 ; Off.i. 5
'A^-ypaQa sunt, confesses
1^ l s%. Cicero himself in a ranch-quoted
'
2
Acad. 1. G. ; Tuse. i. 1, 1; 4, passage O# Att. xii. 52), minors
7 ; N. D.I. c. labor e fiunt : rerl)d tantuni
3
The earliest of these
(irre- that
affero, abwndo
f[niJ"m ; and
spective of his two political this,in spite Fin. of (Non i. 2, 4
works), the Consolatio, the intcrpretwn fwigimw mwiere,

ffbrtensius,and the firstversion "c.),is no exaggerated modesty,
of the Academic", fall in the is sufficientlyproved by the
year 709 A.U.C., i.e. 45 B.C. As recent investigationsinto the

Cicero was murdered on Decem- sources of his expositions. In
HIS OWN STANDPOINT. 149
where lie speaks in his own name, he frequently CHAP.

TL
allies himself so closelyto older writingsthat his
own works are scarcely more than reproductions
of these.1 Yet this is no great disadvantagein
regard to our knowledge of his standpoint,
since he
can only bring forward the views of others as his
own when he agrees with them ; and even in his
expository dialogueshe, as a cates

indi-
rule, sufficiently
which of the theories under discussion he
"approves,
His standpointmay be generallydescribed as an His scepti-
cism.
ths Academica he had borrowed served Mm as a model (vide PJdl.
from Antioclms that which, in d. Gr. II. ii. 63); for the Conso-
the first version, he placed in latio, Grantor's ?repl nevQavs
the mouth of Lucullus, and (ibid.H. L 899, 3). The cipal
prin-
afterwards in the month of Varro source of the first book
(vide supra, p. 86, 3) ; the tical
scep- of the TusGidante seems to
dissertations he had bably
pro- have been the writings of
taken from PMLo as well Posidonius and Grantor ; of the
as from Clitomachus (ride Phil, second, Panastius (ride supra,
d. Gr. III. 1 501, 3). The sonrce p. 41, 3 ; Heine, Font. Tusc. Ms-
of the fifth book in De Finibits put. 11 sf[.}-, of the fourth,
is to be found in Antiochus Posidonius (as Heine, I. c. p.
(ride supra, p. 86, 3), and that 13 sq., supposes),or Antiochus
the rest originated in the same (videPkil.d. Gr. HI. i. 517, 1). In
way, admits of no doubt. For the treatise De Fato he appears

the first book on the gods two to repeat the inferences of
Epicurean treatises (concerning Clitomachus. The books De
which cf. Phil d. Gr. III. i. Ojfieiu keep in substance to
573, 2 ; 374, 1) are employed ; Pansetius' work of the same
for the second, probably one name (vide supra, p. 41, 3) ;

of Posidonius and one of Panse- the substance of the Topica,has
tius (cf supra,
. p. 41, 3) ; for probably been furnished by
the third, and for the second Antiochus (ride supra, p. 86, 3).
half of the first,Clitomachus It may reasonably be supposed
(PJiil.
d. Gr. IK. i. 505, 3). De that it was the same with the
Dwinatione is worked out from other works whose Greek totypes
pro-
Posidonius, Pansetius, and tomachus
Cli- have not hitherto been
(vide ibid. III. i. p. ascertained,though Cicero may
337, 1 ; and supra, 41, 3). not in all of them have been
1 For Ms totle's dependent on
Ifortensiiis, Aris- his predecessors
nporpeTpriKbsprobably to the same extent.
150 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, eclecticism founded upon scepticism* The very

"
habit we have
already mentioned, statingargu-
ments of
for and against,without drawing any conclusion,
indicates a tendency to scepticism,for this
procedure cannot be compared with the indirect
developmentof thought in the Platonic dialogues,

or with the Socratic conversations,from which
Cicero himself derives it ; l its true analogy is
2
with the colloquies of Carneades ; and it can only
originatein the fact that the philosopheris not
satisfied with any theory,but objects to something-
in every given system. Cicero,however, expressly
avows himself as belongingto the new Academy/
and brings forward in his own name the argu-
ments
with which it had denied the possibility of
knowledge.4 For himself,one of the great reasons,

if not the greatest, for his doubt, seems to lie in the
disagreement of the philosophersconcerningthe

most important questions; at any rate, he not only
pursues this subject with predilection,5 but pressly
ex-
remarks that he attaches much greater

value to it than to all that has been said by the
Academy on the deception of the senses and the
impossibilityof any fixed definition of ideas.6

1
Tuse. i. 4, 8 ; v. 4, 11 ; N. D.
4
Acad. il 20 sq$. I think it
i- 5, 11. unnecessary to specify these
2 Of. TUSG. v. 4, 11: Quern arguments further in this place,
morem cum Carneades they are not to
acittis- as be considered.
sime temtisset, original,
oopiasissMiiegite and have been quoted,
fecvmis et alias scope et mtper PJiil. d. 6fr. III. i. 500 sqq.
in Tusonlano, iut ad earn con-
5
LOG. Git. 33, 107 ; c. 36 sq. ;
suetiidinem dtsjputwr"wus. J\r.D. i. 1, 1; 6, 13 ; iii. 15, 39.
3 ii. 20 ; 22, 69 ; i. 4,
Acad. 8
Acad. ii. 48, 147 : PostJiao
13 ; 12, 43, 46 ; N. D. i. 5, 12 ; tamen, ciim luce Qitaremusr
Qffic.iii. 4, 20. yatAm de dissenswnibm tantis
ACTION BASED OS PROBABILITY. 1
Scepticism -with Mm, therefore,is not so much the CHAP.

fruit of VL
independent enquiry as the consequence
an
of the uncertaintyin 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
indepen-
of his Greek predecessorswhich that cism
eclecti-
expresses : so far as the philosophersare to be
reconciled, the common elements from, their tems

sys-
are co-ordinated ; so far as they are at strife,
knowledge respecting the debated points is spaired
de-
of, because the authorities neutralise one
another.
Thus it is that doubt in Cicero cannot have by
any means the importance or significance
that it
had had in the new Academy ; and we therefore
see him, in fact,limiting
his scepticismin two spects
re-
: for he attributes greater worth to the

knowledge derived from probabilitythan the
Academy, and he makes hardly any use of certain
parts of the philosophyderived from his sceptical
principle. If he is within the principlesof the
Academy in replying,like Carneades,to the objec-
tion
that scepticism makes all action impossible
that for action fall certainty is not
"
necessary,
but only greater probability
; we cannot consider *
him so in the explanation he gives concerning
summorum mrorum disserawius, disciplines,giiam/i de oeulorum

d" obscwritate natures deqiie sensuumque "reliqiwru?nmen-
error e tot jjliilosopkorum,
qui de daciis et de sorite avt p$"iido-~
fionis contrariisqiierebus tant- mew, guas plagas ipn cmtra* ae
ojpere discrepant,ut cum plus Stoici teseuemnt.

*
uno rerum esse twn pos"it, Acad. II. 31 ; c. 33, 105.
jacere necesse sit tot ta-ni nobiles 108 ; IV. D. i. 5, 12.
152 ECLECTICISM,
CHAP, the aim disputation. This method

of his method of
VI"
was to enable him, by testing the various theories.,
to find out the theory which had the most in its
favour.1 Doubt is, therefore,only the preparation
for a positiveconviction ; and even if this conviction
does not reach the full certainty of knowledge but
only an approximate certainty,it suffices,as we
alreadyknow, for practicallife,the end and aim of
the Ciceronian philosophy. There is no mistaking

the fact : the two elements of the Academic sophy,
philo-
the denial of knowledge, and the assertion
of a knowledge of stand
probability, here in a ferent
dif-
relation from that which they occupy with

Carneades ; for him, doubt the suspension of
itself,
judgment, had been the proper aim of philosophic
enquiry; the theory of probabilitywas only in the
second rank, and resulted from the consideration
of that which remained over from doubt; but to
Cicero the discovery of the probable appears as the
originalproblem of philosophy, and doubt has value
only as a means and a condition of the solution of
this problem. Cicero himself therefore plainlyde-

clares
that his scepticismwas properlyonly in regard

to the Stoic demand for an absolute knowledge ;
with the Peripatetics,
on the other hand, who do not
claim so much in respect to knowledge,he is funda-
1
TUSG. 1, 4, 7 : Ponere jiibe- disserendi. Nam ita faeillime
bam de quo quis audire vellet: quid veri simillimum esset inve-
ad id aut sedens aut ambulans niri posse Socrates arliitrabatur.
disgutabam . . .
fieb"t autem Similarly (v. 4, 11) this proce-
ita, ut cum is qui audire vellet dure claims the advantage, ut
dixisset quid sibi vAderebwr, tuwi nostram ipsi sententia/ni tegere-
$go contra dicereon. Hce.c est mus, error e alias levaremust et
"nim, ut sdis,vdtus et Socratica in omni disputationequid esset
ratio contra alterius opinionem simillimum veri queerer emus.
OBJECTION TO DIALECTIC. 153
mentallyagreed*1 But
scepticism CHAP.
even this modified
receives still further limitations. Though our philo- ___!_
sopher expresses himself hesitatingly on the subject,
yet, all things considered, it is only as to purely

theoretical enquiriesthat he is in harmony with the
new Academy : practicalprincipleson the contrary

and the philosophic
and religious
convictions directly
connected with them, he does not wish to question
in the same way. He objects to dialectic that it
guarantees knowledge but

not real only formal
rules on the construction of propositions and infer-
ences
2 his
; judgment on physics, exclusive of
theology,is that it is far easier for physicsto say
what thingsare not, than what they are ; 3 it would be
presumptuous to arrogate to itself a knowledge,even

4
of its most universal principles ; no human eye is
keen enough to penetrate the darkness with which
of thingsis concealed 5 and even if we
the nature ;
have to limit these expressionsto the case of theo-
logy,
we find no opposite declarations balancing

counter-
them in regard to natural enquiries

proper. In ethics,on the contrary,though he finds
considerable discord among the philosopherson
important questions; and he himself,

6
the most
1 Fin. v. 26, 76. ista omula^ JJuculle, crassis

2
Aca-d. ii. 28, 91; cf. Phil, occultata et circumfmatenelwis,
d. Grr. III. i. 503, 5. ut nulla a"ies Jtuniant ing"mi
3 N. D. i. 21, 60: Omnibus tanta sit, qiic? pen"trare in
fere in rebus et mascime i*i ecelum, terram intrare jpossit.
yJiysfasiSy
Quid noti sit dtius, Corpora*nostra no-n not'imm, "c.
sit
qitiil dixerim, " 124 : Satisne tandem ea noia"
quam
4
Acad. ii. 36, 116: JSstne mntnoffistftv^nervorwmnatura
quisqua/nitanto errore, sit, gute rencvrum
inftatm ? Ten"nmme
flitS'iM se ilia stire jpersiiaserit? q\ti"animus sit ? "c.
3
Acad. ii. 39, 122 : Latent 6
Acad. ii. 42 ; c. 48, 147.
154 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, as we shall
presentlydiscover,cannot avoid fluctua-
'
tion in replyingto them; yet we soon perceive

that here he is far from admitting the same tion
justifica-
to doubt as in the purely theoretical sphere.
"What he occasionally says in his discussions concern-
ing
the Laws, that he does not intend to examine

further the doubt Academy,1 he seems
of the new
to have made a general rule in his moral philosophy;

for in none of his writings on this subjectdoes he pay
any regard to the considerations which he himself

had previously raised ; but as soon as the doubt in
the enquiries of the Academy has had space to express
itself,the highestgood and duties 2 are treated of
in the moral discussions in a wholly dogmatic tone,
though at the same time without any fixed plan*

In connection therewith we also find our sopher
philo-
bringingforward opinionsabout (rod and the
human soul, which are manifestly for him thing
some-
more than uncertain conjectures, though even

here he despairs of absolute certainty of know-
ledge.
He constantly says that he is merely following
probability and expressing his own "
sonal
per-
opinion.3 But that he was reallya consistent
1
Legg. i. 13, 39 : Perturba- maxime reri simile est et qiio
tricem autem harivni omniwn mimes duce natura venimits,
rentm Aeademiam Jiano ab Deos esse ; and at the conclu-
Areesila et Carneade recentem, sion of the treatise,iii. 40, 95 :
exoremus tit sileat. Nam si Ita discessimw, ut VellejoCottcs

invaserit in JICBG . . .
nimias dispirt"tioverior, miJii Balbi ad
ed"t ruinas. Quam guidem ego writatis similitudinem mdere-
ylacare cwpwt submovere non tur esse prop ensior. Tuso. iv. 4,
audeo. 7: Sed defendatqmd qiiisqiie
2 Proof of this will presently sentit ; sunt enwijudicia liftera :
be given. nos . . . quid sit in quaqîe re
8
So .ZV. D. i. 1, 2 : Quod maxime proftabilesemper re-
THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS. 155
l
adherent of Carneades conld only be inferred from CHAP.
VT
such utterances if his whole
procedure corresponded
'
with them. This, however, is not the case. His
convictions are not so fixed and decided that he

trusts unconditionallyto them, and he is never so
sure of them that he does not keep before him the
probabilityof having, at another time, another

opinion about the same subjects; indeed, he is
enough
superficial to pride himself on Ms ness.2
fickle-
But even his doubt is too shallow to deter
him from statements which a member of the new
Academy would not have ventured to advance so
explicitly.Though he calls the existence of the
gods merely probable,he immediately adds that
were the belief in providence abolished,all piety,

and fear of Crod, all human community and justice,
would be destroyed; 3 which he could not possibly
have said if that belief had had for him merely the
value of even a probableconjecture.Moreover, when
he founds an argument for the truth of a belief in
gods on its universality,he does so without any

limitation,in his own name.4 This is also the case,
as we shall find,with his development of the teleo-
logical
argument, his utterances concerning the unity
of Grod and the divine government of the universe,
on the dignityof man, and the immortality of the
soul. A logicalscepticismis here not in question:
quiremug. V. 29, 82 8%. ; Acad. aeademiker. Oldenb. 1860
ii. 20, 66: Ego vero ipse et {G-yuiin. progr^
magnus qmdeni sum opinator, 2
Tusc. v. 11, 33 ; vide infra,
non enim "iwi sapiens, "c. Vide p. 157, 1.
infra, p. 157, 1. 3
N. D. i. 2, 3 8%.
1
Burmeister, Cic. als Neu- 4 Vide p. 161, 1, 167.
infra,,
156 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, the philosopher,no doubt, mistrusts human know
ledge,and holds greateror less probability to be the
highestthingattainable ; but he reserves to himself
the power of making an exceptionto this rule in all
cases where a pressing moral or mental necessity

demands a more fixed conviction.
Practical This more confident treatment of practical

ques-
tions has,however, with Cicero so much the more
because, according to his view, the

significance,
contained
whole problem of philosophyis exclusively
in them. Though knowledge is a
he admits that
good in and for itself,and further,that it secures

the purest and highest enjoyment ; * and though he
expresslyincludes physics in this admission,2yet

not knowledge itself,but its effects on life appear
to him the ultimate aim of philosophicenquiry.
Knowledge completes itself only in action ; action

has,therefore, a higher value than knowledge ; 3 the
enquiry concerning the highest good is the most

important of all enquiries,and determines the whole of
philosophy: 4 the best philosophyis that of Socrates,

which does not trouble itself with thingswhich lie
beyond our sphere of vision,and, being convinced

of the uncertainty of human knowledge, applies
itself entirelyto moral problems.5 The proper aim
1
Fin. i. 7, 25 ; Tusc. v. 24 $g. ; c. 21, 71.
JV. D, ii, 1, 3 ; of. the following 4 Fin. v. 6, 15 : JECoc (sumtno
note. 'bono}enim constitute in pliilo-
2 ii.
Acad. 41, 127 ; Tusc. v. sopMa constituta sunt omnia,
3, 9; 24, 69; Fm. iv. 5, 32; "c.
Fragm. from Hortensius, ap. 5 Acad. i. 4, 15 ; of. Fin,, ii.
Augustin. De Trin. xiv. 9. 1,1; Tusc. v. 4, 10.
3
Off.i. 43, 153 ; cf. c. 9, 28 ;
PHILOSOPHICAL INCONSISTENCIES. 157
of philosophy, therefore,may be attained In spite of CHAP.

the restriction of our TL
knowledge: we know nothing
with absolute certainty; but we know that which is
most important with as much certaintyas we require
to know it; scepticismis here merely the under-
lying
base of a mode of thought,which is founded
upon practicallyuseful; and

the because this
tendency towards the practical best harmonised
with the dispositionof the Eoman and the states-
man,
Cicero was more susceptibleto the doctrine of
Cameades than he would otherwise have been ; cause
be-
purely theoretical enquiriesalreadyappeared
to him worthless and transcendental,he abandons
also the scientific proof of their impossibility ; but
as soon as his practicalinterests come in contact

with doubt he makes a retreat, and would rather
content himself with a bad expedient,than admit
the Inevitable consequences of his own sceptical
statements.
If we ask, then, from whence we are to derive His eclec-
our positiveconvictions,we have alreadybeen told ticim"

that the probable is best discovered by the com-
parison
and testingof different views : the positive

element in Cicero's scepticism is that eclecticism,
which we shall presentlyhave an opportunity of

examining further.1 But in order to decide be-
1 It will liere suffice to recall 33 : Tit giMem tabellis obsig-

tlie characteristic observations natis agis me"um et testificarls
in Off. iii- 4, 20 : JVWs autem, Quid dixerim aliquanda aut
nostra Academia mat/nam licen- s"ripserim. Cum aliis isto modo,
tiam dat, lit maxime
quodcunque, qui legibusimpositisdispictant ;
probabileoccurred id nostrojvre nositidiem virimus ; guodevn-
liceat defendere. Tusc. v. 11, que nostros
158 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, tween oppositeopinions,

we must have the standard
T[-
of decision in our hands, and as philosophic
enquiry
consists proving of different views, such a
in this very
standard must be alreadygiven before every scientific

investigation.Two thingsseem then to be directly
present: the evidence of the senses and the evidence
of consciousness. Even the first,in spite of his
many complaintsof the deception of the senses, is
"not despisedby Cicero ; he says that it would be
contrary to nature, and must make all life and
actionimpossible, if we admitted no conviction
(probare,not assentiri) and that among those victions

con-
which force themselves upon us with the

the
greatestprobability, assurance of the senses
l for this
occupiesone of the foremost places; reason
he employs sensible evidence as an example of the

highestcertainty; 2 and he himself in all his writ-
ings
appealsgenerallyto experienceand historical

matters of fact. In accordance with his whole
tendency, however, he is forced to lay the chief

stress on the other side, on the witness internal to
us ; for his interest belongs not to the external but

to the moral world, and even in his ethical doctrine
vercumt, id dicimus; ttaqiie ut sit viswn illud pro'babile

] liberi. neque iilla re impeditum -
1 Acad. ii. 31, 99 : Tale risum cnraa-Tov, cf. Part III. i. 515 s#.)
nullwm, me, ut pevceptiocon- moreMtur. Non enim est e saoso
semieretiir, ut awtem probatlo, sculptus aut e robore dolatus.
multa. Utenim contra natiuram Habet corpus, liabet animum :
esset,si probaMte niUl esset, et movetur mente, movetur senw-
sequitur oninis vita . . .

eversio. Ms: -ut eimultamravidecmtwr,
Itaque fft senzibus probanda "c. Neque iws contra sensus
mutta, sunt, "c. Quacunque res aliter didmus, ae Stoici,"c.
eimi [sa/pientewi]
sie attinget, -
LOG. cit. c. 37, 119.
INNATE KNOWLEDGE. 159
lie throughoutallies himself with those philosophers CHAP.

made VI*
who have independence of the external and
dominion sensualitytheir watchword.
over All our
conviction, therefore, accordingto Cicero, depends

in the last resort upon direct internal certainty,
upon
the natural feelingfor truth,or innate knowledge ; Doctrine
and this theory which gained so important an in- ff i
fluence in the the

later,especially Christian sophy,
philo-
he was the first to enunciate l for
definitely;
though Plato and Aristotle,Zeno and Epicurus had
preceded him with similar doctrines,
yet our previous
enquiries have shown that none of these taught
innate knowledge in the strict sense : the cence
reminis-
of ideas,accordingto Plato, must be awakened
by methodical study, and their content fixed ; we
attain to the principles that are beyond proof,

according to Aristotle,by the scientific road of in-
duction
; the
TTpokrj^r^sof Epicurus and the xowal
svvoiai of the Stoics are only abstracted from perience.

ex-
Here on the contrary there is an tion

asser-
of a knowledge antecedent to all experience

and concerning the most
science, and important
truths. The germs of morality are inborn in us,
if they could develop themselves undisturbed,

science would be unnecessary; only through the
perversionof our natural dispositionarises the need
of a technical training to virtue.2 The conscious-
1 It Is possible,indeed, that ingeniis nostris seniina innata,

he herein have followed mrtutum; qucB si adokscere
may
how far this is Iiceret,ip8" ad beatam vitam-
Antiochns ; but nos
the case cannot now be ascer- natura $"rduceret ; only the

tained. obscuring of natural conscious-
2 Tusc. iii. 1, 2: Sunt enim ness through evil habits and
160 ECLECTICISM.
GHAP. ness of right is implanted in man by nature ;

YI-
subsequently a tendency to evil is formed which
obscures it.1 Nature has endowed our spiritnot

only with a moral disposition,but also with the
fundamental notions of morality preceding any

instruction, as an originaldowry ; it is only the
development of these innate notions which is in-

cumbent
on us :
2
with reason, those impulses are
directlygiven which prompt men to moral munity

com-
with others and the investigationof truth.3
The essence of moral activity may, therefore, be

deduced not merely from the intuition of guished
distin-
men, but also from the universal ness,

conscious-
with greater certainty than from any definition

of ideas ; the nearer the individual still stands to
nature, the more keenly will this be reflected in

him : we learn from children what is according to
nature.4 Belief in the Deity rests upon the same
false opinions makes a doctrine cJioavit,nihil amplius. Itaque

and science necessary. nostrum est (quod nostrum, dico3
1
Legg. i. 13, 33 : Atque Tioc artis esf),ad ea principia quat
in omni hoc
disputatwne sic accepimus consequentia exqui-
intelligivolo, jus quod dicam rere, quod sit id quoad volumus
naturam esse, tantam autem esse effectum.
3
corruptelammalteconsuetudinis, Fin.
ii. 14,46: Eademque
ut ab ea tanquam igniculi esc- ratio fecit Tiominem Jwniimim
stinguantiiT a natura dati apjyetentem, "c. . .
eadeni
.
exorianturgue et cmfirment-ur natura cupiditatem ingemiit

vitia contraria, homini veri inveniendi, "c.
2 Fin. v. 21, 59 : (Natura Jio- Further evidence for these pre-
mini) dedit talem mentem" cpice positions is easily to be found.
virtutem 4 LOG. cit. 14, 45
omnem acclpereposset, : [Honestum~]
ingenuitqiie sine doctrina quale sit non tarn definitions
notitiasparvas re rum qua sum usiis intelligipot est
maxim arum et quasi instituit . . . quawi communi omnium,
docere et indusrit in ea giue judieio atque optimi cujusque
inerant 'tanquawi elementa vir- studiis faotis. On
atque the
ttctis. Sed virtutem ipsam in- same subject, vide v. 22, 61 :
CRITERION OF TRUTH. 161
basis : by virtue of the human spirit's with

affinity CHAP.
^
God, the consciousness of Grod is immediatelygiven
with self-consciousness : man has only to remember
his origin in order to be led to his Creator.1
own
Nature, therefore, herself instructs us concerning

the existence of God,2 and the strongest argument
for this truth is its universal recognition; for that

in which all agree without previous persuasion,
must always be regarded as an utterance of nature.3
The immortality of the soul must likewise belong to
these innate truths, of which we are convinced
4
through universal consent ; and in the same way
Cicero seems to presuppose the freedom of the will
Indicant pueri in quibus lit in id enhn vltioso more Jierisolet

speculisnatura cernitur. (observe here the distinction
1
Legg. i. 8, 24 : Animum . . .
between mos and natura,):
esse ingeneratum a Deo ; esc quo omnes tamen esse Tim et natu-
rere rel agnatio nolis cum ram divinam arUtrantur. Nee
ceelestibus rel genus rel stirps rero id collocutio Jut-mimim aut
appellari potest. Itaque ex tot consensus effeeit
: non imtitutis
generibus nullum est animal opinwestconjirmata.nonlegi'bus.
prceter kominem quod kabeat Omni autem hi re eomenslo
notitiainaliquam Dei. Ijtsisgue (minium gentium lex nature
inliominibusnulla gens est neque putanda est (cf." 35; omnium
tavnim'niansuetanequetam.fera, consensus natures "rox est}. "Vide
also If Cicero
quas n"ns etiamsi- ignoret qualevi s?^.note 1. else-
liabere Dewai deceat, tarn^n where makes his Academic
Jiabendum, stiat. Ex effi- philosopher
quo claim this proof
cltur illud, ut is agnoscat Deum, (3".D. i. 23, 62 ; iii.4, 1 1) from
gui unde ortus sit quasi recsor- the consensus gentium which is
detur ac ?wscat. put in the month of the Bpi-
2 TUSG. i. 16, 36: Deos esse cnrean as well as the Stoic
natura- opinainur. Cf. N. D. i. {N. D. i. 16, 43 sq. ; ii. 2, 5)
1, 2. he implies here (i,23, 62 ; iii.
3 TUSG. i. 13, 30 : Flmum- 40, 95) what is placed beyond
mum hoc aff"wi ridetur, cur a doubt by passages from his
Deos esse credawms, quod nulla other works, that Gotta did not
tarn fera, nemo omnium express Ms opinion on the sub-
gens
tern sit immanis, eujus mentein ject.
non inibuerit Deorum opinio. 4
Fuse. i. 12 sq. ; 15, 35 sq.
Hiilti dc DUs pra/ca sentiwnt;
162 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. simply as an internal matter of fact.1 In a wordy

VI.
philosophy,as well as morality,is here founded on
direct conscionsness : this is the fixed point from

which the opinionssets out, and
testingof philosophic
to which it returns.
The material results of Cicero's philosophyhave

nothing distinctive, and can therefore be only
shortlydiscussed in this place. As to the chief
philosophic sciences,dialectic is regarded merely in
the sceptical manner already mentioned. In the
domain of physics,theologicaland psychological

enquiriesalone have any value for Cicero ; questions
of other kinds for instance,concerning the number
"
of the elements, whether there are four or five ; cerning

con-
the material and and the like

efficientprinciple
" are only touched upon in cursory historical notices^
or sceptical
in a comparison of different doctrines. In
the estimation of this philosopher, the chief thing is
ethics. With ethics,therefore,I commence.

Cicero developshis ethical principles, as, indeed^
ence of his whole philosophicdoctrine,in the criticism of
ethics in
Ms philo-
the four contemporary theories, the Epicurean,Stoic,
sophy.Academic, and Peripatetic. Of these four systems,
he opposes himself definitelyto the first alone.
The Epicurean doctrine of pleasureappears to him
so strikingly to contradict the natural destiny and

natural necessities of man,2 the facts of moral sciousness
con-
and of moral experience,that we have
no need to enter more particularly

into the remarks
with which he opposes it in the second book of De
De Fato, c. Fin. i. 7, 23, s$, ; ii. 14, "c.

ETHICS. IBS
Finibus, and elsewhere "

generally speaking,ratter CHAP.
in the tone of a rhetorician than in the severer strain '
of philosopher. On the other hand, his judgments

a
on the three remaining systems are far from being

consistent. Even as to the reciprocalrelation of
these systems, he is never quite clear. For though he
remains true to the assertion of his master Antio-
ehus in regard to the Academy and the Peripatetics
"
viz. that these two schools,as they agree generally,
especially coincide in their ethics,and that the
feebler morality of Theophrastus and of later Peri-

patetics
is not further removed from the moral
doctrine of the Academy than from the original

doctrines of Aristotle !
"
yet he is uncertain whether
he shall explain the difference between the Stoics
and these two schools as essential,or unessential,
as divergence in fact or in words.
a While, on the one
hand, he repeatedly maintains distinctlyand in his
own name, that Zeno is reallyat one with his pre-

decessors,
and only changes their expressions; 2 on
the other, he gives a tolerablylong list of the points
in which the Stoic morality differs from that of the
Academy and Peripatetics,3and he speaks of the
opposition, as we shall presently find,with a full
acknowledgment of its importance. Cicero tainly

cer-
makes use of a very poor expedient to justify

this contradiction, when he says that, as a member
of the Academy, he has a right to follow the pro-
1 i. 6, 22 ; Fin. v. 3, 7
Acad. 26 ; v. 8, 22 ; 25, 7i ; 29, 88
sq. ; 5, 12 ; cf 25, 75 ; Tuse. Iv.
.
Off.i. 2, 6 ; Tuse. v. 11, 3i.
3, 6 ; v. 30, 85 ; Off.lit 4, 20.
3 Acad. i. 10.
JFin. ill. 3, 10 ##. ; iv. 20-
2
164 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, bability of that time without regard to conse-
YI he
qnences.1 But even for himself seems unable
in this discussion to find any fixed standpoint. So

far,indeed,as the statements of both sides agree "
in the universal principlesof life according to

nature, and in the unconditional appreciationof
virtue,he is quite sure of himself; 2 but as soon as
the roads divergehe knows no longerwhich he shall
follow. The grandeur,consistency,and severityof

the Stoic ethics excite his admiration ; it appears
to him regard virtue as sufficient for
nobler to
happinessand not to distinguish between the good
and the useful,than to assent to the oppositeview

of the Peripatetics;3 he finds the Stoics' admis-
sion
of the affections weak, and their moral ciples

prin-
hazardous, since that which is faultyin its
nature, like the affections,should not merely be

restricted, or, still less,regardedas a help to virtue,
but wholly eradicated.4 He reproachesthem with
the inconsistencyof assuming goods with which the
happy man may dispense,and evils which he may

endure ; and thus distinguishing from the happiness
of the virtuous as such,a supreme happiness,and

from the perfectand complete life,a life that is
more than complete.5 He prefers,therefore,to follow
the nobler mode of thought, to call the wise man
happy under all circumstances,even in the bull of
1 Tuso. v. 11, 33 ; sru/pra,p. Bitter,iv. 134 sgg., 157 sq$.

157, 1. * Tusc. iv. 18 8#$. ; Off.i. 25,
2 Acad. i. 6,22 ; Fin. iv. 10, "c. 88 ; cf ,
Acad. i. 10, 35, 38.
3 Tuso. v. 1, 1 ; 25, 71 ; Off. 5 Fint v. 27 *q. ; Two. v. 8-
iii.4, 20 ,*cf. with the following, 12, 15 SQ.
ETHICS OF THE STOICS. 165
Phalaris l he desires
; to adopt, at any rate tenta- CHAP.
tively,the famous Stoic Paradoxes.2 If, however,

'
we enquire more closely into this Stoicism, it is
clear that our philosopheris not so certain about it
as we might have supposed from these utterances.

A man of the world, like Cicero, cannot conceal
from himself that the Stoic demands are much too
exalted for men as they are, that the Stoic wise man
is not found in that the

reality,3 Stoic morality does
not admit of being transferred to daily life;4 he
cannot possibly allow that all the wise are alike
happy, and alTthe unwise absolutely wretched, and

that there is no difference in value between the most
hardened wickedness and the most trivial offence.5

But he believes he can show that the severityof the
Stoics is not scientifically
justifiable,
and, moreover,
that it contradicted their own ; for
presuppositions
if the first principleis life according to nature,
among the things according to human nature are
also to be counted health, free-

sensible well-being, dom
from pain, and an untroubled mind "

even
pleasure is not to be wholly despised. To live
according to nature is not to separate oneself from

nature, but rather to encourage and sustain it.G
These arguments draw our eclectic philosopherso

strongly to the side of the Peripatetics,that he
declares himself to be of their number.7 The truth,
1 Tusc. v. 26. 8 Fin. Iv. 11-15 ; Cato, 14,

2 Paradoxa. 46 ; Tusc. II. 13, 30,
3 Lai. 5, 18 ; cf. Off. iii.4, 16.
7
In the fourth book of De
4 Fin. Iv. 9, 21. Finibus, It Is Cicero himself
5 Fin. Iv. 9, 21 ; 19, 55 ; 28, who brings forward the Peri-
77 *#. Cf. Off.I. 8. 27. pateticview.

166 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, expressed in his confession

however, is only finally
^' of his nesses,
weak-
that sometimes the consideration own
and of human weaknesses generally,in-

clines
him to the laxer doctrine,and, at other times,

the thought of the majesty of virtue inclines him to
the stricter ; l he comforts himself therefore for his
by the conviction
vacillation, that it can exercise no
essential influence practicalconduct, since

on even
on the Peripatetictheory,a far higher value must
be assignedto virtue than to all else.2
It would be difficult to discover in these propo-

sitions
principle,
any new and in the Ciceronian
ethics generally any other characteristic than that
of an eclectic and popular philosopher ; for even the

trait on which Eitter lays stress,3viz. that with
Cicero,the honourable Qionestum)takes the placeof
the beautiful (/eaXoz/)
and that in connection with
there-
he ascribes greater value to glory than the
Greeks did, even this is partlya mere difference of
language,having no influence on the content of the

moral principle; and partlyit is a concession to the
Eoman which, being devoid of any scientific

spirit,
foundation,can only be regardedas a further proof
of the uncertainty of Cicero's manner of ing.
philosophis-
All the less reason is there to enter further
into the details of Cicero's ethical and political
ciples
prin-
than has already been done.4 Strikingas
many of his remarks on these subjectsmay be, they
show too little connection with definite philosophic
1
Tuso. 1, 3.
v.
3 TV. 162 sqg.
4 PHI.
2
Off.iii. 3, 11. d. 0r. III. i. p. 276 *".
THEOLOGY. 167
principlesto allow us to attribute to them any CHAP.
importance in the history of philosophy. His

_____
theories concerning the

Deity and the essential
nature of the soul must, however, be shortly
tioned.
men-
The belief in aDeity,as already observed,ap- ffi*

ieo w*
pears to our philosopher to be required, not
merely by immediate consciousness, but also by
moral and political
interest. Without religion,he
"thinks, truth and justice,and all human social
life would be at an end.1 But the other ments

argu-
for the existence of God are not entirely
repudiated by him, and he brings forward the
teleological
argument in
especially, spite of the
criticism of the Academy which meets it in its
Stoic form,2 with fall conviction.3 In regard to
the nature of God, Cicero is,no doubt, in earnest
in the remark which he places in the mouth of
his Academic philosopher,viz. that nothing can
be asserted with perfectcertainty,about it ; 4 but,

so far as the probable may be determined, he
thinks he may venture to presuppose not only the
6
unity of God5 but also His spirituality
; this,how-
1 N. i. 2, 4; cf. ii.61,153.
D. 7, 22 ; Samn. Seip.(Rep. vi. 17)
Hence (N. D. iii. 2, 5; Legg. 3, B et pass.
6 Tuse. I. 27, 66: Nee
ii. 7, 15) the observations on vero
the politicalnecessity of relig- Deifs ipse qui intelligitura

ion. nobis olio modo iaitelllgi
patest,
~ N. D. iii. 10, 24 ; 11,37. nisi mens solirta queedam et
3 Dirin. ii. 72, 1487 Tusc. i. libera, segregate, ab omni con-
28 sg. eretione mortaM, (mmia sentiens

4
^ D. i. 21, 60 s#. ; cf .
iii. et men-ens ipsague pradita, vtwtu
40, 95. sempiterno. Jfap. vi, 17, 8 ;
5 TitSG. i. 23 ; 27 ; Legg. i. Legg. ii. 4, 10, "c.
168 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, ever, he does not

apprehend in a very strict sense,.
'
for he admits the possibility 1 that the Divine Spirit
may be conceived, accordingto the Stoic view, as

air or fire ; or with Aristotle, so far as Cicero under-
stood
him,2 as sethereal essence: in the dream of
Scipio, the supreme heaven, in agreement with this

misconception of Aristotle is declared to be itself
the highestgod.3 But this closer definition of the
conception of Deity had scarcelymuch value for
Cicero himself. For him the belief in Providence
is of far greater importance,though he allows even
this to be doubted by his Academic

philosopher.4 .
Since he chiefly regardsreligionfrom the practical
point of view, the whole significance of it is in his
opinioncomprehended in a belief in a divine govern-

ment
of the world : 5 the law of justiceand morals
is for him the type of the divine
world-ruling wisdom.8'
From this standpointonly a negative or external
relation was possible to the popularreligion, unless,,

indeed, the violent methods of the Stoic orthodoxy
were to be followed ; when, therefore, Cicero desires-

that the existingreligionand even the existing
1 Tusc. I. 26, 65 ; cf. c. 29. for we are not in the

justified,
3 T-usG. i. 10, 22 ; N. D. 1 13, face of so many contradictory
33 ; Acad. i. 7, 22. explanations(vide JV. D. iii.40),.
3
Hep. vi. 17, 4. in identifying Cicero's own
4 N. D. iii.10 ; 25-39. Hitter opinion with that here brought
(iv. 147, 150) deduces from forward.
these passages that Cicero dis- 5
Many passages in which
believed in Providence, and Cicero treats of Providence are
opposed the Natural to the quoted by Eoihner, L c. p. 199.

Divine, setting on the one side I merely refer in this place to
God without Nature, and, on T-usc.i. 49, 118; N. 2). i. 2, 3;
the other,Nature without God; Legg. i. 7 : iii. 1, 3.
but I cannot agree with this, *
Legg. ii.4, 8.
VIEWS OF HUMAN NATUME. 189
superstitionsshall be maintained in the State,he is CHAP.

^"
speaking entirely from politicalconsiderations ; ]
he not only makes
personally, no attempt to justify
polytheism and its myths after the manner of the
Stoics, but he shows by many utterances,and,

above all,by the sharp criticism to which he subjects
the popular belief in gods in his third book De
Natura Deorum; and soothsayingin his second
book De Divinaiione, how far he himself stands
from the national religion.Eeverenee for the Deity,
which is consistent with a true view of nature, and
coincides with true morality,is to be required; the
existingreligionis to be maintained for the good

of the commonwealth; superstition,
on the other
2
hand, is to be torn by the roots
up "
such, in a
word, is Cicero's confession

theological of faith.
With the belief in God, accordingto Cicero's
view, as we have already seen, the conviction of

the dignity of human nature is intimatelycon-
nected. This conviction also depends far more
with him upon inner experience and moral self-
consciousness than on any philosophictheory con-

cerning
the essential nature of the soul. If we
consider the number of our endowments, the ness

lofti-
of our vocation, the high prerogativewhich

reason confers upon us, we shall become conscious
of our higher nature and descent.3 Accordingly
JV: D. iiL 2, 5 ; Legg. ii.7 s$. ;

1 it 28, 71 (Phil. d. 6h-. III. i. p.
13, 32 ; DM*, ii.12, 28 ; 33, 70 ; 311, 1).

72, 148.
3
1*00. I. 7 *$., 22 sq. ; Rep.
2 Dimn, ii.72, 148 Sf[.; N. D. vt 17, 8.
170 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. Cicero,in agreement with the Stoic and Platonic
doctrine,regards the soul as an emanation of the
Deity,an essence of supernaturalorigin; l without

troublinghimself to developthis notion more ticularly,
par-
or to define the relation between this
supernaturalorigin of the soul, and the material
originof the body. But, as he is uncertain about
the nature of God, so he expresses himself tatingly

hesi-
about that of the soul, and though his

inclination unmistakablytends to explain it as an
immaterial substance,or, at any rate, as a substance

from
differing terrestrial matter,2 he will not gether
alto-
exclude the that

possibility it consists of air
or fire; it is only the coarser materialityof the
body that he unconditionallydenies in respect to

the soul.3 The immortality of the soul he defends
at length,partlyon theground of direct conscious-

ness
and universal agreement,4and partly by the

5 if he
Platonic arguments ; also tries to silence
the fear of death, even supposing that souls perish
in death,6 this is merely the prudence of the
Academician and of the practicalman who would
2
1
Fuse. i. 27 : AnimowmmtUa Two* i. 27; 29, 70.
in terris origo inveniri %"otest, s i. 25,
Tuso. 60 : Non est
"c. LOG. cit. 25, 60; Legg. i, certeneceordisnec sangidnis nee
8, 24 : JZxstitisse yuandavi ma- cerelri nee atomorwn. Anima,
turitatem serendi generis Iwt- sit animus ignisveneseio; nee rne
mani, qiiod sparswn. in terras pvdet^ tft istos,fateri me nescire
atqiiesatum divino aiictum sit guodnesciam; l.c.2Q,65; 29,70.
Tuse. i. 12 ; L"%1.
4 4 ;
animorum mnnere. Cunigue sgg. c.
co)K"rent
alia giiibiis homines e Cato, c. 21 sqq.
mortali genere smipserint, giice 5 Tusc. i. 22 sqq. ; JSÂ vi.
f rag ilia essent et cadiica,, a)ii~ 17, 8 ; Cato, 21, 78. ^
mum, tamen esse 'ingen"ratum,a 6 Tuse. i. 34 5^. ; J$p. act

Deo. Of. Goto, 21, 77. Famil. v. 16.
VARRO. 171
make the moral effect of Ms discourses as far as CHAP.
possibleindependent of all theoretic presuppositions. '
He tries to prove free will as generallyunderstood

in the same manner as immortality,"but the treatise
which he devoted to the and which

sttbject,1 has been
transmitted to us fall of lacunse,contains no pendent
inde-
psychological
enquiry*
These traits will suffice to justifythe position
which we have assignedto Cicero,and to prove him?
together with his teacher Antiochus5'the truest presentative
re-
of philosophiceclecticism in the last
century before our era. But that he was far from
standingalone respectto this kind of philosophy

in
among his countrymen and contemporaries will be

clear from our previous examination of the school of
Antiochus.2 Among the Roman adherents of this mode
of thought,M. Terentius Yarro,3the learned friend of
Cicero was, after Cicero himself,the most important. V0rro9
His principalachievements lie indeed in another
sphere; as a philosopherhe did not exercise any-

4
thing like the widespread influence of Cicero,friend of
though his historical knowledge of Greek sophy

philo-
was perhaps more thorough and complete.
1 De Fato. The principal ties there quoted, Kritsche,

propositionsof this treatise (c. Cfott. Stud. 1845, ii. 172 *#. ;
11) are taken from Carneades. Bitschl,*J"/" Schriftstellerei
ties.
2
Suj)ra,p. 99. M. Ter. Tarro,' jRkein. Mm.
3 The life of Yarro falls JVT.F. vi. 481-560; Mommsen,
between 116 and 27 B.C. For BSm.GescJi. in. 602
sqg., 624*0.
4 Cicero
"the rest, ride concerning Mm As (Aead. i. 2, 4 *00.)
the histories of Eoman litera- represents him as saying of
ture " Bahr, in Pauly's Meal- himself, though he has pre-
encyc. d. Slass. Alterth. vi. vionsly praised his knowledge
the authori- of philosophy.
1688 *#"., and
172 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. Yet the philosophical

direction taken by so famous-
a scholar l
and so well known an author must sarily
neces-
have been influential. This direction was,

Cicero assures us,2 that of Antiochus, whose tures
lec-
3 and
Varro had attended in Athens ; Varro
in his treatise philosophy,so far as we
on can
gather from Augustine,4 expressed himself quite

in the sense of Antiochus.5 The sole aim of
philosophy,he here tells us, is the happiness of

man ; consequently those distinctions of doctrine
and
among the schools of philosophy are alone to be
considered important which relate to the definition

of the highest good.6 Great, therefore,as is the
1 Doctissimifs Romanorum, he 3 Cic. Acad. i. 3, 12 ; 1, 1, 3 ,-

is called in Sen. Ad Jffelv. 8, 1 ; Ad Famil. ix. 8 j August. Civ.
and again very justly,mr Ho- JD. xix. 3, 2 : Varro asserit, auc*
manorum (Quintal,
eruditissimus tore Antiocho, magistro Oiceronis
x. 1, 95. Cicero (Acad. Fr. 36). et suo.
says of him (ap.Augustine, Civ.

4 Civ. D. xix. 1-3.
D. vi. 2), Homine omnium facile 5 Gf .
with what follows, the
acutissivno et sine ulla duMta- account of Antiochus siifpra^
tione dofftissimoiand Augustine p. 94. In regard to this it is
(Z.#.)says he is doetrina atque to be observed that Varro's
sententiis ita refertus that in book, according to Cic. Acad.
respect to matters of fact he i. 2, 4 is
sc[C[.-) later than the
has achieved as much as Cicero expositions of Cicero there
did as a stylist. made use of, only one of which
Ad Att. xiii. 12 :
2
Mrgo illam is put into the mouth of Varro.
6
cLKaSyfiLKfyv ad . . .
Varrmern LOG cit. 1, 3 Negate enim
:
transferamus. JEtenim mnt \ existimat ullam pJiilosopMcesec-
i QUGB is tarn esse dicendarn, git"cenon eo*
I e. 19; 1. c. 25. In Varro's distet a ceteris, quod diver 'sos "
mouth is placed, as we know, habeat fines bonorum et malo-

the doctrine of Antiochus, in rum. Quandoquidem nulla est
the second edition of the Aca- causa
demica (Acad. i. 4; s^.). Vide nisi ut "beatus sit : gi.iod
autem
what is quoted from Antiochus, leatum facit,ipse est finisT)oni:
sup. p. 94, with which Acad. i. nulla est igitur causa %"Jviloso-
2, 6, agrees : Nostra, tu physica, pfiandi, nisi finis boni
: quam-
nosti: qiiat cum eontineantur o~brem qiice nulluin fioni fiviem,

ex effectimieet ex materia, ea, seetatur,nulla $"Jiilosoj)7iia".
secta "
gritamfingit
et format effeetio,
"c.
THE HIGHEST GOOD.
number of
possiblesects Yarro, sometimes indeed " CHAP.
adopting very superficialgrounds of distinction,

'
enumerates no fewer than 288 ! they may all "
be reduced to a few chief classes,if putting aside
all that does not relate to the conception of the
highestgood we confine ourselves to the main tion.2

ques-
But this concerns the relation of virtue to the
first thing accordingto nature/ on which again depends
its relation to all included herein,and therefore
especially to pleasureand freedom from pain. Is
the first thing accordingto nature to be desired for
the sake of virtue, or virtue for the sake of the sis

etjiwi*
thing according to nature, or both for their own
sakes? This, according to Yarro, is the iunda-
1 In their derivation, Yarro like all other dogmatic philoso-

phers;
(Z.c. 1, 2) proceeds thus : There the other as merely
are, he says, four natural objects probable,like the new Academy.
of desire : sensual pleasure,ab-
sence Since, moreover, each of them
of pain, the combina-
tion can adopt the ordinary, or the
of these two, and, as Cynic, manner of life (k-aMtus
fourth, the nature, et consuetudo} there result
a yrvma
which beside these include all ninety-sis divisions instead of
other natural advantages of forty-eight. Lastly, because in
soul and body. Each of the each of these sections, regard

four can be desired for the sake may be had to the theoretical
(otlosus), the practical(negotlo-
of virtue (the excellence super-
added to nature by the instru-
mentality m$\ or to a life compounded of
of teaching) or virtue both, we must treble this ber,
num-
be desired for its own and thus we arrive at

may
sake, or both may be desired 288.)
obtain 2 That this is the with
independently. Thus we case
four possibledivisions. These the majority of the divisions

far named by Mm, Yarro himself
become twenty-four, so as
a iT"a.Ti desires each of them shows, 1. c. L 3, c. 2, begin-

ning.
merely for his own welfare or
for that of others. The twenty-

3 The jynma TiMturce, ]m,mi-
divided into ffenia -nature ra irfwra Kara,
four again
are
=
the Q"ffiv(of.Phil, d. Gr. HI. i. p.

forty-eight,of which one
half pursue their end as true, 309,1; 257,2; 253, 1).

174 ECLECTICISM,
CHAP, mental questionof all philosophy.1For a replyto

VL
It, he goes back to the conception of man, as it
is only on this basis we can decide what is the

highestgood for man. But man is neither body
nor soul exclusively,but consists of both together.
His highestgood must, therefore, consist of goods
of the body as well as goods of the soul ; and he
consequentlymust desire for himself the first things

accordingto nature and virtue.2 But the highest
of these goods is virtue, the ait of life acquired by
instruction.3 As it includes in itself that which is
accordingto nature, which also was present before

the existence of virtue " virtue now desires all for
its own sake, and in consideringitself as the princi-

pal
good, it enjoysalso all other goods,and ascribes
to each the value belonging to it according to its
relation to the others ; but equallydoes not hesitate,
on this account, to sacrifice the lesser,if so it must
be, to the greater. "When virtue is

wanting, no
matter how many other kinds of goods there may
be, they do not profittheir possessor, they are

not goods,because he makes a bad use of them.
his
In the possessionof virtue and of the bodily and
mental advantages conditioning it,lies happiness;

this increases when other goods with which virtue
in itself could dispense,are added ; it is perfected
1 Loc. tit. c. 2. is an inaccuracy which we

2 C. 3, 1. That the griâ, must ascribe to Yarro himself,
natura in which Varro has and not merely to Augustine,
3
previously included natural Virtutem, guam doctrina
advantages and dispositions of inserit velut arteim vivendi "
mind, is here identified with virtus, i. e. ars agendce

the totalityof corporealgoods, I. c.
HAPPINESS. 175
when all goods of soul and body together are found CHAP.
yi'
and complete.1 But to this happinessalso belongs
and
sociability, to virtue the dispositionwhich
wishes for others for their sakes the same goods as
itself ; and this dispositionmust extend not only to
the family and state to which each man belongs,
but also to mankind and to the whole world,heaven
and earth,gods and men.2 Its external realisation
is to be sought neither in the theoretical nor in the
practical life as such, but in the combination of the
two. But it must be absolutely sure of its principle :
the principles concerninggoods and evils must not

be considered merely probableby us as by the philo-
sophers
of the Academy, they must be able.
unquestion-
This is the Academydoctrine of the old
which Yarro, his master like

Antiochus, professes.3
In this discussion we find no remarkable philosophic
peculiarity : it contains no new thoughts,and what
belongsto Yarro himself in the views of Antiochus
transmitted by him is characterised neither by
acuteness of judgment nor by vivacity of style.
But we can at least see that Yarro had arrived at
these views by his awn reflection,

and that the
1
Hcee ergo vita hominis, qiice sima (c. 3, 1, L c. further on).
2
virtute et aliis animi et corj)0- Varro is therefore quite at
ris banis, sine quibus virtus esse one with the Stoic cosmopolitan-
nmyotest belong, as
(to ism;
these he deduces from it the but
is afterwards explained, life, proposition that man can feel
reason, memory), fruitur, beata, himself at home everywhere:
esse didtur : allis, exile, he
si vero says, (ap.
et Sen. Ad
sine qmtnis esse Helv. 8, 1) is not in
virtus yotest, itself an
rel ullis vel pluribus, leatior : evil, %uod qiiooumgue wnimm

si autem omnibus, -ut eadewi rerum natitra, utendum
gworsus
nullnm owmino fto-iium desit est.
3
rel animi vel coryoris,beatis- Aug. L tf. 3 2.
176 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, whole tendency of Antiochus corresponded to his

i "
way of thinking:that which must have mended
recom-
-
it to him and to his countrymen, was
chiefly
no doubt the practicalaim of this philosophy,
and that regard to the necessities of life which is
prominent in its theories concerningthe various
constituents of the highestgood, and the relative

value of them.
But the greater the influence allowed by Antio-
Chus t0 the Stoic
doctrine"1 the less can we wonder
if Varro approached it in regard to some other ques-

tion
still more closely than in his ethics.2 If he
explainedthe soul to be air which is breathed in

through the mouth and warmed in the breast,in
order to spread itself thence through the body,3

by reducingit to the Pneuma he allied himself with
the Stoic materialism,to which Antiochus also is
no stranger.4 He further discriminated with the

Stoics the well-known three gradationsand forms
of soul-life.5 But his connection with the Stoic
theologyis of especialimportance. In agreement

with it,he explained the universe or, more cisely,
pre-
the soul of the universe as the Deity: only
the parts of this the souls
world-soul, rulingin the
92. temperate in corde,dif-

\ Cf. sup. p m(,ne,
-
He himself, according to fusus in corpus. Ci Varro L
Lat" v- -
59 :
'
"*
2, 8) had the i
disciple of Panse- animalism semen ignis is auk
tins, Jj. .
JElius Stilo (si(jp. p. anima ac mens
,
*
11, 4), for his instructor. Vide mv. p. 95 saa
*
Lactant. O^f.D.17: Varro * Augustinef
Civ. D. vii 2
*
followingnote
m
'itadejinit: anima est aer con- see
ceptm ore, defervefactiisinpul-

THEOLOGY. 177
different parts of the world, they who

are are shipped
wor- CHAP.
VI.
in the gods of polytheism,down to the
genii and heroes.1 But, like Panaatius and Scsevola,

he drew a marked distinction between natural and
mythical
philosophical, and civil theology,2and if
1
Augustin. Civ. D. iv. 31 : into heaven and earth, the
Varro says : Quod hi soli el mde- heavens into sether and air,the
antur animadvertisse quid esset earth into water and earth:
Deus, git I credlderunt eum esse quam \_quas~\omnts quatuor
animam motu ac rat tone mit/i- Cartes aninturum esse ph'tms^ i n,
dum gubernantem. LOG. cit. "ftJiere et acre imma-rfali u?n, in
vii. 6 (c. 9 repeatedly) : Dicit aqua, at terra niortaliiini ; from
ergo idem Varro . . .
Deinn se the outermost circle of heaven,
arbitrari e$$e animam mundi as far as to the sphere of the
. . .
et Jiwic ipsum mundum moon, extend the heavenly
esse Deum : sect sic tit liomimm gods; between this and the
sap lent em, eum sit ex corpora et region of clouds aereas ess"
animo, tamen ab animo did atiimas . .

.
et rocari Jteroas et
sapientem ; ita, mundum Deum lares genios.
et Also in Z. c.
did ab animo, cum Kit ex animo c. 9, he (for only Yarro can "be
et corpore. Loc. eit. vii. 23 : intended) calls Jupiter, Deus
(Yarro in the book concerning Tiabens potextatem causa/rum,
the Dii tres esse affirmat
sttlecti] qitibusallqitidJft in mwndo ;
animce gradus i* o-mni unieer- in c. 11, and c. 13, he priates
appro-
saque not lira, those discussed
in to himself (for Augus-
tine
Phil d. 6-V. III. i. 192 : Nature, must have taken this from
the irrational soul, and reason. him) the verses of Soranus
Hand gartem anivifB untndi (sup. p. 74, n. end), in which
(their rational part, their -rjye- Jupiter is called progenitor
diclt
fj.oj/LKbv) Deujn, in noUs genltrixque Defim ; and in c.
autem genium vocari. JSsse ait- 28 he derives the male ties

divini-
tem in mundo lapides act err am from heaven or Jupiter as
. . .
tit ossa, itt iingites Dei. the active principle, and the
Solem vero, lunam, stellas,qitfs female divinities from the earth
sentimiis qiiibusyueipse sent it, or Juno as the passiveprinciple,
sensus essa ejus. JEtliera parro while Minerva denotes the ideas
animwm esse ejus : ex eujusvi as prototypes. That all these
pervenit in astro, ipsam propositionsare either directly

qitce
Deos (it makes Stoic, allied with Stoicism,
qiioq'ue facere
or
into Gods) ; et per eatqiwd in is evident from the proofs ad-

duced
terrain permeat, Deam Tel- d. Gr. IH. i. p. 138

in Phil.
lurem, quod antem inde per- sqq. ; 146, 6 ; 315 sqq. 325.
meat in mare atque oceamtm^
2
Aug. Z. c. vi. 5 : Tria genera
Deiim, esse Neptunim.. larly
Simi- dicit esse (in the last books of
in c. 6,the world is divided the Antiquities,cf. "x 3) . . .
N
178 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. lie censured the mythology of the

poets for relating
YI.
the most absurd and unworthy things about the
gods,1he did not conceal that he had also much to
blame in the
public religion: for example, he clared
de-
that the worship of images was a defilement
of the true worship of (rod ; that,for his part, the 2
philosophic doctrine of the Deity would suffice,3and

that he regarded the religionof the State merely
as a civil institution,which, in the interest of the

commonwealth, must make the most important concessions
to the weakness of the masses.4 In all this

there is nothing which goes beyond the Stoic trine
doc-
as taught by Pansetius,but nothing on the
eorumque unum mythicon ap- tribuuntur, qua: non modo in

pellari,alterum, pliysicon, ter- Jwmin"m sed etiam in contemp-
tiwn civile. The first includes tissimum hominem cadere sunt.
pos-
the poets, the second thephilo-
sophers,
the third states (po- 2 LOG. cit. iv. 31. 'The cient
an-
puli}. In the first there is Komans,' says Varro, wor-

shipped
much that is opposed (vide the gods for 170 years,
following note) to the nature without images: Quod, si ad-
and dignityof the Deity ; to the hue inqitit,mansisset, castius
second belong 2Hi qui sint, " Dii o"bservarentur "(vi.
7). Fa-
ubi, quod genus, quale, a qiio- tetur sicut forma humana Deos
nam tern/porean a sempiterno fecerunt, ita eos delectari hu*
fuerint ; an ex igne sint manis voluptatibuscredidisse.
ut credit Heraclitus, an ess
3 LOG. cit. iv. 31. Varro him-
self
nitmeris ut Pythagoras, an ex confesses that if he had to
atomis ut ait Epicurus. Sic found a State anew, ex natures
alias, QUGB facilius intra pa- potius formula Deos nominaque
rietes in scJiola,
quam extra in eorwn sefuisse dedieaturutn.
foro ferre possunt aures. 4 That he regarded the religion
1
Loc. cit. (vide the previous of the
State as a political
note) with the addition : In hoc institution, evident
is I. c. from
enim, estt ut Deus alius vi. 4, where Varro
ex ca-
says, if he
pite alius exfemore sit alius ex had to treat de omni natura
guttis sanguinis natus ; in hoc, Deorum, he would first have to
ut Mifurati sint, ut adultera- speak of the gods, and then of
verint, ut servierint homini : men ; but as he
has only to do
denique in hoc omnia Diis at- with the gods of the State he
THEOLOGY. 179
other hand that is incompatible with the Stoicising CHAP.
VI.
eclecticism of an
Antiochus.1
follows the contrary order. tamen ex utroque ad

geiiere
For sieut -prior est, inqult, civiles rationes assumpta "i/it
plctor tabula picta^ prior iwn

The philosophers,
quam pauea-.
falter cedificium, it a prio- indeed, desire to teach, by their

quam
su?it civ it at ea, enquiries, and far (7. c.) it

res es quam qu" so
a cii'itatihus sunt institute. may

be said, phyticos utllitatis
How little the real phical

philoso- causa scrij)$isset poet as delect a-
doctrine of the gods tionis. But this teaching is
was
worth as a public religion, only for those who understand
we have already seen {sup. it, not for the masses.
1
177, 2). A public religion As Krische (I. c. 172 gq.)
p.
must include in it much that rightly maintains, against 0.
is mythological. Ait Muller's assertion (Varro, L.

emm, ea"
scribunt po'"tcs minus esse

Lat. s. v.) that Cicero rectly
incor-
qiifB
ut populi segiii debeant makes Varro a follower

quam ;
autem pTi ilosopM plus of Antiochus, whereas he went

qiuz quam
ut ea vulgiis sorutari expediat. over to the Sroics,
QILCB SIG abhorrent^ inquit, ut

180 ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTEE VII.
THE SCHOOL OF THE SEXTII.
CHAP. THE school of the Sestii occupiesa peculiarposition

among the Eoman philosophers.But even this school
F. School was independent of the contemporary Greek

not so
"f
^f. philosophy,
nor were its achievements so important,
as to obtain for it any

long extensive influence or
History of duration. Its founder,Quintus Sextius,was a Eoman,
tUe school.
Q" g00(^fam-Qy? a somewhat later contemporary of
Augustus,1who had rejecteda politicalcareer in

order to devote himself whollyto philosophy.2After
Sen. JSjy.98, 13 : Honores

1
quoted by Ott, p. 2, 10, rather
pater Sextius
rejpj)ulit qm it a
,
indicate the contrary. Jfy). 59,
deberet
natuSy tit remp/ul)Uca"ni 7 ; 64, 2 sift. ; De Ira, ii. 36, 1,
capessere, latwti ctawni divo refer only to his treatise. De
Julio dante non recepit. As Ira, iii.36, 1, may either have
tMs must have occurred at been taken from a written work
latest in 43 B.C., and Sextius or from oral tradition. JSp.73,
must have been at least 25-27 12, may have been taken from.
years old (cf. Ott, Character such a tradition. In Ej). 108,
imd Urspr. der SprucJie des 17, Seneca gives an account of
Sextius^. 1),his birth must be the doctrines of Sextius, after
placed in 70 B.C. or even what
some- Sotion, as he himself says.
earlier. When Eusebius, 2
Vide the preceding note,
Chron. zu 01. 195, 1 (1 A.D.), and Plut. Prof, in Virt. 5, p.
dates the prime 'of Sextus 77: Ka6dir"p"j"a.crl
^Qnov rbv
'
the Pythagorean philosopher ras kv rfjTrJ-
at that period, he is too late
if our Sextius be meant. That
Seneca was personally quainted
ac-
with the older Sextius o\.lyov
,
js not probable ; the passages e/c rivos

MEMBERS OF TMJS SCHOOL. 181
his death Ms son appears to have undertaken the CHAP.

VII.
guidance of the school.1 Among its adherents we
find mention of Sotion of Alexandria,whose astic

enthusi-
discipleSeneca had been in his earlyyouth ;

2
Cornelius Celsus,a prolific

writer ;
3
Lucius Crassitius
of Tarentum,4 and Fabianus Papirius*5 It became,
This transition from Tac. Ann. ii. 85. For the tinction
dis-
practicalactivityto philosophy between this Sotion
seems to be referred to in Piin. and the Peripateticof the same
Hist. J\Tat. xviii. 28, 274. Pliny name, ride Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 3,
here relates how Democritns and 'infra,ch. xi. note 2. In
had enriched himself with his support of
the theory that the
traffic
(this is also related of teacher of
Seneca, and not the
Thales) in oil (ride Phil. d. Gr. PeripatetiCjwas the author of
I. 766) but had returned his the treatise vcpl OPJTJS,Diels,
gains to those who had shared Doxogr. 255 s$., rightly appeals
in it j and he adds : Hoc
postea to the
similarity between a
Sextius " JRomams sapientieead- fragment from Sotion's vepi

sectatori'bus Atkenis fecit eadem OPJTJS(ap. Stob. Flor'tl. 20, 53)
rations ; which does not mean and Seneca, De Ira, ii. 10, 5.
that he carried on the same Also the repeated quotation of
traffic,
but merely that he si-lencedutterances of Seslius, De Iraf
those who blamed him ii. 36, 1, points to this source.
for devoting himself to sophy,
philo- 3
QuintiL s. 1, 124 : Scrips/it
in a similar manner, and nan par-urn multa, Cornelius
for his part renounced all CeUus, Sextws secutus, non sine
profits. cultU' dc jiitore. For further
1
There
is no express tion
tradi- details concerning this sician
phy-
of
this j but as the school and polyhistor,vide Bern-
is universally described as the hardy, jBoi/a. Litt. 848.
school of the Sextii (see the 4
A grammarian, who had
following note), and the elder already won for himself siderable
con-
Sextius as a philosopher is dis-
tinguished fame as a teacher,,
from his son by the especiallyin Smyrna, when he
addition of Pater (Sen. "Jp. dimissa, repente scJwla tranm.it
98, 13 ; 64, 2), it is extremely ad Quinti Septimii [1.Sextii']
probable. jsMlvsopM sectam. Sueton. De
2 Sen. Mp. 108, 17 sqg_.; 49, 2. Jllustr. Gr"mm. 18.
The age at which he heard This philosopher (of whom5
Sotion, Seneca designated by Seneca, Hrevit. Vit. 10, 1 ; Ep*

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
therefore,have occurred in 18- whom he had himself known
20 A.D. This date is also in- and
dicated heard) was, according to
by JSp. 108, 22; cf. these passages, a man of excel-.
182 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. however, extinct with these livelyas was

men : the
VII.
applausewhich at first greetedit,in Seneca's later
years it had already long since died out.1 The
writingsof this school,too, have all been lost,with

the exception of some scattered utterances of the
elder Sextius,of Sotion, and Fabianus.2
lent character,non ex Ms catlie- by Seneca, and of Sotion also,

drariis philosopMs, sed ex veris Florilegiim. by Stobseus in the
et antigids(JSremt.Vit. 10). His Moreover, a collection of maxims
lectures and expositions are also exists in the Latin translation
greatlypraised by Seneca (JEp. of Kufinus, which was first

40* 12; 58, 6; 100); and in quoted by Orig.e. Cels. xiii. 30,
Ep. 100, 9, he is described as with the designation 2e|Tou
an author to whom, in regard yv"fji.ai, is often used by Por"
to style,only Cicero, Pollio, and phyry, Ad Mareellam, without
Livius are to be preferred, mention of the writer, and of
though certain deficiencies in which there is a Syrian edition,
him are admitted. Seneca also ap. Lagarde,.4w#fe0fe"Syr. Lpz.
says in the same place that 1858. (On the two Latin censions
re-
he wrote nearly as much on of this and the later

philosophy as Cicero; and he editions, cf. Gilclemeister in
mentions besides (I. e. 1) his the preface to his edition from
IA~bri Artiiim Civilmm. The which I now cite ; Sessti
ectnres to the people which Sententiarum recensiones Lati-
are alluded to in JBj?.52, 11, nami Grr"Gam Syriaeas c"Yijunc-
seem to have been of a philo-
sophicaltim Bonn.
esoJi. 1873). This lection,
col-
character. The older sometimes called jvâi
Seneca, Cantrovers. ii. Prcef." or sententicv,sometimes ridion,
enchi-
says that he was a discipleof and, since the time of
Sextius (theelder)by whom he Kufinus, also annuliis, was
was persuaded to devote him-

self much in use among the tians.
Chris-
to philosophy instead of Its author is sometimes
rhetoric. To Ms manner of named Sextus,sometimes Sixtus,
writing, Seneca is less partial. or Xystus; and while most
Some utterances of his are writers describe him
as a Pytha-
gorean
to be found ap. Sen. Con.s. ad philosopher,others see
Marc. 23, 5 ; JSrwit. Vit. 10, 1 ; in him the Eoman bishop Sixtus
13, 9 ; Nat. Qu. iii.27, 3. (or Xystus, about
120 A.D). Of
1 Sen. Nat. Qu. vii. 32, 2 : more recent
writers,many (#.#.
Sextwrum, nova et Homcml Lasteyrie, Sentences de Sextvus*
roloris secta inter initia sua, Par. 1842 ; and Mullach, Fraym.
cum vtiagno wipetu ccepisset,
esc- PUlos. ii. 31 sg.) regarded the
stinota est. maxims as the work of a
2 Of these three philosophers heathen philosopher,and more
something has been preserved especiallyof one of the two

DOCTRINES.
Whatever can be deduced from these ances

utter- CHAP
YII.
respecting the doctrine of the school,serves
*
Sextii. (How Ott, 1. c. i. 10, his own hypothesis is .
5, \
terated,
accer ana"
discovers this opinion in my nevertheless untenable. In the
first edition, I do not stand.)
under- first place the presupposition
On the other hand, that one of the two Sextii was
Bitter (IF. 178) believes them the author of the collected tences,
sen-
to be the Christian tion

rehabilita- would be most uncertain
of a work belonging to a if this work itself claimed such
Sextos, arid possibly to our authorship, for it only made its
Sextius, but in which so much appearance in the third century.
that is Christian is interwoven But we have no reason to think
that it has become entirelyuse-
less that the writer of the sentences
as an historical authority. wished to appear as one of the
Ewald (G6U. Aug. 1859, 1, 261 two Sextii. The most ancient
sqq. ; Gesok. d. V. Isr. vii. 321 authorities always call him

sqq.')on his side declares the Sextus ; later writers, quent
subse-
Syrian recension of the tion
collec-
Ruiinus, as we have to
of sayings to be the true seen, also Sixtus,or Xystus, but
translation of a Christian ginal, never
ori- Sextius (of.Gildemeister,
the value of which he I.e. lii."g".) ; so likewise Latin
cannot sufficientlyexalt, and iISS, (1. c. 33v. "?".) and the
the authorship of which he Syrian revisers (I. c. xxx. ^.),
ascribes to the Eoman Sixtus. who both say Xystas. We can,
Meinrad Ott, lastly, in three therefore, only suppose that
discourses {Gharakter imd ""- the author called himself tus,
Sex-
sprung der SprucJw des Pldlo- and not Sextius. Ott's

sopJtenSextius, Eottweil, 1861 ; theory would oblige to pose
us
sup-
Die Stjrische *
Auserte"enen a radical difference to
SprmlieJ "c., ibid. 1862 ; Die have existed between the trine
doc-
Syrische ' Auscrlesenen SprucJie? of the elder Sextius (who,

ibid. 1863), maintains that the to quote only this one passage,
sentences were composed by was so opposed to the strict
the Sextius, in whom monotheism of the sentences,
younger
the original tendency of the infra, p. 186, 4, that he calls
Sextian school is said to have the highest god Jupiter) and
been essentially modified " that of Ms son, whereas all the
partly by Pythagorean, partly ancient authorities, without ception,

ex-
and especially by Jewish fluences

in- speak only of one school
and placed on a purely of the
"
Sextii ; and equal lence
vio-
monotheistic basis. But pletely
com- must be done to the sense
as he has proved against and the expressionof the pas-

sage
Ewald that the Syrian sion
recen- in Seneca, Nat. Qu. vii.
is a later rechauffe,in 32 (vide preceding note) in
which the original,translated order to rind in the Nora Se%-
by Eufinus, is watered down, twnim Sehola the school of the

obli- Sextius distinct
and its originalcharacter younger as
184 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. to confirm the judgment of Seneca that it possessed

VII.
Indeed great ethical importance and the vigour
from that of his father, espe-

cially aliis;p. 60 (cf.p. 58) to John,
as the predicate Romani i. 12. Less certain, but theless
never-
stand-
point.roloris entirely harmonises probable,is the tion
connec-
with what Seneca elsewhere between pp. 233 and Matt.

of the elder Sextius ("fp. v. 28 ; pp. 13, 273, andCMatt. v. 29
says
59, 7) : Sextium . .
viriwi s%. ; xviii. 8 s%. ; p. 30 and 1 John,
.
acrem, Grtecis verbis,Momanis i. 5. Also the homo Dei, p. 2,

moribus and
pJiilosoflkantem), 133 (Rufinus' translation first
would, on the contrary, he little introduces him at p. 3) belongs
applicableto a mixture of Stoic- to the Christian nomenclature
Pythagorean philosophy with (vide 1 Tim. vi. 11 ; 2 Tim. iii.
Jewish dogmas. Lastly, and 17) ; likewise films Dei (pp. 58,
this makes further argument 60, 135, 221, 439); verbum, Dei
unnecessary, the references to (pp.264,277, 396, "1$);juMciim
Christian conceptions and to (pp.14, 347);sceculiim (pp.15, 19,
New Testament passages are so 20) ; electi (p. 1) ; salvandi (p.
unmistakable in the sentences, 143). Note further,the angels
that we cannot suppose their (p.32) ; the prophet of truth
origin to have been either (p.441) ; the strong emphasising
purely Roman, or Judaic and of faith (p. 196 et pass.}. In
Roman. For though many many passages (cf Gildemeis-
.
echoes of Christian
expression ter, I. c.)the Christian revisers
and modes of thought (as Gil- have substituted jtes andfid'etts
demeister shows, p. xlii.)are for other expressions.At pages
merely apparent, or duced
intro- 200, 349 sq.t 387, the persecu-
tions
by Christian translators of Christians,and at p. 331
and revisers,yet in the case of the falling away from tianity
Chris-
others, as the same writer ad-
mits, seems to be alluded to.
the reference to definite The book of
sentences, it as
expressionsin the New ment

Testa- stands,therefore, can only have
is undoubted. At p. 39 been composed by a Christian ;
the prospect is held out to and as it refers to some of the
those who live wickedly that latest writings of our New tament
Tes-
they shall be plagued after canon, and there is no
their death by the evil spirit, proof of its own existence until
usque q\w estigatab els etiam about the middle of the third
novisftinmm guadrantem. This century, it cannot in any case
can only be explained as a have been written long before

reminiscence of Matt. v. 26; the end of the second century,
p. 20 refers to Matt. xxii. 21 ; and possiblynot until the third.
p. 110 to Matt. xv. 11 ; 16 sqq. ; If the doctrines peculiar to
p. 193 to Matt. xix. 23 ; p. 242 Christianity are thoroughly ab-
sent
to Matt. x. 8 ; p. 336 to Matt. xx. from it,and the name of
28, where the Sia.KovriBriva.iresponds Christ
cor- is not once mentioned,
to the ministrari ab this only proves that the author;
PREDOMINANCE OF ETHICS. 185
of ancient Kome, but that it contained nothing CHAP,

VII.
different from the doctrines of Stoicism.1 The only
thingthat distinguishes
the Sextians from the Stoics
is the exelusiveness with
they confined them-
selves which
to ethics ; but even in this they agree with
the later Stoicism and with the Cynics of Imperial
times. Though they do not seem to have absolutely
condemned physicalenquiry,2they soughtand found

their strength elsewhere. A Sextius, a Sotion, a
Fabianus, were men who exercised a wide moral

influence by their personality;3and to their per-
did not intend his work only for more ingenuitythan is the case
Christians, but for non-Chris-

tians with the attempt of J. R. Tobler
as well, and wishes by (Annulm Rujini,i. ; Sent. Sext.
means of it chiefly to mend
recom- Tub. 1878).
the 1
universal principles 2fat. Qit. vol. 32; Ep. 59,
of monotheism and of Christian 7 (vide p. 677, 4 ; 679) ; Ej).
morality. Whether he himself 64, 2 : Liber Qu. Sextii jsatns,
was called Sextus, or whether magni, si quid miki credis, tin,
he falselyprefixed the name of et, licet neget, Stmci.
2 In regard to
an imaginary philosopherSextus Fabianus at
(who in that case no doubt was any rate, we see from Sen. Nat.
already described by himself as Qu. iii. 27, 3, that his opinion
a Pythagorean), cannot be certained.about
as- the diluvium (PMl.d. Grf
As before observed, III. ii. 156 #f.) was somewhat
the work does not seem to nounce
an- different from, that of Seneca.
itself as composi- He must, therefore, have held
the
tion
of one of the Sextii. Still, the general Stoic theory on the
It is certainlyprobable that the subject.
author borrowed the greater 3 Cf. concerning Sextius,besides
part of Ms sentences from the quotation supra, p. 82,
1
philosophers;but as he never 1 (Sen. JBjp. 64, 3) : Quantum in
tells us whence he derived any illo, Dl tioni,t-iffor
est, quantum
of them, Ms collection,as Bitter animi ! Other philosophersin-
rightly decides, is wholly useless stituiint,disputant, cai'illantuT^
as an authority for the non fadunt aniwum, quid non,
history of philosophy. The "habent : eum, legeris Seoctium,
attempt to separate from it a dices ; vivitîget,U6eregt,*upr"
genuine substratum, to be regarded homimm est,dimittit me plenum,
as the work of the two ingentis Jiducits; concerning
bextii, would be purposeless, Fabianus sup. 181, 5 ; concern-
ing
even if it were undertaken with Sotion, Sen. J8p. 108, 17.

183 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, sonal influence they attached much greater value

VIL
than to scientific enquiry : we must fight against
the emotions, says Fabianus, not with subtleties
l and learned
but with enthusiasm ; concerning
labours which have no moral purpose in view, his
judgment is that it would perhaps be better to
pursue no science,than sciences of such a kind.2

The life of man, is, as Sextius argues,3a constant
battle with folly;only he who perpetually stands
in readiness to strike can successfullyencounter
the enemies who press round him on all sides. If
this reminds us of Stoicism and especiallyof the
Stoicism period,the resemblance
of the Eoman is
still more strikingin the propositionof Sextius
that Jupiter could achieve nothing more than a
virtuous man.4 With this Stoical character,two

which
other traits, Sextius seems to have borrowed
from the
Pythagorean school,are quite in harmony :
viz.,the principleof rendering account to oneself
at the end of every day of the moral profit5 and

results of it ; and the renunciation of animal food.
Sotion, however, was the first who based the latter
precept upon the transmigration of souls : Sextius

inculcated it only on the ground that by the
1
Sen. Brer.it. Vit. 10, 1 : Sole- 4 Sen. Eg. 73, 12 : Solebat
bat dieere Fabiamis . . .
non- Sewtius dicere, Jovem plus
tra adfeotus impetu non sub- won posse, quwm 'bomim virwn,
tilitate pugnandmi, 'necminutis which Seneca carries further in
volneribus, sed incursu aver- the sense discussed,PMl. d. Gr.
tendam atiem non yrobam : III. i. p. 252, 1, 2.
cavillationes emm contundi de- 5 Vide Sen. De fra, iii.36, 1,
lere, non vellicari. with which cf the
. Pythagorean
2 Ibid. 13, 9. Golden Poem, v. 40 sgg.
,
^
Ap. Sen. Ep. 59, 7.
ARGUMENT AGAINST ANU1AL FOOD. 187
slaughter of animals ve accustom ourselves to CHAP.

VII.
cruelty,and by devouring their flesh to enjoyments
that are superfluousand incompatible with health.1
Nothing else that has been handed down ing
respect-
the ethics of Sextius displays any important
individuality.2 It vas a more remarkable tion
devia-
from Stoicism if the Sextii, as has been
stated,3maintained incorporealityof the soul ; the

but this, after all,would only show that, while
followingthe eclectic tendency of their time, they
were able to combine, with the ethics of the Stoics,
1
Sen. Up. 108, 17 sqq. The of these contain anything by
discussions of Sotion, by which. which we can recognise the
Seneca for a time was per-
suaded school to which their author
to abstain, from eating belonged. Our collection of
meat, are here expotmded more sentences, however, it be
may
at length. Of Sextius it is incidentally remarked, brings
said : Hie Jiomini satis alimtn- forward nothing which is not
tonim citra sanguinem esse equally to be found in many
credebat et crudelitatis coti' other writers.
metudinem fieri,iifii in rolup- 3
Claudian. "SLaLmext. De Statu
tatem esset addncta laceratio, Animee, ii. 8 : Incorporalis,iti-
Adidebcct) contrakendam ma- qiiiunt (the two Sextii),omnis
teriam esse lutmtrits. Colligeljat,
est anuna ef illocalls clique in-
~bonce valitudini contraria esse depreltmsa ru qucedam ; qit^
alimenta varia et nostris aliena sine spatio capax corjnis Jiaurit
corjwribus. With this the sage
pas- et Gontinef. The last clause
in the
sayings of Sextus, reminds us of the Stoic trine,
doc-
p. 109, agrees (ap. Oiig. c. that the soul holds the
Cels. viil 30) : ^v-û body together. Mamertus is
not, indeed, an altogethertrust-
worthy
witness; he also tries
2
Vide the utterances of So- to prove Q. c.}that Chrysippus
tion in the Florilegium of regarded the soul as immortal,
Stobseus, which no doubt long
be- because he required the con-
quest
to our Sotion ; the mendation
recom- of sensuality by reason.
brotherly love of But his utterances about the
(84, 6-8; 17, 18); the say- Sextii are so definite that
ings against flattery(M, 10), we must necessarilyrefer them
anger (20, 53 $#.)"about grief to tradition rather than to any
(108, 59), and on consolatory inference of this kind.
exhortations (113, 15). None
388 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, definitions from the Platonic-Aristotelian doctrine.
'
We therefore find nothing in their school that is
new
and scientifically noticeable it is a
"branch of
;
Stoicism, which doubtless is indebted merely to the
personality of its founder that it had an dent

indepen-
existence for a
time but we can see in its
;
points of contact with Pythagoreanism and Plato-
nism how easily in that period systems which started
from entirely different speculative presuppositions,
could coalesce on
the basis of morality, when once
men
had begun to consider distinctive theoretical
doctrines of less than similar

consequence tical
prac-
aims and that there was

inherent in the
;
ethical dualism of the Stoa a

natural tendency to
the views which were most strongly opposed to "

the
materialistic monism of their metaphysics, and to
their anthropology.
PHILOSOPHY IN THE IMPERIAL ERA. 189
CHAPTER Till.
THE FIRST CENTURIES AFTEK CHRIST. THE SCHOOL
OF THE STOICS. SEXECA.
TEE mode ofthought which tad become pre- CHAP.
dominant during the first centnrj before Christ in

the Grreco-Eoman philosophy, maintained itself Section II.
JEtelerti-
likewise in the succeedingcenturies. By far the cu
greater part of its representatives,indeed, were ad- "

" ^ r * *
nes after
herents of one or other of the four great schools
into which the domain of Greek science was divided A. The
"
after the third centurv. The separation of these ,

r
_
* G-entral
schools had, indeed, been confirmed afresh by two
circumstances : on the one hand by the learned
study of the writingsof their founders,to which the im
had
especially
Peripatetics devoted themselves with
such zeal since the time of Andronicus ; on the Zeal for
other, by the institution of publicchairs for the four

Oftkean-
which took in the second Oe
cbief sects place
"*"
century
.
___
, ,
after the beginning of our era.1 This learned
activitymust have tended to make the specialcha-

racteristics
of the different systems more distinctly
.
1
Cf. 0. Muller, Quam citmm AJiad. 1842 ; JERg6.-PML "1.
Grtec. et Rom. liter-Is Sckr. 4.4:sgg. ; Weber, De Aea-
resp. ap.
impenderit (Gott. Mint- demia IMeraria, Atheniendum
. . .
1837), p. ~L"$qq.; semdo securido^.CJir. comtituta,

ladungsschrift,
Zurnpt, Ueb.".Bestandd.pTiilos.(Marb. 1858), and the quota-
Atlien* A~bh* d. Berl. tions at p. I.
190 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. perceived,and to refute the idea upon which the

VIII. and Cicero had fallen
eclecticism of an Antiochus
Endow- back, viz that the divergencesbetween them were
ment
of
:
founded rather upon differences of words, than ters

mat-
"piiblio
chairs of of fact ; and it might form a counterpoiseto the
philo-
eclectic tendencies of the time the more since
easily,
sophy.
it was directed as much to the defence, as to the
of the heads of the ancient schools and

explanation,
of their doctrines. In Borne, where in the first cen-
tury
only Stoicism, but philosophyin general,

not
was regardedin many quarters with political

mis-
trust,
and had had to suffer repeated persecution,1
publicteachers of philosophy
were first established
1 The banishment of Attalus Nero)\ and Seneca (^?. 5, 1

the Stoic from Borne under sqq. ; 14, 15 ; 103, 5) finds it
Tiberius (Sen. Suaso?: 2), and necessary fco warn the disciple
that of Seneca under Claudius, of philosophy against coming-
were not the result of a dislike forward in any manner at all
principleto philosophy. conspicuous or calculated to

upon
On the other hand, under Nero, cause offence ; and so much
laws were multiplied against the more as this had been
men who had acquired or prejudicial
to many, sophy
philo- and
strengthened their dence

indepen- regarded with mis-
was trust.
of mind in the school of The politicalfaction
dissatis-
Stoics .
Thrasea Psetus, Seneca, displayed by the Stoic
Lucanus, and Rubellius Plautus and Cynic philosophers after
to death Musonius, the execution of Helvidius
were put ;
Cornutus, Helvidius Priscus Priscus occasioned Vespasian to
were banished (furtherdetails banish from Borne all teachers
later on); and though these of philosophy,with the tion
excep-
persecutionsmay have had in of Musonius ; two of them
the first instance politicalor he even caused to be ported
trans-
personalreasons, a generaldis-
trust (Dio Cass. Ixiv. 13) ;
had already manifested and this precedent was wards
after-
itself against the Stoic sophy
philo- followed by Domitian.
especially,which Stoi- Being irritated by the gyrics

pane-
comm, adrogantia sectaqite qnoe of Junius Rusticus on
turftidos et negotwrum adjveten- Tbrasea and Helvidius,he not

tes faciat (as Tigellinus, ap. only caused Busticus and the
Tac, Ann. xiv. 57, whispers to son of Helvidius to be executed,
IMPERIAL PATRONAGE OF PHILOSOPHY. 191
!
as it seems "by Hadrian ; and in. the provinces, "by
Antoninus Pius 2
rhetoric had VIII.
: alreadyteen larly
simi-
provided for by some of their predecessors/

and the ancient institution of the Alexandrian seum,,
Mu-
and its maintenances designed for the support
of learned men of the most various sorts,had also
continued to exist in the Eoman period.4 Public
but ordered all philosophers good absolutely$ia T" "nraviovs

out of Rome (Gell. N.A. xv. 11, elVcu TQUS $tXo(ro(j""vyTa$1
3; Sueton. D"ndt. 10; Plin. 3 Thus we hear of Vespasian,
JEp.iii.11 ; DIo Cass. Ixvii. 13). especially (Sueton. Vtsp. IS),
But these isolated and rary
tempo- that he jwimus e fisco laftnis
measures do not seem to grcechqite rhetoribus (perhaps

have done any lasting injury in the first place only to one
to philosophicstudies. rhetorician for each speech)
1 Of. Spartfan. Hadr. 16: anmta centena (100,000 sestert.)
Doctor qiii profestdoni STUB
es, conxtitmt. The first Latin torician
rhe-
itiJiaMles vldebantur^ ditatos so endowed, in the
honoratosqiie a-professione dimi- year 69, was, according to
$it, which would only have Hieron, Eus. Ckron. 89 A.D.,
been possibleif they had before Quintiiian; a second under
possessed them. Still less is Hadrian, Castricius (Gell,.V. A.
proved by the previous context xiii. 22).
: Omnes professoresetJwno- 4 Of. I. c. ;
Zumpt, Farther,
yamt etdivites fecit. That these Das Alexandria. Museum (Berl.
statements relate not merely 1838), p. 91 gqq.; O. Mnller.Z./?.
to grammarians, rhetoricians, p. 29 gq. From the statement
"c., but also to philosophers, (Bio Cass. Ixxvii. 7) that Cara-
is shown by the connection. calla took from the Peripatetics
2 Ant.
Capitolin. P. 11: JRhe- of Alexandria (out of hatred to
torilnis et Aristotle, on
philosopMs per (mines account of the
prorindas supposed poisoning of
et honores et solaria der)
Alexan-
detulit. Moreover, teachers of their Syssiria and other
sciences and physicians were privileges,Parthey (p. 52) In-fers
exempted from taxation. This with probability that there
favour, however, in a rescript also (though perhaps only in
of Antoninus to the Commune the time of Hadrian or one of
Asics (quoted from Modest-in. his successors)the philosophers
Exous. it ,* Digest, xxvii 1, belonging to the museum had
6, 2) was restricted in regard been divided into schools. A
to the physicians to a certain similar institution to the mu-
seum,
number according to the size the Athenasum, was
of the city; but in regard to founded Rome inby Hadrian

the philosophersit was to hold (Aurel.Victor. Cces. U ; cf Dio .
192 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. teachers from the four most important Schools of

VIII.
philosophy1were settled by Marcns Aurelius in
Cass. Ixxiii. 17 ; Capitolin.Per- but that if the existing schol-

tin. 11 ; @ord. 3 ; Lamprid. arch of a school was not in
Sever. 35), That maintenance need of such assistance, a
for the learned man admitted second teacher was named side
was also attached

to it,is not by side with, him, so that a
expressly stated ; whether the school may have had two

words of Tertullian {Apologet. simultaneously one " chosen by
46), statuis et salaribus remu- the school, and one nominated
nerantur (the philosophers), by the Emperor.
passage The
relate to Rome or to the in Lucian, however, is not
pro-
vinces,
we do not know, but favourable to this view. As
they probably refer to the the philosophers whom the

western countries. Emperor endowed with the
1 That Marcus Aurelius ap-
pointedsalary of 10,000 drachmas are
alike for thef our schools first spoken of,and we are then
"
the told
Stoic,Platonic,Peripatetic, KO.I Tii/a "pa"fi.v
avrcav ewy-
and Epicurean " teachers with a "%os aTTodaveiV,rS"v Tlspnrar'fiTiK"v
salaryof 10,000 drachmas each, ol/jLai
"rbv erepoz/, this manifestly
is plainfrom Philostr. v. SopTi,ii. presupposes that among those
2 ; Lucian, SunuoJi. 3 : accord-
ing who were paid by the Emperor
to Dio Cass. Ixxi. 3, it was there were two in
Peripatetics,
while he was in Athens, after which' case the other schools
the suppressionof the tion
insurrec- must each have had two sentatives
repre-
of Avidius Cassius (176 in this reign. The
AJD.) that Marcus 'gave all choice of these salaried philo-
sophers,
mankind in Athens instructors, Marcus Aurelius, ac-cording
whom he endowed with a yearly to Philostr., I.e., gave

stipend.7 At this time, or soon over to Herodes Atticus ; ing
accord-
after, Tatian may have written to Lucian, Ewi. c. 2 "/.,
the x6jos irpbs"EXK-nvas in which the candidates brought forward
(p.19) he mentions philosophers their claims before the "PKTTOL
who receive from the Emperor Kal TrpecrfivrarotK"l ffotpcararot
an annual salary of 600 XPUO"""- r"v eV rfj 7r6\"i (by which we
According to Lucian, I. c., each may understand either the

of the schools mentioned seems Areopagus, the /8ouA^, or a
to have had two public tors,

instruc- separate elective council, per-
haps
for we are there told how, with the participationof
after the death of '
one of the the schools concerned, and
Peripatetics,'two candidates under the presidency of an perial
im-
disputed before the electing sembly
as- ; but
official) if an
ment
agree-
for the vacant place could not be arrived at,
with its 10,000 drachmas. the affair was sent to Rome to
Zumpt (1.c. p. 50) offers the be decided. The imperial tification
ra-
suggestion that only four perial

im- was, doubtless, neces-
sary
salaries had been given ; in all cases ; and in par-

PAID TEACHERS OF PHILOSOPHY. 103
Athens,1 which was thus declared anew the chief CHAP.
seat of philosophicstudies ; and thus the division A^Ll.,

of these schools was not merely acknowledged as an
existing fact,but a support was given to it for the
future which in the then condition of things was no
slightadvantage. In the appointment of the office
of teacher, the express avowal of the system for
which he desired to beemployed was required from

the candidate.2 Externally, therefore,the schools
remained sharplyseparatedin this period as fore.
hereto-
As this separation,however, had previouslydone continued
little to hinder the rise of eclectic tendencies, so was

it little in the way of their continuance. The ferent
dif-
schools,in spite of all divisions and feuds,

approximated internallyto each other. They did
not actuallyabandon their distinctive doctrines,but
they propagated many of them, and these the most
striking, merely historically as a learned tradition,

without concerning themselves more deeply with
them ; or they postponed them to the essentially
ticnlar instances the teacher of the second century, cf. also

was probably directly named Philostr. V. Soph. iL 1, 6, who
by Emperor ; the words
the of in the time of Herodes Atticus
Alexander of Aphrodisias may speaks of the
"paKia xtd Hoy-
be taken in either sense, "when, ruck fieipdKia/ca| "AA"J" e0v"v
in the dedication of his treatise "ap0dpcov"vveppv7iK6ratwhomt'he
Trepletpappewis,he thanks Sep- Athenians received for money,
timius Sever as and Ms son,
2 Cf. Lucian, Z. c. 4 : ret. per
Caracalla. M" TTJS vperepas flap-
o$v rSsv Xoycav Trpoyy"viffro aitroTs
rvptas 5t"5a"77caAos avrys (the Kal TTJV efiireipiav

eKarepos Tttiv
Aristotelian philosophy) KC/CT?- ôyfidrasyeTreSefteiKTO Kcd Sn rov
pvy/uevos. "Apta"TaT"\ovs KaL r"v

1
On the repute and popn- $QKovyT"v
larity of Athens in the middle

194 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. practical aims and principles,in which, the different

VIII.
schools approached more nearly to each other; or
they readily admitted many changes and modifica-
tions,
and without renouncing on the whole their
distinctive character, they yet allowed entrance to
definitions,which, having originallygrown up on
another soil,were, strictlyspeaking,not altogether
compatible with that character. The Epicurean
School alone held
persistently aloof from this ment
move-
; but it also refrained from all scientific activity

worthy of mention.1 Among the three remaining
schools,on the contrary,there is none in which this
tendency of the time did not manifest itself in some
form or other. "With the

Peripateticsit is their
restriction to criticism and explanationof the Aris-
totelian
writings,in which the want of independent

scientific creative activity is chiefly shown ; with the
Stoics,it is the restriction to a moralityin which

the asperities of the original system are for the most
part set aside and the former severity gradually
gives place to a gentlerand milder spirit : in the
Academy, it is the adoption of Stoic and Peripatetic

elements, with which is combined an increasinginr
clination towards that belief in revelation which in
the third century through Plotinus became wholly

predominant. That none of these traits exclusively
belong to either of these schools will appear on a
more thorough investigation of them.
School of
If we begin with the Stoics we find that from the
tlu Stoics
beginningof the first, till towards the middle of the
from tlie
1 Cf. PMl. d. Gr. III. i. p. 378, andswp. p. 24 $##.
STOICS OF THE IMPERIAL ERA. 105
tMrd century, we are acquainted with a considerable CHAP.

VIII.
number of men belonging to tills school.1 The
lirst to tfitt
1
Of the Stoics that are known deeply than Seneca into the
third cen-
to us, Heracleitus mnst superstition and .soorhsaving1of
^ A"D"
first be mentioned in tion
connec- the school. On the instigation
with those named supra, of Sejanns, he was forced to
p. 71. This learned man (con- leave Home

cerning (Sen. Jftket. Suaswr.
whose Homeric ries
allego- 2). Somewhat later is C h ae T e-
cf .
PMl. d. Gr. III. i. 322 m o n, the teacher of S ero (Snld.
sacl-}
seems to have lived at the 'AAc'f.Alj,), subsequently (as
*
time of Augnstiis, as the latest we must suppose) head "of a

of the many authors whom he school in Alexandria ("M/L
mentions is Alexander of Awi'ucr, 3AAe|.)and an Egyptian
Ephesus (Alleg. Horn. c. 12, p. priest of the order of the i"po-
26) who is reckoned by Strabo ypafifMrets. That he was so,
(xiv. 1, 25, p. 642) among the and that the Stoic Chseremon,
is apparently alluded
yedSrepoi, to mentioned by Snidas, Origen
by Cicero, Ad Att. ii. 22, and (c. Cels. i. 51), Porphyry (JJe
quoted by Aurel. Victor, De Abstinen. iv. 6, 8) and *Apol-
Orig. Gent. Mom. 9, 1,as author lordus in Bekker's Aneed(tfat
of a history of the Marsian is not distinct from the lepo-
War (91 $qq. B.C.) and must mentioned by phyry,
Por-
have flourished in the first half ap. Ens. Pr. JSV.'v.10;
or about the middle of the first 4^;and
iii.* Tzetz. Hut. v. 403 ;
century before Christ. Under in Iliad, p. 123, Herm., as JIiU-
Tiberius. At talus taught in ler maiEtains (Hi*t. {?r. iii.
Rome ; he is mentioned by 495), but that taey are one and
Seneca (Ep. 108, 3, 13 sq.9 23) the same person as Bernays
as his Stoic teacher whom, he considers (Theopltr. von der
zealously employed and mired,
ad- Frommiglteit* 21, 150), 1 have
and from whom he explained in the Sermes, 3d.
quotes in this and other places 403 sq. In his Egyptian history
(vide Index) sayings which (fragments of which are given
especiallyinsist,in the spiritof by MuUer, I. c.} he explains,
the Stoic ethics, on simplicity according to Fr. 2 (ap. Ens.
of life and independence of Pr. J5V. iii. 4), the Egyptian
character. With this moral gods and their mythical histo-
ries
doctrine we shall also find his in a Stoic manner with
declamations as to the faults reference to the sun, moon, and
and follies of men and the ills stars, the sky, and the Mle,
oElife (1.G. 108, 13) reproduced icoi HAc^s vavrt s Qva'tKa ; and
in disciple Seneca ; what
Ms in his Si5c"7/iOTa;
?""*" fep"v ypajj,-
Seneca, however (Nat. Qu. ii. arav (ap. Snid. Xaip. cIejooyAv^"-
48 ; 2, 50, 1) imports to us a) he declares, in agreement
from enquiries concerning
his with this,that the hieroglyphics
the portentsof lightning,shows were symbols in which the an-
v~
that he plunged much more cients laid down the -1
196 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, most important of them, and those who represent

to us most the character
clearly of this later Stoicism
Xoyos TT"pl 6""v (Tzetz.in H. p. Thestis (Steph. Byz.

123
He
Stoic
1.
; of. 1. G. 146 ; Hist. v. 403).
is also in harmony with the
theology when
on(according to
comets
Origen, ":*.) explained how

he account
in a
bouring
tise
trea-
by Nero, on
of an objection he made
"eVTis)
banished
put to
in
statement
death)
Africa,
(according
of
who
to the
Suidas,
was
correct
in-
it came about that these nomenato the poetical projectsof the

phe-
sometimes foretell Emperor, in 68 A.D. according ,
happy events. Porphyry, in to Hieron. in Clwon. (Cf however, .,
De Abst. iv. 8,end, calls him ei/ Reimarus on the passage

in Dio j he conjectures 66 A.D.)
s. He was succeeded In the epitome of Diogenes

in Alexandria by his disciple (Part III. i. 33, 2) Cornutus
Dionysius, who is called by closes the series of the Stoics
Suidas Aiovvcr. 'AA. mentioned
7payujaari/cbs, by this writer. Of
and was probably, therefore, the theoretical and ical
philosoph-
more of a learned man than a works attributed to him
philosopher. Seneca will be by Suidas, one on the gods has
fully treated of later on. Other been preserved (sup. Part III.
members of the Stoic school i. 301 "?".);this is doubtless
were the following: " Clara- his own treatise and not a
nus (Sen.Ep. 66, 1, 5; he has mere abstract of it. He is

been conjectured,though bably
pro- described in the Vita Perm
erroneously,to be cal
identi- Sueton. as tragicus^ to which
with the Greek sopher
philo- Osann (on Corn. De Nat. Deor.
Goer an us, Tac. Ann. xxv.) rightlyobjects. Further
xiv. 59 ; the latter was also a details concerning him and his
Stoic),most likely Seneca's re- works will be found in Martini
lativeAnngeus Serenus(Sen. (DeL. Ann. Cornuto, Lugd. Bat.
Ep. 63, 14 ; De Const, i. 1 ; De 1825, a work with which I am
Trangu. An. 1 De Otio}, his "
only acquainted at third hand),
friend Crispus Passienus Yilloison, and Osann, I. G. ;
(Nat. Qu. iv. ; Prcsf. 6 ; Bmef. Praf. xvii. sqq.-, 0. Jahn on
i. 15, 5 ; cf Epigr.Sap. Exil. 6), Persius, Prolegg. viii. sqq.

.
and his adherent Metronax Among the disciples of Cornutus

in Naples (Ep. 76, 1-4). He were (vide Vita Perm) Clau- dius
tries to include Lucilius also Agathinus of Sparta
among the Stoics,in the letters (Osann, I.c. xviii., differing from
dedicated to him. rary
Contempo- Jahn, p. xxvii.,writes the name
with Mm is Serapio, from thus, following Galen, Definit.
the Syrian Hierapolis(Sen. Up. 14, vol. xix. 353 K), a celebrated
40, 2; Steph. Byz. De Url). physician, and Petronius
'lepa-Tr.); and Lucius An- Aristocrates of Magnesia,
nseus Cornutus of Leptis 'duo doctissimi et sanetisswii
(Said. Kopv.) or the neigh- viri,'and the two Roman poets
SENECA, EPICTETUS. HIT
are Seneca, Musonius, Epictetus, and Marcus CHAP.

VIII.
Aurelius. Heracleltns,on tlie other hand. Is rather a
A, Persius Flaccus (bom without some reason, by order

in 34, died in 62 A.D., vide of Vespasian. Enbellius
Vita Pergii, and Jahn, 1. c. iii. Plantus also (Tac. Ann. xiv.
sqq.'}and 3Iarcus Annseus 22, 57-59) who was also put to
Lucanns the nephew of death by Nero, Is described as
Seneca, bom 39 A.D., died 65 a Stoic. Lastly, under Xero

A.D., both put to death for and his successor?, there lived
having joined in Piso's spiracy
con- Musonius Eufus and Ms
(vide concerning Lu- discipleEpictetus, who, gether
to-
canus the two lives which with Musonius' disciples,
Weber has edited, Marb. 1856 Pollio and Artemidorus,
sq_.; the Vita Persii,Tacit. Ann. and Arrianus, the pupil of
xv. 49, 56 sq, 70, and other Epictetus,will come before us
statements compared by ber),
We- later on. Euphrates, the
of whom Flaccus espe-
cially, teacher of the younger Pliny,
as he says himself in who equally admired him on
Sat. regarded his master
v., account of his discourses and
with the highest veneration. Ms character, was a rary
contempo-
To the Stoic school belonged of Epictetus and lived
further, besides the contemp-
tible first in Syria and afterwards in
P. E gnat ins Celer Rome (Plin.JSp. i. 10 ; Euseb.
(Tac. Ann. xvt 32; Hist. iv. c. Hierocl. c. 33). He is the
10, 40; Dio Cass. ML 26; same person whom Philostratus,
Juvenal, iii. 114 $#.), the in the life of Apollonius of
two magnanimous Republicans Tyana, and the author of the
Thrasea Paetus (Tac. Ann. letters of Apollonius, sents
repre-
xvi. 21 sgg. ; cf .
siii. 49 ; xiv. as the chief opponent of
48 sq.f9 xv. 23; Dio Cass. bd. this miracle- worker. "Epictetus
15, 20; Ixii. 26; Ixvi. 12;
expression of his
quotes an
Sueton. Nero, 37 : Domit. 10 ; (Diss. iv. 8, 17*^.) and praises

Plin. JEp.viii. 22, 3 ; vt 29, 1 : his discourses (I. c. iii. 15, 8;
vii. 19, 3; Pint. Pr"e. Ger. Enchir. 29, 4). Marcus lius
Aure-
Help. 14, 10, p. 810; Catolfm. (x. 31) also mentions him.
25, 37; Juvenal, v. 36; Epict. His passionatehostility to Apoi-
Diss. L 1, 26 et pass.; Jahn, lonius is alluded to by PMlostr.
1. c. xxxviii. *#.)" and his F Soph. i. 7, 2. The same"
son-in-law Helvidius Pris- writer calls him here and I. 0.
cus (Tac. Ann. xvi. 28-25; i. 25, 5, a Tynan, whereas, ac-
cording
Hist, sq. 9, 53 ; Dial, de

iv, 5 to Steph. Byz. De Urb.
Or at. 5 ; Sueton. Tesp. 15 ; he
3Ewi(j)d,v., was a Syrian of
Dio Cass. Ixvi. 12 ; Ixv. 7), of Epiphania, and according to
whom the first was executed Eunap. F. PMlos. p. 6, an
by order, and the second

Nero's Egyptian. Having fallen sick
who had been already banished in his old age, he took poison
by Nero, was put to death, not 118 A.D. (Dio Cass. Isis. 8).
198 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. collector and arranger of traditional material,and

Tin.
the same holds good of Cleomedes. Concerning
One of Ms pupils was Ti mo- KVK\LK^JQstapia
fj."T""p"av
; for in
crates of Heraclea in Pontus this treatise he mentions several
(Philostr.F. Soph. i. 25, 5) cording
ac- earlier astronomers, but not
to Lucian (Demon. 3, Ptolemy; he follows in it chiefly,
Alex. 57, De Saltat. 69), who as he says at the conclusion,
speaks with great respect of Posidonius. Within the same
iim ; and was himself a teacher period fall the Stoic tors
instruc-
of Demonax the cynic, and an of Marcus Aurelius : Apol-
opponent of the famous con' lonius (M. Aurel. i. 8,
17;
}uror, Alexander of Abonutei- Dio Ca?s. Ixxi. 35; Capitolin.
chos. A discipleof Demonax, Ant. Philos. 2, 3 ; Ant. PL 10 ;
Lesbonax, is mentioned by Eutrop. viii. 12 ; Lucian. Demon.
Mm (J)e Salt. 69). Under 31 ; Hieron. Chron. zn 01. 232 ;
Domitian Trajan we find
and Syncell. p. 351. Whether he
the following names given by came from Chalcis or Chalcedon
Plutarch (Qu. Com-, i.9, 1 ; vii. or Nicomedia we need not here
7, 1): Themistocles, Phi- enquire). Junius Busticus,
lippus, and Diogenianus, to whom Ms imperial pupil
to whom may add
we the two always gave his confidence ,(M.
philosophers called C r in is Aur. i. 7. 17; Dio, I.c ; Capitol.
(Epict. Diss. iit 2, 15; Diog. Ant.PJiil.fy;Claudius Max-
L. vii. 62, 68,76). Also Junius imus (M. Aur. i. 15, 17 ; viii.
Rusticus, executed by mitian
Do- 25; Capitol. 1. c.); Cinna
(Tacit.Agric.2
; Sueton. Catulus (M. Aur. i. 13 ; Capi-
tol.
Domit, 10 ; Dio Cass. Ixvii. 13 ; I. c.); among them was
Plin. Z. 0.; Plut. Ciwiosit. 15, probably also Diognetus cording

(ac-
p. 522), whose trial gave casion
oc- to Capitol, c. 4, where
to the
persecution of the same man is most likely
the philosophers,
was doubtless meant, his teacher in painting ;
a( Stoic. The two Plinys, on but according to M. Aur, i. 6,
tne other hand, cannot be the first who gave him an clination
in-
reckoned school,
under this tophilosophy); B a s i-
semblance1 i d
though they have points of re- e s of Scythopolis(described
with the Stoics, and by Hieron. Cliron. on Ol. 232,
the younger had Euphrates for and Sync. p. 351, as a teacher of
his teacher. Under Hadrian Marcus Aurelius and probably
Philopator probably lived the same who is quoted by Sext.
(Pkil d. GT. III.i.166, 1),whose Math. via. 25S,vide PMl. d. Gr.
disciple was G-alen's teacher III. 1 87, 1 ; but not the person
(G-alen, Cogn. an Mori, 8,vol. v, mentioned 54), and some
mp. p.
41 K) ; in the same reign,or that others (Bacchius, Tandasis,
of Antoninus Pius, Hierocles Marcianus ; M. Aurelius
may have taught in Athens heard them, as he says, i, 6, at
(Gell.N. A. ix. 5, 8),and medes
Cleo- the instance of Diognetus)
may have written his must be added. To these Mar-
CORNUTL'S.
Cornutus also, we know that his activitywas CHAP.
chiefly devoted to grammatical and historical l'_

cus Aurellns Antoninus that no "T7rou3aTos is a "pa"\o$
subsequently allied himself (Simpl. 102, a), I L c. and that
(vide infra). Under Ms reign 104, a) an aSiafpapoydBia"6op^j
Lucius, the disciple
avriKetrai, of Mu-
and similarlyan aya-
sonius Tynan,the Bbv aryoBtfyis said
e.g. the tppoviu.^
srepito -
have lived, whom Philostratus, is opposed to the tppoviu.?]

V. Soph, ii. 1, 8 $c[."describes as (el PMl. d. "9r.'lII.'i.
the Mend of Herodes Atticus, 213, note) ; as also in the terms
and representsas meeting with belongingtoTthe Stoic nomencla-
ture,
Marcus Aurelius in Home when \6yOt QjlQTlKOl, O.VOjJLQ'TLKn^
the latter was already emperor ; BaVfACLCrrLKQl,""KTtK"l (1. C. 108
he was the same person, a) zrf/feibid. III. i. 103, 4. But
doubtless, from whom Stobaus the Mnsonius who is called
(Floril. Jo. Damase. 7, 46, vol. Lucius' teacher musb be either
iv. 162, Mein.) quotes an account distinct from Musonius Bnfus,
of a conversation with Musonius or we must suppose, even irre
(Ms conversations with sonius
Mu- spectively of the Tvptos of
are also mentioned by Philostratus, his narrative to
Philostratus); for though he is be inexact ; for as Musonias
called AVKIOS in our test of scarcely survived the first tury,
cen-
Stobseus, that is of little sequence.
con- it is not conceivable that
Here, as well as in Ms discipleshould have come
Philostratus, he appears as a to Borne after 161 A.D. It
Stoic or Cynic, and he was no seems to me most probable
doubt the same Lucius who is that the teacher of Lucius is no
mentioned Phil. d. Gr. HI, i.48, other than Musonius Kufas, and
note, with Nicostratus. Brandis that the anecdote, ap. Gell. .V./l.
( Ueber d. Awsleger d. Arist. is. 2, 8,refers to him; while the
Orff., AWi. d. JSerl. Altad. 1833 ; predicateTvpios arose through a
Hist. PML El. p. 279) and mistake from Tvppijvbs(suppos-

ing
Prantl (Gesch. d. Log. i. 618) even that Philostratus self
him-
consider both to have belonged made the mistake): and
to the Academy, from the way that the meeting of Lucius
in which they are named by with Marcus Aurelius either
Simplicius (Gateg. 7, $, 1, a) did not take place at all, or
together with Atticus and occurred before he became peror

em-
Plotinus ; but it seems to me ; partly because when we

that this cannot be proved on hear of Musonius we naturally
that evidence; there is more think of the most celebrated
foundation for the statement, man of the name, and the only
in their objections quoted by Musonius known to us in that
Prantl, Z. "., from Simplicius, period; partly and especially
against the Aristotelian gories
cate- because that which Lucius puts
of the Stoic type,namely into the month of his Musonius
in the assertions of Nicostratus entirelyagrees with the quota-
200 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. works, and lie therefore seems "to have occupied

Tin.
himself with philosophy
more as a scholar than an dependen
in-
thinker.1 His -work on the gods contents

itself with reproducingthe doctrine of his school ;
and if,in a treatise on the he

categories, has tradicted
con-
2
not only Aristotle,but also his Stoic rival
tion from Museums nothing as to the dates

Kufus (ap. know
Stob. 29, 78).
Jnortt. following men:
In Aris-
the of the
first half of the third century toclesof Lampsacus (Suidas,
we hear, through Longinus (ap. sub woe, mentions an exposition
Porph. V. Plot. 20, of a number of his, of a logical treatise of
of philosophers, contemporary Chrysippus),trietwonamesakes
with this writer, and somewhat Theodorus(Diog. ii. 104), of
earlier,and among them are a whom one probably composed

Stoics. He the abstract of the writings of
good many tions
men-
Stoics who were

as also Teles, from which Stob. Florll.
known for their literaryactivity Jo.Dam.i. 7,47,T.iv,164 Hem.

Themistocles (according to gives a fragment ; Prota-goras
Syncell. Clironogr. p. 361 B, (Diog. ix. 56) j Anti-

about 228 A.D.), Phoebion, bins and Eubius, of Ascalon;
and two who long Publius
had of Hierapolis (n"for-
not
Aios) ap. Steph. Byz. De Url.
"K/jLQi(ra.vr"s~),
died (l**XPLirptfiiv
Annius and Medina phyry, 'Aer/caA..'lepewr
(Por- ; the two sakes,
name-
according to Proclns 1% Prod us of Mall os in

Plat. Remy. p. 41 5,note, in his Cilicia (ap. Snid. n/""te\." one
mentions
SujUfuKTa npo"A^juara3 of these latter is mentioned by
a conversation with Longinus, Proclus In Tim. 166 B, with
in which he defended against Philonides among the apxôn
the Stoic doctrine of if the pupil of Zeno is here
Longimis
the of the soul). intended (Part III. i. 39, 3),
eight parts
Among those who confined Proclus himself may be
placed
themselves givinginstruction
to further hack ; but he cannot
areHerminus,Lysimachus, in any case be older than
(accordingto Porphyry, I. c. 3, Panffitius,

as Suidas mentions an
probably in Kome),Ath e n sens, vir6fiiviifj.a

ratv Aioyevovs (rosier-
and Mnsonins. At the same fjidrav,
no doubt written by him.
period as Plotirms, Trypho 1 Of. the references to his

(described by Porphyry, v. rhetorical writings, his sition
expo-
Plat. 17, as 2rau":"fcre K"L IlXa- of the Yirgilian poems,
ram/cbs)was residingin Home. and a grammatical work in
The Athenian Stoic,Callietes, Jahn's Prolegg. in Persittm,
mentioned by Porph. ap Euseb. xiii. sffff. ; Osann. I.xxiii. sqq.
c.
Pr. Uv, x. 3, 1, came somewhat 2

Of. PHI. d, Gr. III. i. 520,
earlier, about 260 A.D. We note.
CORXUTUS.
AtnenodoniSj1 we can see from the fragments pre-

served, THAP.
mi.
that this treatise regarded its objectprincip-
ally
from the standpoint of the grammarian.2 It Is
an important divergence from the Stoic tradition, if

he really taught that the soul dies simultaneously
with the body ;3 this,however, Is not certain,4though
it Is possiblethat in his views of the subject he
allied himself with Panaetius. If, lastly,his ethical

discourses are praised by Perslns 5
on account of their
good Influence on those who heard them, we can
hardly venture to ascribe to him In this sphere

any Important Individuality,or striking effect on
1 Cat eg.
Slmpl. 5, a "
15, 8 j form of expression is different
47 C; 91, a (ScJiol.in Arist. SO, in the one case from the other.
b, note; 47, t",22; 57, a, 16; 3 Iambi, ap. Stob. Ed. I. 922.
80, a, 22) ; Porph. in Cater/. Does the cause of death lie
4, I (ScJi"l.in Arist. 48. ", 12) ; in the withholding of the mating
ani-
I. c. 21 ; cf. Brandls, Uele r die air, the extinction of
Griech. Ami. d. Arist. Qrg. A bh. the vital power (TC^FOS),or the
d. Serl. Akad. 1883, Hist. PJtil. cessation of -vital warmth?
in,, p. 275. In this treatise aAA' e! OUT"JS yiyveTai " Ba.va.TQS,
was probably to be found the
statement qnoted by Syrian in
Metajph. Schol. in AT. 893, a. 9, POUT-OS oterai.
from Cornntns, that he, like 4 For though it is probably
Boethus the
Peripatetic, re- this Cornntns to whom the
dnced the ideas to general con-
ceptions. statement of lamblichns refers,
it is nevertheless possible that
2
Porph. 4, b, says of him what he said may relate to the
and Athenodoras : TO. ^Tou/zem animal soul and not to the
ireplT(av XQeasv Ka8b \"%"i$, ola rational and human soul. The
ret. Kvpia Kal TO TpcnriKa KaL ocra theories from which lamblichns
roiavra ...
TO: Toiavra ovv irpo- derives his assertion agree with
"f""povre$KaliroiasUffTl KaTyyopias the doctrine of the Stoic school,

a.Tropovjn-fs pî Gvpitneovres according to which
Kal death sues
en-
"\XLTT7] (paffiv eTi/at T^V Siaipetnv. %TCLV vcLVT*X"as yevrirai fj

Similarly Simpl. 5, a, cf. 91, a, favecrts rov al(r0TjrtKov -jn/etJ/taros
where Cornutns would separate (Plut. Plac. i. 23, 4).
the place from TTOV, and the s
Sat. v, 34 *##., 62 sqq.
time from xore, because the
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. philosophy: had this been the case, he would have

VIII.
.
left stronger traces of it behind him.
Seneca. The case is different with Seneca.1 This philo-
1 The extensive literature which Sotion, the disciple of

concerningSeneca is to be found Sextius (vide supra, 181, 2), and
in Bahr, sub woe, in Pauly's the Stoic Attalus (vide supra,
Rfialencyld.d. Klass. Alterth. 195, 1) introduced him. He
vi. a, 1037 sgg. Of. likewise, finallyembraced the calling of
respectingSeneca's philosophy, an advocate 49, 2),attained
(JEj).
Bitter, iv. 189 itgg. ; Baur, to the office
of qusestor (ad
Seneca, und Paulus (1858, now Helv. 19, 2), married (cf. De
in Drei AbTiandl. "c., p. 377 Ira, iii. 36, 3 ; Ep. 50, 2 ; and
sqq.}; Dorgens, Seneca Disci-
pline concerning a child, Marcus,
Moralis cum Antoniniana Epigr,3 ; ad Helv. IB, 4 "%%.; and
ConteMio et Comparatio : zig,
Leip- another who had died shortly
; Holzherr, Der
1857 PJii- before, I. 0.2, 5 j 18, 6),and was
losoph.L. A. Seneca : East und happy in his external stances

circum-
Tub. 1858, 1859 (Gymn. progr.}. (I. G. 5, 4; 14, 3).
Concerning Seneca's life and Threatened by Caligula (Dio,
writings, besides the many lix. 19), and banished to Cor-
sica
older works, Biihr,I. c. ; Bern- under Claudius in 41 A.D.
hardy, GFrundrins der Rom.Litvr. in consequence of the affair of
4, a, p. Sllsgg.; Teuffel,GeseJi. Messalina (Dio, Ix. 8 ; IxL 10 ;
der Rom. Liter. 2, a, p. 616 sgq* Sen. jEpigr.S. JExilio ad Polyb.
Born at Corduba, of the eques-
trian 13, 2 ; 18, 9 ; ad Helv. 15, 2 $#.)"
order,the second son of the he was only recalled after her
famous rhetorician,M. Anngeus fall by Agrippina in 50 A.D.
Seneca (Sen. Jilpigr.S. Eml. 8, He was immediately made
9 ; FT. 88 ; ad Melv. 18, 1 sqq. ; prgetor, and the education of
Tacit. Ann. xiv, 53 et pass.}, Nero was confided to him (Tac.
Lucius Annasus Seneca came as Ann. xii. 8). After Nero's cession
ac-
a child with his parents to to the

throne, he, to-
gether
Rome (ad Helv. 19, 2). His with Burrhus, was for
birth must have occurred, cording
ac- a long time the guide of the
to the statements in Eoman empire and of the young
Ifat. Qu. 1 1, 3 : Hj}.108, 22, sovereign (Tac. xiii. 2). Further
in the first years of the tian
Chris- details as to Seneca's public life
era. In his early years and character will be found
and even afterwards he stantly
con- infra, p. 232, 3). With the
suffered from ill health death of Burrhus, however,
(ad Hell). 19, 2; JBp. 54, 1 ; 65, his influence came to an
1; 78, 1 sqq.; 104, 1), and he end ; Nero discarded the sellor
coun-
devoted himself with great ar-

dour who had long become
to the sciences (Ep. 78, 3 ; burdensome to him (Tac. xiv.
cf. 58, 5), and especiallyto 52 sqg.},and seized the first
philosophy (Ep. 108, 7), to opportunity of ridding himself

SESECA. 20;)
sopher not only enjoys a high reputation] with his

contemporaries,and with posterity, and possesses for
us, consideringthat most of the Stoical writings

have been destroyed,an especialimportance, but
he is in himself a reallygreat representativeof his
school,and one of the most influential leaders of the

tendency which this school took in the Eoman
world, and especiallyin the times of the

Emperors. He is not, indeed, to be
regarded as its
first founder : imperfectly as the historyof Eoman
Stoicism is known to us, we can clearlyperceivethat
from the time of Pan setins, with the growing re-
striction
to ethics,the tendency also to the soften-

ing
of the Stoic severityand the approximation to
other systems is on the increase ; and if the moral

doctrine of Stoicism on the other hand was again
rendered more stringentin the code of the Sextians,
and of the revived Cynicism (vide infra),the lect
neg-
of school theories and the emphasisingof all
of the man whom he hated many things as an author and

(cf. xv. 45, 46) and, perhaps, philosopher, but at the same
also feared. The conspiracyof time testifies to Ms great merits

Piso in the year 65 A.D. fur- "
ingenium facile et eopiosuw,
nished a pretext for the bloody plurimitm gtvdii, mwlta rerum
mandate, to -which the philo cognitio and the extraordinary
"
sopher submitted with manly reputationhe enjoyed) ; Plinins

fortitude. His second wife (J21 J\~at. xiv. 5, 51) ; Tacitus
Paulina (Ej). 104, 1 *#j.)"who (Ann. xiii. 3) ; Columella (R.
wished to die with him, was B. iii. 3) ; Dio Cass. (lix.19) ;
hindered in her purpose after and the Christian writers (cf.
she had already opened her Holzherr, i. 1 $f .)" Otters, in-
arteries (Tac. Ann. xv. 56-64). deed, as Gell. N. A. xii. 2, and
1
Concerning the favourable Fronto, ad Anton. 4, 1 gg.9 123
verdicts of
antiquity "
of Quin- sgg., speak of him with very
tilian (who, indeed, censures little appreciation.
Seneca, Inst. x. 1, 125 sqq., for
204 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, that universallyhuman, based upon immediate

is
L_ consciousness and important for moral life the "
universalistic development of ethics the endeavour "
after a system more generallycomprehensibleand

more practicablyefficient was demanded from this
side also. These traits, however, are still more
thoroughlydevelopedin Seneca and his followers,

and little as they wished to give up the doctrines of
their" school,boldlyas they sometimes express the

Stoical doctrines,on the whole, Stoicism with them
takes the form more and more of universal moral
and religious conviction ; and in the matter of their
doctrines, side by side with the inner freedom of
the individual, the principles of universal love of
mankind, forbearancetowards human weakness, submission

to the Divine appointments have a ent
promin-
place.
In Seneca, the freer positionin regard to the
doctrine of his school which he claimed l for himself,
1
That Seneca is and
professes school, and unreservedly to ap-
to be a requiresno proof, propriateanything that he finds
Stoic
Of. the use of no8"nd.nostri,JEp.serviceable, even beyond its
113, 1 ; 117, 6 etpass. ; and the limits (Ep. 16, 7 ; De Ira, I 6,
panegyricshe bestows on Stoic- 5). He very frequentlyapplies

ism, De Coiist. 1 ; Cons, ad Helv, in this manner sayings of Epi-
12, 14 ; Clemen1;,ii.5, 3; Ep. 83, 9. curus, whom he judges in regard
He expresses himself, however, to his personal merits with a
of fairness that is most

very decidedly on the right surprising
independent judgment, and on from a Stoic (videPHI. d. Gr. III.
the task of augmenting by our i. 446, 5); and if in this he may,
own enquiries the inheritance perhaps, be influenced, by the
we have derived from our prede- predilectionofhis friendLucilins
cessors ( V. B. 3, 2 ; De Otio,3, for Epicurus,it is,nevertheless,
1 j Ep. 33, 11; 45, 4 ; 80, 1 ; unmistakable that he wishes to
64, ###.)"
7 He does not hesi- show his own impartialityby
tate, as we shall find,to oppose this appreciative treatment of a
tenets and customs of his much -abused opponent.
SENECA. 20
is shown In his views concerningthe end and problem CHAP.

of VIIL
philosophy. If in the original tendencies of __
Stoicism there already lay a preponderance of the #/* foe-
practicalinterest over the theoretical,

with Seneca lamin
this was so greatlyincreased that he regarded manv tf*e
jm^
things considered by the older teachers of the school $"?
to be essential constituents
philosophy,as un- of *'^-
necessary and superfluous.Though he repeats in a

general manner the Stoic determinations
respecting
the conception and parts of
philosophy,1
he layseven
greater stress than his predecessors

on its moral end
and aim ; the
philosopheris a pedagogue of human-
ity,2
philosophy is the art the doctrine of

of life,
morals, the endeavour after virtue :

3
in philosophy
we are concerned not with a game of quick-witted-
ness and but with the
skill, cure of grave evils ; 4 it
teaches us not to talk,but to and
act,*5 all that a
man learns is
only useful when he appliesit to his
moral condition.6 According to its relation to this
ultimate end the value of every scientific activityis

to be judged : that which does not effect our moral
1 in
Of. regard to the latter *
Ep. 117, 33: Adice mine,
Phil. d. Or. III. i. 51, 2, and to quod adsnescit animus delectare
the former, 1. c. 61, 1 ; 64, 1 ; sepotius quam sanare et philo*
67, 2 ; 207 ; and Up. 94 ; -47 sq. ; sopJiiam oWectamentum faeere,
95, 10. cum remedium sit.
-
Ep. 89, 13. Aristo main- 5
Ep, 20, 2 : Facere docet
tailed that the panenetic part pldlosopMa, nan dicere, "c., 24}
of Ethics is the affair of the 15.
pedagogue, and not of the philo- 6
Ep. 89, IS: Quicqitidle-
sopher : Tamquam quicquam fferisad mores statim rffarag.
aUud sit sapiens quam generis Loc. tit. 23 : fft"c aim lie . . .
Jiwmani pesdagogus. onmia ad mores ft ad sedan-

3
PMl. d. 6fr, III. l"pp.51,2 ; dam rdbiem adfectuum referens.
54? 1 ; JSp. 117, 12 ; 94, 39. Similarly 117, 33.
206 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, condition is useless,and philosopher

the cannot find
of the follyof
,
adequatewords to express his sense
those who meddle with such things ; though even in
the warmth of his zeal he cannot help showing how

conversant he himself is with them. What are we
profited,he asks,by all the enquirieswith which
Uselessmss the antiquarians

occupy themselves ? Who has ever
? *
become the better and the justerfor them How
small the value of the so-called liberal arts,

appears
when we remember that it is virtue alone that is
important,that it claims our whole soul,and that
philosophyonly leads to virtue ! But how much 2
has even
that is superfluous philosophyadmitted into
itself,how much trifling word-catchingand unprofit-
able
subtlety ! Even in the Stoic School,3how many
have found entrance ! Seneca
thingsof this kind
for his part will have nothing to do with them, even
in cases where the subtleties of which he complains
1 "revit. Vit. 13, where after snientia ftonorwn ao malorum
the citation of numerous ex- immutMli, qua soli philosopliiee

niJiil autem ulla
amples of antiquarianand his- oompetit : ars
alia de lonis malls qucerit

torical enquirieshe concludes" ac
"niinu"- (p. 28). Magna et spaiAosa res

thus : Cwjw ista errores
illi loeo
entycujuscupiditates prement? est sapientia. Vacua
est de divinis humanisqne
Quern fortiorem,qiiemjustioreTn,
opus :
quern liberalwrem facient ? discendwm est, de prtzteritis,

de
2 This is discussed at length futuris, de caducis, de "%ternis,
in Ep. 88. Seneca here shows "c. Hcec tarn multa, tarn
that grammar, music, geometry, magna ut Tia'bere possintliberuwi
arithmetic, and astronomy are hospitium, mpervacua ex animo
at most a preparationfor the tollenda, sunt. Non daUt se in
higher instruction,but in them-

angustias has virtus : laxum
selves are of subordinate value
spatiimi res magna desiderat.
sit linea JExpellantur omnia. Totum,
(p.20) : Scis qufe recta : pec-
quid tibi prodest)si quid in vita tu$ illi vacet (p. 33-35).
rectum sit,ignoms ? "c.(p. 13).

3 Of. Ep. 88, 42,
Una re consummatur aninws,
SENECA.
are evidently connected with the presuppositions CHAP.

of the Stoic doctrine,1and VIJI*
in the same way he
easily disposesof the dialectical objectionsof their

opponents : he considers trifling
as juggleriesnot
worth the trouble of Investigating,

not only the
fallacieswhich so readilyoccupy the Ingenuityof a
Chrysippusand Ms followers/but also those compre-

hensive
discussions of the which
sceptics, the
gave
ancient Stoa so much employment ; and the eclectic
arguments against the sensible phenomenon are

simply reckoned by him among the superfluousand Swrjiu-
enquiries which
trifling merely serve to divert us "*"""
from the thingsthat are necessary for us to know.3
1 of
Up. 117, 13 ; Ep. 113, I $gq. which does not harm,
rance
In both cases he embarks on nor knowledge of them profit
the exposition and refutation us : Quid me defines in eoy gruem
of the Stoic definitions of the tu ipse if/ev$6jjL"jfov
adpella" . .
.?
long and the broad in order to Ecce iota ndJd nta meittttur,
accuse their authors and himself "c. Similarly Ep, 48 ; 49
of having wasted their time 5, *M.
such 3
with questions in-
useless stead Ep: 88, 43 : Audi, qitautvm,
of employing themselves mali faciat nimia suteilita* et
in something necessary and $uam iufesta ventati sit. tagoras
Pro-
profitable.Similarlyin Ep* 106 dispute for says we can
et passim ride infra, p. 208, 1.

"
and against everything; Nau-
2
predeces- siphanes, that everything is
J"p. 45, 4: His sors,
the great men, have left not, justas much as it is ; Par-
many problems : Et im-enissent menides, that nothing is except

forsitan neeessaria, nisi et super- the universe ; Zeno, of Elea,
vacua quaesissent. Jfultum ittis nihll esse. Circa eadem fere Pyr-
temporis ver'borum camllatw rJwnei verxantur Megarici et
et
eripuitet captiosw disputatwnes^ JEretrlei et Academic^, gui no-

gu(g acumen inritum, . . .
exer- ram indusseruntseiejitiam,
mkil
cent. We should search out sdre Jieee omnia in ilium super
not the
meaning of words, but vacuum studi"rum IVberalium
things the good "
and the evil ; gregem cornice,"c. JV"w" fam,le
and not fence with sophisms the dixerim, uiris magi* ira$car"
acetabula prcBstiglatorum fcf. illis qui non nlhil scire wliie-
the of Arcesilaus, riint,an illis,
fy-nQoirouKrai qui ne hoc quidem^
Phil. d. Gr. m. i. 495, 4) igno- 'jwMs reliquerunt, ntfdl scire.
208 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. Wisdom, he says, is a simplething and requires no

1__ great learning: it is only our want of moderation
which so extends the sphere of philosophy; for life,

the School questionsare for the most part worthless ;
l
theyinjure, indeed,rather than benefit,for they render

the mind small and weakly, instead of elevatingit.2
We certainlycannot, as we have already seen and
shall see later on, take Seneca exactlyat his word in
regard to such declarations ; but it is undeniable
that he wishes to limit philosophy in principleto

moral problems,and only admits other things so far
as they stand in manifest connection with those
problems.
This principle must inevitablyseparate our phi-
losophe
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, "
Seneca includes it under the three chief divisions of
philosophy,3 and
the subjectis only cursorily occa-
After Ep. 47, 4 sg.; 87, 38 $q. ; 88,

1
Up. 106, 11. a
thorough discussion of the pro- 36 : Plus scire velle giutm sit
positionthat the a;ood is a body satis, intemperantice genus est.
(Part III. i. 120, 1, 3 ; 119, 1) : 2 In Ep. 117, 18, after dis-

.Latrunculis ludimus, cussing the statement
in, super- that sa"-
vaoaneis siibtilitas teritur : non pientia,and not sapvre, is a good:
faeiioit ~bo)ios ista, sed doctos, Omniaista circa sapiential-nan
apertior res est imnw in ipsa swit : at noHs in ipsa
sapere,
siniplieior.Pauds exb ad men- comnwrandum est . . .
h"G vero,
tern lonam uti quibus paulo
literis : sed dieebam,
not de ante
lit cetera in supervacaneum inimiwit et depmmunt, nee, ut
diffimdimus, ita, pliilosopTdam 3)utatis,eccacii,urit,sedexte7i'U"
ipmm. Quemadm,odum omnium Similarly,Ep. 82, 22.
sic literarum 3
Vide PkiLd. G-r. IILi. 61, 1;
reruw,, quoque
intemperantia laboramus : non 64, 1 ; 67, 2. Elsewhere, however
vita sed soholcB discimus. 01 (Ep, 95, 10),philosophy is di-
LOGIC AXD PHYSICS. 20:
sionallytouched upon In his writings. He expresses r-HAP.
himself at times in agreement with his school re- _JLllL_

specting the origin of conceptions,and the strative
demon-
force of
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 logicaldefini-

tions
of his school ; 3 but he himself has no ation
inclin-
to enter into them more deeply, because in
his opinion this whole region lies too far from that
which alone
occupied him in the last resort " the
moral problem of man.
Far greater is the value which he ascribes to
Physics,as in his
writingsalso he has devoted to it
greater space. He praisesPhysics for imparting to
the mind the elevation of the subjects with, -which
it occupies itself;4 in the preface,indeed, to Ms
writingson Natural History,5 he goes so far as to
vided, as with the Peripatetics, 3): the animate is partly mortal

into theoretical and
practical and partly immortal (of. Ep.
philosophy ; and in Ep. 94, 45, 124, 14).
virtue is similarly divided (as 3 Besides the quotations sn-
with Pansstins, xide supra, p, pra,pp, 207, 1 ; 208, 1, 2, cf. in

48). This division -was all the regard to this, Ep. 118, 4 *".,
more obvious to a philosopher and PJdl. d, Gr.TLl, i. 97" 2 ; EJJ.
who ascribed no independent 102, 6 sq. : 3'at. Qtt.II. 2, 2, and
value to logic. Phil d. GT. III. i. 967 2 : 118, 4.
1 PUld.G7-.lILi. 74,3; 75,2. *
Ep. 117, 19: De 'Deornm,
2
JSp. 58, 8 sq^.j PlnLd. Gr. nafur" qii"ramii*+ de giderum
IIL i. 92. The highest concep- aKrnento, de Jds tarn rariig gfel-
tion is that Being ; this is
of larum, disctiraibii*,"zc. Igta,
partly corporeal, partly tncor- jam a formation? moritm veces-
poreal ; the corporeal is partly sernnt : sed lerani an jmum et
living, and partly lifeless ; the ad ipsarum qua* tratiant rerum,
livingis partly animated with a magjiitudinem adtollunt.

soul and partly inanimate (tf/ux^ s ôt- Qu- i- ProL Cf. vi,
and vide
(pv"ri$, iUd, IEL i. 192, 4, 2 :
*
Quod? inquu, ""
erit j)re-
P
210 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. maintain that Physics are higher than Ethics, in

VIII.
proportionas the Divine with which
they are con-
cerned
His Jrigh is higher than the Human ; they alone lead
us from earthly darkness into the light of heaven,
show us the internal part of things,the Author and
arrangement of the world ; it would not be worth
if physical
while to live, investigations
were forbidden
us. Where greatness of combating

would be the
our passions,of freeing ourselves from evils,if the

spiritwere not prepared by Physics for the know-
ledge
of the heavenly,and brought into communica-

tion
with God if we"were only raised above the

external,and not also above ourselves,"c. while,
Mean-
we soon perceive that these declamations
passing mood
rather than athe personal
express
opinionof the philosopher.Seneca elsewhere reckons
physicalenquiries,to which we have just heard
him assign so high a position,among the things
which go beyond the essential and necessary, and are
rather au affair of recreation than of philosophical
work proper; though he does not overlook their

morally elevatingeffect on the mind ; l he declares
'
tium opera ? Quo null-urn natura qu"?ramm, de siderum
magis ext,nosse naturam. The alimento, "c. Similarly in JUp.
gain of this enquiry 65, 15, a discussion ultimate
greatest on
is,quod Jiominem magnificetitia causes is defended as follows :

sui detinet, nee mereede, sed Ego quidem prior a ilia ago et
miraculo eolitur (.Ep. 95, 10, tracto, quibus pacatnr animus,
"c ) . .
et in e prius scrutor^ deinde Jiii
n c
1
Ep. 117, 19 (cf.sup. p. 209, mundum. Ne nu?ie quidem
4) : Dialectic is only concerned tempm, ut existimas, perdo.
with the outworks of wisdom. 1st a enim omnia, si ?wn conci-
Etia/in quid evagari
si libet, dantur nee in hanc sitbtilitatem
amplos Jiabet ilia [sapientia] imdilem distrahaiitiir,adtollunt
spatiososguesecessus : de Deorum et levant a-nimuni. In the con-
PHYSICS. ETHICS, 211
the essential problem of man to be the moral CHAP.

ViJI.
problem, and only admits natural enquiries as a
means and help to this ; ! and tie considers it a duty

to Interrupt from time to time his expositions of
natural history by moral reflections and practical

because
applications, all things must have reference
to our welfare.2 The interconnection between the
theoretical and practical doctrines of the Stoic
system is not abandoned by him, but It seems to be
laxer than with. Chrysippus and his followers.
In those of Ms writingsthat have come down to
us, Seneca has treated in detail only that part of
Physics which the ancients were accustomed to call
Meteorology. To this In the last years of his life 3
he devoted seven books of enquiries into natural
2 Cf. Xat. iii. IS

teniplation of the -world and Qn. ; iv. 13;
its author, man raises himself v. 15, 18 ; vi. 2, 32 ; but, espe-
cially
above the burden of the flesh, ii. 59. After Le has
learns to know high origin
his treated of lightning at l^ncrtL,
and destiny, to despise the body he remarks that it is ixoieli
and the corporeal,and to free more necessary to remove the

himself from it. Lofty as is fear of it, and proceeds to do
in these words Sffnuir
the position here assigned to so :
quo
it I7;us i at relt us
speculative enquiries, Seneca rocas : am en om it i-
in the last resort can onl}-

them by their moral tare inixceiidum c"t. CUM it/tus
justify
effect on men. per ot'culia, naiurcp) cum tilr hi a
iii. Prtrf. 10, 18 : tracfamus, vinfl'tcattdux ext

1 JXat. Qu. a,
in rebus hit- ynalis suis animvs ac mtiinde

Quid p'Tcec'lj)muii
nianis est? Vitia doinuuse Jirmandus, ":c.
. .
.
3 This frnm iii.Prerf.,

. .erlgere animum
.
sujira minas appears
Hoc and from the description of the
et promisza fortun"i "c.
noMs pTodent inspicere rerum earthquake which in the year
natitram, because we thereby 63 A.D. destroyed Pompeifand
Herculaneum, vi. i. 26, 5. Seneca
loose the spirit from the body
and from all that is base and had already composed a treatise
low, and because the habit of on earthquakes in Ms earlier
thought thus eng-endered is years (Sat. Qu, vi. 4, 2).

favourable to moral convictions.
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. history. Meanwhile the contents of the work

VIII.
*
answer very imperfectly to the loftypromises with
which it opens ; it contains discussions concerning a
number of isolated natural phenomena, conducted
rather in the manner of learned pastime than of
independent and thorough physical investigation.

Seneca's philosophical
standpointis little affected by
them, and would suffer no material alteration if even
the greaterpart of their results were totallydifferent

from what they are. For they are of
us the less im-
portance,
since their subject-matterseems mostly to
have been taken from Posidonius and other cessors.2

prede-
It is the same with other writingson natural
His historywhich
meta-
physical are attributed to Seneca.3 The physical
meta-
and theological
opinions which he occasion-
ally
and theo-
logicalenunciates, of value in
regard to sophy.
are philo- more
doctrines.
But even here, no importantdeviations from,
the Stoic traditions are to be found. Like the Stoics,
Seneca presupposes the corporeality of all the Eeal ; 4
1 In proof of this let anyone 3

According to Plin. H. N. i.
read the beginning of the trea-
tise, 9, 36 ; ix. 53, 167, he consulted
and he will scarcely be Seneca about Ms statements on
able to resist the feeling of an water - animals and stones.
almost comic disappointment, Pliny,vi. 17, 60, and Servius on
when the author, after the J"n. ix. 31, mention a treatise,
above-mentioned declamations De situ Indies ; Serv. J38n. vi.
on the dignity of natural quiry,
en- 154, De situ et sacris JEgyp-
after the concluding sen-
tence torum. Cassiodorus, De Art.
: Si niMl aliud, hoc certe Lib. c. 7, speaks of another
sol am, omnia, angusta esse, treatise,De forma mwidi.
metisus Dcuin, continues : 2\runc 4
CtJEp. 117,2; 106,4; 106,
ad propositum veniam opus. 5 ;113, 1 sqq. ; where Seneca,
Audi nidus sent lam,
Quid de iff indeed, opposes some sions
conclu-
QUOS a"er transversos . . .
of Stoic materialism,
2 Cf. on this subject,and the but expressly teaches it him-
self.
content of Nat. Qu.,Phil. d. Gr.
III. i. 191, 2, 3.
GOD AND MATTER. 21
like them he discriminates matter from the force CHAP.

VllL
working in it,and the Deity from matter ;
] and he
does this in exactly the same sense they do
as : the
active force is the the
spiritus, breath,which forms
and holds togethermaterial substances.2 Even the
Deityis the Spirit,

not as an incorporeal
essence, hut
as the TTvsv/Jia permeating the whole universe,3 cor-
poreally
and in an extended manner. So also he

follows the Stoic doctrine of the relation between
God and the world : God is notmerely the reason of
the world, but the world the whole

itself, of the
as of the invisible
visible, things.4Seneca, however,
bringsforward much more emphaticallythe moral
and spiritualside of the Stoic idea of God ; and in
accordance with this he prefersto place the efficient
1
Cf. Pldl.tl. Gr. Ill, i. 131, ; that
rialistically even visible
4 ; 134, 1 ; also 177, 1. Proofs things are described as parts of
of the existence of God, 131, 3 ; the Deity (Phil.d. Gr. III. i. U6,
161, 2 ; 135, 5. 6) ; that only a corporeal god
2 Ibid. III. i. 118, 4. Seneca's can take back into himself the
conception of:spirit us will he corporeal world
by means of
discussed infra, p. 219, in con- the world's conflagration (Z,e.
nection with his psychology. 141, 1). If, therefore, Seneca,
very explicit (ad Helv. 8, 3) places the Pla-
3 Seneca is not
here, but, from the fact*that tonic conception of Deity as
everything efficient must be- a incorporeal reason, and the
body ("Jp. 117, 2), it follows Stoic conception, according to

that what he says (Up. 102, which the Deity is the univer-
7) must hold good even of the sally diffused spirits*,side by
world " viz., that the unity of side without discriminating
everything depends upon the them, the second only corre-
holds it spends with his opinion,

sjrirituswhich to- own
gether ; that the soul which he Cf PMl

4
.
d. Gr. III. i. 146, 6 ;
represents to be of the same 148, IjalsoJV. 16(ap.Lact.I"2s".

substance with Deity " in fact, i.5,27) : guamr4s ipsep"r totum
as part
a Deity" is, as we
of seaorj)us("Q.mundi)inte}iderat;
shall presently find,conceived and also the Stoic doctrine of
by Seneca, in agreement with Pneuma and r6vos.

the whole Stoic school, mate-
214 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, activityof Grod in the world under the idea of Provi-

VTTT
L_ dence, and the order and arrangement of the world
under the aspect. God is the highest

teleological
reason, the perfect Spirit,whose wisdom, omni-
science,
holiness,and, above all,His beneficent good-

ness,
are continuallyextolled.1 He loves us as a
father,and desires to be loved by us, and not feared ; 2
3
and therefore the world, whose Creator and ruler He
is,is so perfectand beautiful,and the course of the
world so blameless ; which Seneca proves in many
ways.4 Since his generaltheory of the universe has
its centre in the moral life of man, so in his ception

con-
of God the physicalelement is less nent

promi-
than the ethical : it is the care of the Deity
for men, goodness and wisdom, in. which His
His
perfectionis principallyrevealed to Seneca; and

therefore it is inevitable that the personalaspect of
the Deity,in which, as reason forming and govern-
ing
the world and working accordingto moral ends,
He is distinguishedfrom the world itself, should
preponderate,as 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,how-
ever,
to say5 that Seneca abandoned the Stoic idea,
and thus gave to ethics a new direction ; that
whereas in true Stoicism Gocl and matter are in
1
Authorities are given in 3
Fr. 26 j b. Lact. Inst. i. 6,
Pkll d. ffr. III. 1 139, 1 ; 26 ; F. 2to. 8, 4.
348, 1. Others may easily be 4 Of. Phil, d, @r. III. i. p.
found: Cf. Holzhonr, i. 90 SQ. 171, B j 178, 2 ; 135, 5.
* X"fl P-MV. 15 8$.; 2, 6;
8
Holzherr,i. 33 j 36;
Eawf. ii. 29, 4-6; iv. 19, 1; ii. 5 8$$.
De Ira, ii. 27, 1; cf. p. 313, 1.
FORCE AND MATTER. 215
their essential nature one, in Seneca they appear as CHAP.

VIIL
different ; that God
essentially is to him the incor-
porealnature, who has formed by His free-

will, the world
and that his god is no longerthe god of the
Stoics,but of the Platonists. Our previousargu- ments

will rather have shown that the conceptionof
God, which according to this expositionis peculiar

to Seneca, is in no way foreignto the elder Stoics ;
that they,too, laid great stress on the goodnessand

wisdom of God, and on His benevolence to man; they,
too, regarded Him as the Spirit that guides all
things,the reason that has ordered and adapted all
thingsfor the wisest ends ; by them also the belief

in Providence regarded as of the highestvalue,
is
and is most vigorouslydefended; and the law of

the universe and of moralitycoincides with the will
of God.1 They will also have shown that Seneca,
on the other hand, is far from abandoning those
definitions of his school according to which the
distinction between efficient force and matter is only
a derived distinction,and consequentlyis often an-
nulled
in the course of the world's development; 2

that he, too, seeks God in the irvsvfia, conceived as
1
Of. Phil. d. Gr. III.l. 139, 1 ; the doctrine of the Stoic school,
159, 1; 161; 163, 1; 171 sg.; to which Seneca, indeed, ex-
505 8q. pressly appeals ; and when in

2
S/p.6, 16, where Seneca says De Prov. 5,9 (the mere qttes-
exactly the same as is quoted tionsin $w.L JrW/116,can
Nat.
from Phil,
Chrysippxis, d. Grr. prove nothing)he bringsforward
III. i. 143, 2. Similarly Holz- for the Theodicee the proposi-
herr's chief proof for the essen- tion that the Divine artist is
tial difference between God and dependent on his material, he
matter (23p.65),as will be seen follows herein not only Plato,
from d. Qr. III. i. 131, 4
Phil. but also Chrysippus,as is shown
entirelycorresponds with Phil. d. "r" III. i. 177, 1.

*#".,
216 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. .
and
.corporeal, not in the incorporealSpirit; l declares
_
1__ the -partsof the world to be parts of the Deity,and
2
God and the world to be the same ; identifies
nature, fate,and God,3 and reduces the will of God

to the law of the universe, and Providence to the
unalterable concatenation of natural causes.4 If,

therefore,a certain difference exists between his
theologyand that of the elder Stoics,this does not

consist in his giving up any essential definition of
theirs,or introducingany new definition ; it is
merely that among the constituents of the Stoic
conceptionof God he lays greater emphasis on the

ethical aspects,and therefore bringsthat conception
nearer, sometimes to the ordinary presentation,
sometimes to the Socratic-Platonic doctrine. This
is primarilya consequence of the relation in which
the moral and speculativeelements stand with him :
as the latter is subordinate to the former, so the
metaphysical and physical determinations of the
Stoic theologyare in his exposition less prominent

than the ethical. But it was all the easier on this
account for the dualism of the Stoic ethics to react
upon his theology,and it is undeniable that the
1 Vide supra, 213, 3.

2 Phil. d. ("}?.III. i. 146, 6; Dei 9iom"i)ia"sunt wa/rw ntentis
14$, 1 ; 140 m ; J8p.92, 30: Totwn wa gfft"stafa
hoc,quo contincmur, et umrm cst LOG. tit. and Phil. S. G"r,
4
ct Daus: et sooil summ qfus 0t III. 157, 2; 168, 2; of. 108, 1,

membra. 2. Tihe same results from Be'ncf.
3 Pkil d, Gr. III. 1 140 m. j vi. 23, though Seneca at first ex-
148, 1 ; Henef. iv. 8, 2 : Nw presses himself
"na- as if the will
tura sine Bco est nee Dots of the gods were
siM the author
natura, Ke" idem est utritMgve, of the laws of the universe.
di"tat ("fficio . . .
naturam,
NATURE. THE WORLD. 217
oppositionof God and matter, in direct connection - CHAP.
with the VIIL

ethical oppositionof sense and is
reason,
more stronglyasserted by him than their original
unity.1 If,however, on this side he has reached the
'
limits of the Stoic doctrine,he did not reallyover-

step
them.
Nor do we find in Seneca's theory of the world Tkeorintf
and of nature that tJie m"rld
anything contradicts the prin-
ciplesof the Stoics. His utterances concerningthe nature.
the end, and

origin, the new formation of the world 2
;
its form 3
; its unity establishing
itself out of contra-
dictions,4
and
maintaining itself in the ceaseless
change of things; its beauty 5 assertingitself in the
multiplicityof its productions; the perfectadapta-
tion
of means to ends in its arrangement/ as to
which even the evil in it should not cause us any

doubt 7
; " all these serve to complete and verifythe'
accounts we have from other sources respectingthe
doctrines of his school. To the littleness and super-
1 Vide ISp. 65, especially 2 27, 3 SQ. : V. Be. 8" 4 sq. ; Jgp.
and 23. 107, 8 ; and Phil. d. Gr. III. i.
PML
8
d. Gr. III. i. 149, 3 ; 179, 3 ; 18S, 1.
5
144, 1; 152, 2; 154, 1; 155; 156, J^c.ett.l71,3;j?d""/.iv.23.
3. In Seneca these doctrines 6
J8p.118, 16; I"e PromdA. 1,
are connected with the theory 2-4 ; Nat. Qu. i. PTOCGDI. 14 s$.
that mankind and the world in Of. "with these passages Sen,
general had been un corrupted Benef. iv. 5 ; ad Mcvre. 18. The
in proportion as they were conception of the world as an
nearer their first beginnings, itrls Dis Jiomini'biisgve
com-
He opposes, however, the ex- wiunis9 in the latter passage

aggerated notions of Posido- is eminently Stoic. Vide PML
nlus on this subject. Gf J2p. .
d. Gr. III. 1. 285, 1 ; 286, 2 ; S61 sq*
90, especiallyfrom s. 36, and 7
Concerning the Stoic Theo-
PJtil. d. Gr. III. i. 269, 6. dicee, and Seneca's participa-
8 PMl. d. 6fr" III.
FT. 13, and tion in it (about which much
i. 146, 6, end. might be quoted) vide ibid. III.
4 JV. Qu. iil 10, 1, 3 ; \ii. i. 173 sg$.
218 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, ficiality
into which, teleologyhad already
the Stoic
L_ fallen at an earlyperiod,he opposes the propositions

that the world was not created merely for men : it
rather carries its purpose in itself and follows its
own laws ; l
it is an undue limitation when we place
it under the aspect of the useful, instead of ad-
miring
its glory as such.2 Pie does not, however,

deny that in the arrangement of the world regard
was paid to the welfare of man, and that the gods
unceasinglyshow the
greatest benevolence to men.3
What he says likewise concerningthe system of the

universe and parts- the elements, their qualities
its "
and their transition into each other;4 on the
heavenly bodies, their revolution, their divine
nature,5 their influence on earthly things; 6 the

earth, and the spiritthat animates it ; 7 on the
regularinterconnection of the universe,8 interrupted

by no empty spaces," all this onlydeviates from the
Stoic tradition in regard to certain details which do
not affect his theory of the universe as a whole;9
1
Im" 27, 2; Nat. Qu.viL
Be JBcnsf. t c.\ Nat. Qu. ii. 11;
30, 3 Eetief.vi. 20.
; iii. 29, 2),but he couples with
2
JRenef.iv. 23 sq. it in the manner of his school
3
; i.
Benef. I. e. ; vi. 23, 3 ."?#. the theory of a natural pro-
1. 9 ; ii. 29, 4 sq. ; iv. 5 ; Nat, gnosticationthrough the stars,
Qv".v. 18 "tpa8S. which, as he believes,is as little
4 PMl. 1. 179, 3
d. 6fr. III. confined to the five planets as
(Nat. Q%. iii.10, 1 ; 3) ; ibid. III. the influence above mentioned
i. 183, 2; 184, I (Nat. Qu,. ii, (Nat. Qit.ii. 32, 6 3$. j ad Marc.
10) ; and iUd. 185, 3 (Nat. Qu. 18, 3).
vi. 16); Nat. Qn.il C; J"".31,*5.7 Nat. Qu. vi. 16; ii. 6. On
5 Nat. Qu. vi. 16, 2 ; vii. 1, 6 ; the repose of the earth, wide D"
2.1,4 ; J3ew"f.iv. 23, 4; vi. 21- Pnmd" i 1, 2 ; l$p.93, 9; Nat.
23. Qu. i. 4 ; of. vii. 2, 3.
6 In regard to this influence 8
Nat. Qu, ii. 2-7 (cf.Phil.
Seneca alludes first to the natu- d. Or. III. 'i.
187, 4).
9
ral influence of the stars (0.ff. Bo in regard to the comets,
HUMAN NATURE. 219
He also adheres to that tradition in the few passages CHAP.
to be found in his works mentioning terrestrial _

L_
natures exclusive of man.1
In his views of human nature he is farther
ology.
removed from the doctrine of the elder Stoics. The
groundwork of these views is formed by the Stoic

psychology with its materialism; but the dualism
of the Stoic ethics, the reaction of which on his
theoretical view of the world had alreadymade itself

felt in his
theology,acquires a strongerand more
direct influence on his anthropology,in which sequently

con-
two tendencies cross one another. On the
one hand, he wishes to derive,with his school,the

whole life of the soul from asimpleprinciplecon-
ceived
materially; on the other, the ethical oppo-

sition
of the inner and the outer, which even in the
Stoic doctrine is so sharplyaccented, is transferred
by him to the essential nature of man, and based
upon it; and thus over against the ancient Stoic

monism a dualism, is introduced,which approximates
to the anthropology,and depends upon it.
Platonic
The soul, says Seneca (in general agreement with
the Stoics), is a body, for otherwise it could not
possiblyhave any effect upon the body,2 It must,

which he considers to be wan- indeed, ascribes to the animals
dering stars with very distant a prinoipale,but denies them
orbits (Nat. Qu* vii. 22 *"",)" no^ on^y re"son, but affections
ag%rees with the dis- (De Ira, i. 3). With this coin-
1
Seneca
crimination of i'"ts and Averts, cides what is remarked con-
fee. (PML d. Gfr. III. i. 192, 3) cerning the soul life of animals
by virtue of his classification (JEp.121, 5 sqq. ; 124, 16 sqq.).
of essential natures mentioned 2 He expresses himself quite
8upra,j). 209, 2; like Chrysippus unequivocallyon this point in

(PUL d. Gr" III. i. 193, 1) he, JBp. 106, 4, and it is not true
220 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. however,certainly
be the finest of all substances,finer
VIII.
even than fire and air.1 It consists,in a word, of
warm breath,or Trvev/Aa? This theory had not pre-

vented
the elder Stoics from recognisingthe divine
nature and dignityof the human to the fullest
spirit
extent, and Seneca is so completelypossessedby it
that there is no other theorem which he reiterates
more frequentlyand more emphatically. Human

reason is to him an effluence of Deity, a part of the
Divine Spiritimplantedin a human body, a god who

has taken up his abode there ; and on this our
relationship
to Grod he bases, on the one hand, his
to say that lie soul ; for affection is only

(Holzherr,ii. 47) an
is arguing from a Stoic premiss the animus quodaMi modo se
which he did not himself share. Mb"tu (Phil. d. Or. III. i. 120,
On the contrary, he is speaking 3) ; and if the corporeal alone
work the body, the
in his own name ; and if he can upon
ultimately declares the gation
investi- soul must be something poreal,
cor-
of the question whether as Cleanthes had already

the good a body is worth-
less to be shown (ibid. III. i. 194, 1).
1 it does not 1
]3p.57, #. As the flame
p. 207, ),
or
(s-itjpra,
follow that he himself does not the air cannot be subjected to
blow, sio animus,
regardthe good as such, stillless pressure or a
that he was not in earnest as to qui cis toMiisxiwo oonstatj de-

the which
proposition is brought jjreh"njl'l
noti potcst animo, . . .
forward to assist tins enquiry, qm a"liiic tenuwr est igtw,jpvr

but is quiteindependentof it " omne ftt"gti
corjnt"!t est.
the soul is body. 2
JSp. 50, 6. If a man can
viz., that a
The same good

holds of the bend wood, and make
crooked
further proposition(I. c.) that it straight, quanto faeilius
the affections and the diseases (t'liim fiendMUs
us ati(?jj)itfflW9iff"M" ,
of the soul are bodies, and of et ovi-rbi hit more /

oibseqwMtior
for it" that Quid est aliud aniw.tis
the reason given enwt
the changes of pression,

ex- ftuodamimodo $6 Jtfibens
they cause qu(im"
turning and Vides
sjtiri.ttts? atttem tanto
blushing
pale,"c., and that they cannot s/riritum faoilioreî omni
esse
be accounted for : Tom muni- alia mat"ria""qua/ttotenttior est.

corpori imprimi Of. Phil d. "r. III. i. 196, 2, and
fextas 'Mtas
"to* ff. corjww. This also Seneca 142, 2,where definitions entirely
declares to be his own opinion. similar are proved to be universal
If, however, the affections are among the Stoics.

something corporeal,
so is the
VIRTUES AND VICES. 221
demand for the elevation of the soul above the CHAP.

VIIL
earthly,
and for the recognition of the dignity of
mankind in every man; and, on the other, the
internal freedom of the man who is conscious of his
high origin and essential nature.1 This thought,

however, takes a direction with Seneca which makes
him deviate from the ancient Stoic doctrine on the
side of Platonism. The Divine in man is his reason,
and that alone ; but in opposition to reason stand
the irrational impulses,the affections ; and in com-
bating
the affections Seneca, as we shall find,in

accordance with the whole Stoic school,finds the
weightiestmoral problem. The elder Stoics had

not allowed this to confuse them in their belief as to
the oneness of man's essential nature. But already
Posidonius had discovered that the affections couldnot
be explained,unless,with Plato,irrational powers of
the soul were admitted as well as the reason.2 Similar

reflections must have had the more influence on
Seneca's view of human nature. With all the greater
force,the more vividlyhe felt its moral weakness and
imperfection,the more absolutelyhe was convinced

that no human beingwas without fault;that all vices
were implanted in all men ; that the superiorpower

of evil in human societyas a whole would never be
broken, nor the complaints of the corruption of
manners cease ;
3
and that even after the renovation
1
Some of his utterances on 12 ; JSp.41, 5 j 44, 1 j 65, 20 so.*
this subject are quoted, Phil d. 120, 14, "c.

Of. supra, p. 64.
2
Gr. III. i. 200, 2 ; 201, 1 ; and
216, j 2 vide V"B" ad Helm. a Cf. PML d. Grf. HI. i. 253
mpra"
6, 7 ; 11, 6 $". ; Nat. Qu. i.Prcef. *%. ; JSenef,vii. 27 ; Hj).94, 54 ;
222
ECLECTICISM,
"
time "^ innocence would
CHAP
Yirr. ê oniy Of short duration.1 Such a universal phe-
nomenon cannot possiblybe regardedas accidental :
if a few only sustain the conflict with sin,none or
next to none are free from it ; and therefore in man,
side with the Divine, there must also be

side by an
element not Divine ; and side by side with reason,

from which error and sin cannot be derived, an
element which is irrational and strives against
reason.2 This irrational element of human nature
Seneca finds in the body, the oppositionof

primarily
which to the Spirit he emphasises much more
stronglythan the ancient Stoics appear to have

done. The body, or, as he also contemptuouslycalls
is something so worthless that we cannot
it,the flesh,
think meanly enough of it :
3 it is
a mere husk of
the soul : a tenement into which it has entered for
short time, and can never feel itself at home : a

a
burden by which it is oppressed: a fetter,a prison,

for the loosingand opening of which it must neces-
and elsewhere. Expressionslike natural destiny and vocation,
and not inherent in
those JBp.11, 1-7; 57, 4, are
in are us;
they develop themselves gradu-
ot less importance.
1 Nat. QM. iii.30, 8 ; cf. PJdL ally. But that does not exclude
d. Gr
'
III. i. p. 156, 3. the theory that they develop
2 Seneca himself seems freely themselves from natural causes.
8
to admit this. lNrms' lie says, /#". 05, 22 : NuMgwwi we
in Ep. 04:, 55, si cxistwws euro istft (id

omnjM'llflt ineftwn,
noluenwi vitito nasti: sttjw- . . . WMnqunM in, fwnorcn Jwjus
wwermt, inyesta,sunt . . .
nulli Cum
cor/Htwulimtittttor. W.WM
nos ritio nfituracmoiliat : Ufa wit, di"traJiam nm Ulo sooift-

lilwros gen nit. But tatvm contemptm oorporis
inteqrostac . . .
this*
utterance must be judged "ni corta libertds eat. Concorn.-
accordinfx to the standard of ing1the expression cf. (id Ma/ro.
the Stoic fatalism, Vices stand, 24, 5 ; Kp. 74, 16 ; 02, 10 j arid
iadeed, in opposition to our Phil, d. 6V. III. i. 445J,
8.
IMMORTALITY. 223
sarilylong;1 with its flesh it must do battle, CHAP.

YIIL
through its body it is exposed to attacks and suffer-
ings, but in itself it is pure and invulnerable,2

exalted above the body, even as Grod is exalted
above matter.3 The true life of the soul begins,
therefore,with departure from the the body, and
though Seneca is averse to exchangingthe Platonic
belief in immortality4 for the Stoic theory of a

limited continuance of existence after death, he
closelyapproximates to the latter 5 (ashas already
been shown) in his idea of the close relationship
existingbetween the present and future life,and
also in respect to the duration of future existence
expressionsinvoluntarily
escape him which a Stoic
in the strictest sense of the term would not have
6 the
ventured to employ ; even pre-existenceof the
soul,which as personal existence certainlyhad no
place in his system, finds countenance in passages
2
1
%p. 92, 13, 33 : The body Ad Marc. 24, 5 : Omne illi
is a garment, a vela/nie'iitwn of cum kac came grave certamen
the soul, an onus necessarium. est, ne abstrahatur et sidat.
102, 26: The day of death is Ad Helv.
11, 7: Corpmculmi
ceterni natalis. Depone onus : hoc, custodia et vlnculum animi,
Quid cunGtaris ? 120, 14 : Nee hue* atque Ulna jactatur . .
.
domum esse Jwecorpus, sed Jios- animus quidem ipse sacer et
pitium et quidem breve hospi- after tius est et cui non jpossit
tium. 65, 16 : COTJJUSJWG anwii inici vnamis.
8
pondus ae 'pwna est : prcvnente Ep. 65, 24 : Quern in lioo
illo urgetur, in vinoulis est,nisi mundo locum Deus obtinet, hunc
acoessit pMlosopliia,,"c. Loo. in Jiomine animus. JVa". Qu".
cit. 21 : I will not be a slave to Prof. 14.
4
my body, quod equideni non Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 154, 1 ;
aliter adspicio quam vinclum 202, 1.
aliquodlibertati tnece oircunida- 5 Ibid. 203 sq.

turn . . .
in hoc o"bnoxio domi- G
Iwimortalis, aeternus (J$]j".
cilio animus liber habitat. 57, 9 ; and Phil. d. 6fr. III. i.
Ep. 102, 22 ; ad Marc. 24, 5 ; ad 154, 1 ; 203, 3).
Polyl.9, 3 5 Part III i. 203, 3.
224 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, where the recollection of its high descent is en-

yni'
joinedupon the soul,and its elevation to heaven is
representedas a return to its original home, when it
leaves the body behind, where the soul found it.1
But as with Plato the psychologically different parts
of the soul had been combined with the anthropo-

logical
opposition of soul and body, so Seneca cannot
entirelyescape this inference. With Posidonius 2
he follows the Platonic discrimination of a rational

and irrational element in the soul, the irrational
element being again divided into courage and
desire ; 3 and though he expresslyincludes them

all under the qryspovucov, and so far adheres to the
doctrine of his school againstPlato and Aristotle,
there still remains between his theory and that of
Chrysippus the important difference that Seneca
assumes in the very personality

centre of
a plurality
of originalfaculties,while Chrysippus makes one
and the same fundamental faculty,reason, generate

affections and desires through the changesthat take
placein it.4
Though we cannot the period of
help recognising
1 Ad 24, 5; Up. 70,

Marc, dcri ved powers of the soul \PMl.
12; 102, 22; 120, 14; Phil d. d, (h. III. i. 198, 1] or analo-
"r. III. i. 203, 2 ; 3 ; $]".65, 16 : gous tothem) in, koo princijmli
The soul will rflrerti ad ilia ext atignid irrationale, ext et
(02,30 ##.). rationale : Hind Mtio
git-orionfit/it s"ntiti.
2
Supra, p. 64 $q$. "oc. oit. 8 : Zrratwnalis pars
8
JUj).94, 1 : Pnto inter mfl anwii duns habet partes, alte-
tecfuvconrcniet, externa corpori raw, aMwiosam, amHtwrnm^ m-
adtjitirijcorpus in honor ew, poteritem, posita,m" in adftfatwni"

a-niwi coli,in animo ess" Cartes bu$,altrraMhumilew,)lm{jwidam
wityistras, per QUOM mwtmtur voluptatlbm deditam ("Jp. 71,
aUMMrgiw, pro/tieripyunifwin* 27).
oipale no'bis datas (tlieseven 4 Vide Phil d,6
OCCASIONAL SCEPTICISM. 225
eclecticism in these deviations from the older Stoic CHAP.

YIIL
doctrine, yet the scepticalside of this eclecticism
is also exhibited by Seneca in the occasional uncer-
tainty
of his language respectingthe same subjectsof

which he elsewhere speaks in the tone of full matic
dog-
conviction. We cannot perhaps, from
argue
the fact that in his epistleto his mother concerning
the comfort afforded by the dependence of all things
on God, he secures himself against every attack by
not deciding what Grod is.1 But it has an niably
unde-
sceptical sound when he elsewhere, in dis- Assertion
cussing the question of the highest causes, declares fj^^"

that a man must be content conflictingof all spe-
among
Gulatwn-
views to choose the most probable: to determine
the truest, exceeds our powers.2 In the same way
he says of the soul :
"
What and where it is, no
one can fathom. One sets up this definition and
another that ; but how can the soul, which is not
clear about itself,attain to certainty about other
' 3
things? We should not be justifiedin calling
1
Of. Z. c. 145, 1. echoes the passage from Plato,
2
jBp. 65, 10 (cf. 65, 2, and Tim. 29, o9 which Seneca has
65, 23) : jFer ergo judex senten- quoted in the preceding con-
tiawi et pronuntia, quis tiM text.
videatitr verisimillimttm dicer e, s JVat. Qu. vii. 25, 1 : Midta
awn qitisverissimttm Meat. Id sMwt,g[fit""%esseconGedi'ni'us,qua"lia"
enim tarn swjvra nos est qiia/m sunt, ignovamus. Habere nos
ipm veritas ; and after he has animum . . .

omnes fatebuntur :
set forth objections of the

the qididto/men si-tanimus ille rector
Stoics against the Platonic dominusque nostri^ non magis
theories he proceeds thus : Aut tiU qui$q%a"m easpediet,gwam
for sententiam aut, quod faciU'us idbisit: alius illim, dicet $j)iri-
in ejustnodi rebus est, nega tifri turn, esse, aMus eoncentum qu-en-
ligueve et nos r"verti jufie. In dam, alius vim dwinam et Dei
estimating this passage we pa,rtem,a,limtenvmsimuma"'refni,

must rememher that it clearly aMus incorporalem potentiam,.
"26 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. Seneca a sceptic because of such isolated utterances,

vm.
to which the dogmatism of his whole method is
otherwise opposed,but they,at any rate, prove that

he is not free from severe attacks of scepticism,and
that, as with Cicero and other eclectics,it is,above
all things,the strife of philosophictheories which

causes the dogmatism of the Stoic to waver.
The Stoicism of Seneca is purer in the sphere to
which he himself attaches the greatestimportance "
namely, ethics. The idealism of the Stoic moral

EtTiics.
doctrine in its grandeur, and also in its asperities,
finds in him a zealous and eloquent representa-
tive.
He declares with the Stoics that there is no
good but virtue, because virtue alone is,for man,

Essential he the satisfaction
accordingto nature : can paint
agreement
mtk the which it secures, the
independence of all external
principles
of the fortune,the invulnerabilityof the wise man, with
Staics, glowing and even glaringcolours ; he is convinced
that the virtuous man is in no way inferior to the
Deity, in a certain respect,indeed, is even superior;

"
he requires from us not merely moderation in
our emotions,1but their unconditional eradication ;
he reiterates the well-known remarkable ments

state-
about the unity and equalityof all virtues,

the perfectcompleteness of the wise man ; the
Non deerit,qiiisanguinem dicat, upon wishes and authority than

qui calorem: adeo animo non on proofs is named a fiettum
potent Uquere de ceteris rebus, somnium ; but this is tant.
unimpor-
ut adhiio ipse se gw"rat. De
1
Clement, 1 3, 5, would prove Vide PMl. d. Gr. III. i. 252,
taken
little, alone, and Ep. 121, 1 *#., and Ep. 53. 11 : Est ali-
12, still less. In Up. 102 quid, quo sapiens anteeedat
(beginning) a belief in immor-
tality, Deum : ille leneficio
natwce non
which is based rather timet mo sapiens.
MORALITY OF THE STOICS. 227
misery, defectiveness,and madness of the unwise ; CHAP.
in fact, all the principleson which the

peculiar _
'
character of the Stoics had been most clearly

stamped " with the full decision of personal convic-
tion,
and all the pathos of the orator.1 But even
here we can perceive that the reasons which must he
have recommended the Stoic doctrine to him are
opposed by reflections and inclinations of another and quali-

*
kind. The Stoic morality is intended for natures
capable of a pure and perfectvirtue ; how can it be
applied unaltered to us men, who one and all are so
1
The most definite utterances peace of mind as the chief stituent
con-
of Seneca on all these tions

ques- of happiness,De stant.
Con-
have been already quoted. 13, 5 ; 75, 18 ; Ep. 29, 12.
I content myself, therefore, On the nature and reprehensi-
with referringto these tions
quota- bilityof the emotions, Be Ira, ii.
and completing them with 2, 1 ; JBp.75, 11 ; 85, 5 ; 116, 1 sqq.
a few others, though many On the nature and origin of
might be added, since Seneca virtue, Ep. 113, 2; 117, 2; De
declares in innumerable places Otio, 1, 4 ; Ep. 65, 6 ; Ep. 108,
the leading thoughts of his 8 ; JSp.94, 29. On wisdom and
ethical doctrine. On the ciple
prin- the principal virtues,JSp. 89, 5 ;
of life accordingto nature, 95, 55; 120, 11; 115, 3 (the
and its derivation from the division of the virtues, Vita
impulse of self-preservation, cf Beat. 25, 6 s%. is of less import-
. ance)
Sen. Up. 121, 5 "%%. ; 10, 11 ; 67, 6 ; 10 ; 88, 29 ; Benef.
Vita Beat. 3, 3 ; Mp. 118 sqq. ; ii. 34, 3. On the disposition
Wp. 121, 14; 92, 1; 76, 8; 89, and will as the seat of all
15 ; Vita, Seat. 8, 6 ; Mp. 120, virtue; on the equality of all
22 ; Benef. iv. 25, 1 ; JSp. 122, virtues and vices and of all
5 sgr. Concerning the Good goods and evils, Benef. vi. 11,
and goods, Benef. vii. 2, 1 ; JEp. 3; i. 5, 2; ii.31,1; Ep. 71, 18;
66, 5 ; 71, 4 ; 74, 1 ; 76, 11 ; 66, 5- sqq.; 66, 32. On wise
85, 17 ; 120, 3 ; 118, 10.\ cerning
Con- men and fools,Benef. iv. 26,
the autarchy of ./irtue 27, 2; v. 12, 3; 15, 1 ; vii. 3,
and against the admission of ex-
ternal 2*#. ; 6,3; 8,1; -2^.8
and corporeal things, 73, 11, 13 ; Prov. 1 5; 6,
pleasure and pain, among goods Be Const. 8, 2; Be Ira, ii. 8-10;
and evils, wde PMl. d. Gr. III. Be Const. 2, 1 ; 7,1; J^.9,14 et
i. 215-221 ; Benef. vii. 8 sgg. ; J"p.
7", 76, 20 "#".; 71, 17 sqq. On
Q 2
228 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, wicked and weak as Seneca maintains, and have
these evils,as he also says, so deeply rooted in our
nature ? l
happiness of the wise man
The is con-
ditioned
by his wisdom, the autarchyof the virtuous

by a virtue which correspondsto the Stoic demands.
What profitus if this virtue and wisdom
does it are
never, or hardly ever, to be found in the actual

world ? 2 By these arguments the older teachers of
the school had already,as we have seen, been duced
in-
to modify their original demands by important

concessions, and Seneca was still more likely to
adopt the same procedure. Thus we see him not
only approving the concessions which his prede-

cessors
had made to human weakness, but in
many of his utterances deviatingstill further from

the originalseverity of the system. Like the
older Stoics,he attributes a certain value to other
things besides virtue;3 and reckons these things

among goods in the wider sense.4 This is unim-
portant.5
On the other hand, he is no longer

1 Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 252 $$$., dence only shows that two
The utter- kinds of expositionwere
and supra,, p. 221. pro-
ances of Seneca there quoted duced from similar circum-
offcen coincide almost word for stances, experiences,and tern-
word with those of the Apostle peraments, and that two
Paul on the universal sinfulness writers need not stand in any
of man, and this is one of the immediate connection in order
most striking-of the points of to agree, as to their words,
even
contact between them which in many propositions,

have given rise to the legend of 2
As Seneca admits, Trcwqu.
their personal intercourse and An. 7, 4 ; J$p.4, 2 ; 90, 44.
3
written correspondence; con- E.g.,yyro"ucta,
(vporj-y^va,
cerning which of. Baur, J)rei concerning which cf. Ep. 74, 17: ;
AbMndL p. 377 *##., and A. 87, 29; Vita Beat. 22, 4).
Fleury, Seneque Paul, et St. Seneca calls them also yotwra
Paris, 1853 ; i. 269 sq$. His- and oommoda,.
ally regarded, this coinci- 4 In Benef* v. 13, 1, he agrees
EXTERNAL GOODS AND ILLS. 229
quite consistent when he sometimes extravagantly OHAP.

praises the Cynic contempt for the necessaries of '__
life and at other times counsels compliance with
existingcustoms, and careful avoidance of all that
can attract notice.1 But we hear more of the Peri-

patetic
language than the Stoic when Seneca, in
spiteof all his declamation about the self-satisfying

nature of virtue, and indifference to things ternal,2
ex-
is once more of opinionthat Fortune can find

no better steward for her giftsthan the wise man ;
since riches alone can giveopportunityfor the folding

un-
of a number of virtues,and external goods

may add something to the cheerfulness which
springs from virtue.3 It is the same thing with

what he says of external evil. It sounds nimous
magna-
enough when the philosopherchallenges
Fortune to an encounter, when he extols the mity
subli-
of the spectaclewhich the wise man pling
grap-
with 4
misfortune
gods ; but affords to the
this loftytone changes only too completely into a
feeble and querulous sound, when Seneca (topass
with the Academy 20, 9 ; 62, 3. And, on the other

and the Peri-
pateticsin distinguishinglona hand, dc. Fin. iii 20, 68 ; JEJp.
fortunes. Else-
animi, corjporis" 14, 14.
where, however (Ep. 74, 17; 2
Mg.9 Mp. 92, 5; De Vzt.
76, 8 ; 124, 13) he expressly Seat. 22, 5 ; Ep. 62, 2. Sre-
says that everything except wssima ad dimtias (to the true

virtue is improperly (precario} riches) per cmtemptum dim-
named a good. The former tiarwn via est. Further proofs
view is to be found in Ohrys- Phil. d. Gr. III. t 215, and
ippus andothers, Phil. d. 6fr. swpra, p. 227, 1.
III. i. 262, 3, 3 Vit. Seat. 21 1$. ; J0p.5.
Trangu. An.
1
8, 4 *q". ; 4 Promd,. 2, 6 *q$. ; JBp.64,
Senef. v. 4, 3 ; 6, 1 ; JBp.29, 1 ; 4 : 85, 39 ; PMl. d. Gr, III. i,
90, 14; Senef. vii. 8 *".; tip. 178,2; 215,2.
230 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, over other though elsewhere

unimportant examples),1
constantly
assuring us that banishment is no evil,
and that every land is a home for the wise man,2
breaks forth into unmanly lamentations over his
own exile,3
or when he enforces the courtlyprinciple
that we must put good face upon the
a wrong doings
which those in high places permit themselves ;
4
when he argues with much earnestness that there

are no peaceablecitizens or more
more obedient jects
sub-
than the philosophers;5 and when even Cato,

who is elsewhere so idolised, is blamed for sacrificing
himself uselesslyin the politicalstruggles of his

time,6 Though we must allow that his observations
on this subject are partiallytrue, yet it is another
question whether they harmonise with his general

utterances and with the principlesof the Stoics. He
excuses himself in such cases, it is true, by avowing

that he is not a wise man, nor ever will be ; he only
regards himself as on the road to wisdom, and is
1
As in Ep. 53, where the man and his master (Dio, Ixi.
incredible troubles (incrediHlia 10).
sunt, guce tiderym} of a short 4 De Ira, ii. 33 ; Ep. 14, 7 ;
sea voyage are described. cf .
also the admonitions to
"
2 Not only in his later prudence, Ep. 103, 5 j 14, 14.
writings,as Benef. 27,in vi. 2 ; Elsewhere, indeed (as in De
EJJ. 24, 3 ; 85, 4 ; but also and Ira, iii. 14, 4), Seneca's judg-
especiallyduring his own exile ment was quite different,
in hisconsolatory letter to his 5
Ep. 73, where among other
mother, cf 4, 2 ; 5, 4 ; 6, 1
. ; 8, things assures he
us that the
3 sqq. ; 10, 2 ; 12, 5 $([%. rulers (the then ruler was Nero)
3 Ad Polyl. 2, 1^ 13, 3; 18, are honoured fathers by the
as
9 and
-,
in the Epigrams from philosopherswho are indebted
exile. The dedication to Poly- to them for their leisure,
bius Seneca is said to have 6
Ep. 14, 12 sggt.; cf. for the
subsequently tried to sup- sake of the contrast, Ejp. 95,
press on account of the natter- 69 sg@. ; De Const. 2, 2 ; De
ies it contained of this freed- JProvid, 2, 9 "qc[.
FREE WILL. 23
content if things with him are going somewhat CHAP.
better ; l
but his concessions to hnman weakness _
expresslyrelate to the wise, and his avowal leads us

back to the question as to the real existence of the
Stoic wise man, which Seneca, as before remarked,
has the
scarcely courage to answer in the affirmative.
But if he thus substitutes the man who is progress-
ing
for the wise man,2 the requirements of the
system on man as he is in reality
are therebyneces-
sarily
lowered ; and whereas it at first seemed as if
through perfect wisdom and virtue he would and
could be like God, it ultimatelyappears that we
must be satisfied to imitate the gods, so far as

human weakness allows of it.3 In other places,
again,Seneca speaks as though nothing were easier

than to lead a life accordingto nature and reason,
and as if such a life were solelyand entirelya matter

of will and not of power ; 4 but this homage which
the philosopherpays to his school and to himself
cannot conceal from us his deviation from the spirit
of the earlier Stoicism. The proud reliance on the
power of moral will and from which the

intelligence,
Stoics' ethics started,is with Seneca deeply shaken.
Were it otherwise he could not express himself so
stronglyrespecting the weakness and wickedness of
men, and the unavoidableness of these defects. We
s^.j cf. imbecilUta"patitwr,

1
Vlt. Beat. 16 Ep. Vit. Beat.
57, 3 j 89, 2 : ad "elv. 5, 2. 18, I : Cumpotuero, mvam quo-
2 Cf. JEtp.72, 6 s$$. ; 75, 8 modo vportet.
*
s$g. ; 42, 1, and p. 268-271. Mp. 41, 9 ; 116, 8 ; Be Ira,
*
Benef. i, 1, 9 : Hos seqtta- ii. 13, 1 8%q.
mur duces, gua/n"uan*

232 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. perceivea similar deviation when Seneca, in spiteof

YIII.
his sublime utterances about the blessedness of the
wise man and Divine Providence,is forced by the
consideration of human to complain l
sufferings that
all life is a torment, and that amidst its storms death
is the onlyplace of refuge. It would assuredlybe
wrong to conclude from this that he is not in earnest
with the principleswhich he so frequentlyand so
emphaticallyexpresses \ but as in his life he did not
keep sufficiently free from the influence of his
positionand from the faults of a period (to the best

men of which he nevertheless belongs)to preserve
his character from vacillations and contradictions 2
"
1
Ad Pjlyl. 9, 6 sq. : Omnia Seneca's life as altogether
vita supplicium est . . .
in Twc blameless. He himself made
tarn procelloso . . .
mari navi- no such claim; he speaks of
gantibus mdlus jporti($ nisi the anni inter vana studia con-
mortis est. LOG. cit. 4, 2 sg". sumpti (Nat. Qti.iii. Preef. 1) ;
The rhetorical nature of this he acknowledges plainly that
consolatory treatise makes this he was still far from the per-
fection
testimony the less valuable. of the wise man, and
But we find the same where.
else- was clogged with many faults ;
Thus in the epistlead that his words were stricter than
Marc. 11, 1 : Tota fleUlis vita his life ; that his possessionswere
est,"c. Ep. 108, 37 j 102, 22 : greater, and his household and
Gram terrenoqm detineor car^ manner of life much more rious
luxu-
cere. than were properly patible
com-
2
Seneca's character, as is with his principles( Vit.
well known, has been quentlyBeat.
fre- 17 ; JEp. 6, 1 et pass. ;
defamed in the vide p. 231,2),and though much
strongest manner, both in cient
an- may be invented or exaggerated
and modern times
his deadly enemy ; and, in that which
on the other hand, it has been
Suilius,ap. Tac. Ann. xiii. 42,
often extravagantly glorified.and Dio Cass. (if he is speaking
This is not the place for a com-
plete in his own name) Ixi. 10, fol-
lowing
examination of this vexed the same or an equally
question, or for the tion
enumera- hostile authority, says of his
of its literature ; but I will colossal income (supposed to
shortly mention the most de-
cisive be 300 millions of sesterces),
points. It would tainly
cer- his avarice,and his luxury, we
be a mistake to regard must, nevertheless, suppose that
INCONSISTENCIES OF SENECA. 233
as a philosopher,he was not so alive to the ten- CHAP.

so,
deneies of his people and of his age, that we can (
L
the over-rich and over-power-

*
ful unwortMer part is ascribed to
minister of Nero, ascribed
' them by Dio, Ixi. 2. Meanwhile
to external possessions a far Seneca is censured by Tacitus,
and perhaps xiv. 52, for precisely the oppo-
greater value, site
beyond what was unavoidable conduct.) "Whether they
his made to the plan for
in position a more were accessory
luxurious use of it,than
might Agrippina's murder (as Bio
have been expected from a maintains, Ixi. 12) Tacitus not
can-
Stoic. Concerning Ms riches say. When their counsel

*
and the splendour of Ms was asked, little seems to have
country gardens,
houses andexcept silent been left to them
cf Nat.
.
Qu. iii. Prcef* ; Ep. acquiescence;
2 for the saving of
77, 3 ; but especially Tacit, xiv. Agrippina, even if it had been
52 sq". According to Dio, Mi. effected, would seem to have
2, the severity with which he been synonymous with their

demanded repayment of a loan own certain destruction. fore
Be-
of ten millions of sesterces was Ms death Seneca speaks
one of the causes of the rection
insur- (Tac. xv. 62) as if he had had
under Nero in favour of no complicity with the crime
Britannicus. Similarly,it may wherewith to reproach himself ;
be that he, as a courtier and but that he did not mean pressly
ex-
official of the empire, may have to oppose it,and even
been silent, or lent his aid in defended it (Tac. xiv. 11) mains
re-
to many When dark spot on his life.

regard a wrong. a
he had once committed himself So also his unworthy flattery

of Claudius and Ms freedman
to position it was
tMs hardly
possible to avoid it ; to aban-
don Polybius (in the Consolatio ad
his post, even if Seneca PolyMum?) by wMch he sought
had had the moral strength for to effect Ms return from ment,
banish-
such a course, might have and the despondency he
seemed like a failure of duty displays under tMs misfortune,
towards the commonwealth. are justly considered blame-
MeanwMle it is difficult to able, especially when they are
form a judgment. If,for in- contrasted

stance, with Ms equally
Seneca and Burrhus unworthy of the de-
mockery ceased
favoured Nero's inclination for despot (in the l*udus
acting (Tac. xiii. 12 8$. j cf. c. de morte Claudii) and Ms

2; xiv. 2), Tacitus avers that valiant protestationsto Helvia
tMs was the best thing they (4 sqq. et jpas*.; ,mp. 230,2). On
could do according to the tion
posi- the other hand, the reproach of
immoral conduct cast upon Mm
things. "When of they
acquiesced in Nero's admission (L #.)are
by Suilius and Dio
into the circus, Tacitus (xiv. not only without proof,but to
14) tells us that they had not all appearance gratuitousinven-
tions.
the to Mnder it. (An Tacitas describes the
power
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. expect from him perfect logicalconsistencyin

VIII.
his views. If in addition to this we consider how
easilythe endeavour after rhetorical effect led him

into exaggerationson the one side or the other,,
we
may well understand that even in questionsas to
which he had a clear opinion he is not alwayscon-

sistent
in his utterances.
In the further development of his ethics,as we
influence of Seneca and Bur- moral and endeavours

principles
rhus on Nero (Tac. xiii. 2) as are matters of earnest tion,
convic-
very salutary. Seneca himself but likewise displayspar-
ticular
appeals (I. c, xv. 61) to Ms traits which throw a
independent bearing towards favourable light on his charac-

ter.
Nero, of which. Tacitus gives We know that in the
an example (Tac. xv. 23), and school of Sextius he adopted
likewise Plutarch, Goh. Ira,, 13, the habit of daily minute self-
p. 461. I)io, Ixi. 18, also re-
lates examination (De Ira,, iii. 36
an instance in which he *#.); that in his youth, from
restrained Hero's cruelty by a enthusiasm for philosophy, he
bold word. The same author abstained from meat during
says of him (notwithstanding many years, according to So-
all his hatred elsewhere),lix. tion's precept; and in many
19 : irdvras fjt,ev/ca0' eavrbv
'Paj- respects carried out the simple
/xafowTroXAota Se Kal "\.\ovs
cro^la mode of life enjoined on him
virepapcis; and the judgment of by the Stoic Attains, even at a
Tacitus far outweighs even this. ripeage (Ep. 108, 13-23). Taci-
tus
Tacitus (xv. 23) calls him a vir (xv. 63) bears witness to
egregius; in xiiL 2, praises his his moderation (corpussenile et
oomitas Jionesta ; in xv. 62, he parw victu tentatwTTi) ; the
says he bequeathed to his passage 1. c. xv. 45, where he
friends before his death
guod follows prudential considera-
tions,
uimm jam et pidoherrimum as in the contemplated
imagines, vitce
Tictbebat, sues ; transferof his property to Nero
and in c. 65 he relates that (xiv.53 $g. ; Sueton. Nero, 35)
many in the conspiracyof Piso cannot be adduced as dictory
contra-
had destined him for the evidence.
of the One
throne, gitasiin sontibm clari- most pleasing features of his
tudine virtutum, "" swnimwn life is finallyhis beautiful re-
lation
fastigium deteoto. Seneca self,

him- with his admirable wife
in his writings, despite Paulina, cf . Mp. 104, 2, 4 s%, ;
much that is declamatory, Tac. xv. 63 s%.
not only gives us the sion
impres-
of a man to whom his
ETHICS OF THE LATER STOICS. 235
should expect, the same principlesare prominent CHAP.
which characterise Stoicism as a whole. It has, *__

however, been already pointed out that Seneca and
s irit and
the,.yonnger Stoics differ
generally, somewhat from applica-
the older in their closeracceptationof these prin- âi doc-
ciples. Without abandoning or alteringthe ethics trine*.
of their school in
'
any important point,they yet lay

greater stress on such determinations as chiefly
correspond with the conditions and necessities of
their times. The most important of these minations
deter-
are three. In a period of such terrible

moral corruptionand despotictyranny, it must have
been of the first consequence for the earnest
thinker to gain a fixed basis in himself, and to
found for himself in his own mind an impregnable

refuge against the corruptionof his surroundings
and the power of Fate. If he turned his atten-
tion
to others, all external distinctions among men
must have lost their

significance, when each day
beheld the most abrupt vicissitudes of fortune,1 ,
when all national and historical oppositions dis-

appeared
in the generaldegradation, when the most
abjectwere often endowed with the highestfavours

of fortune,and the best succumbed to wrong ; and
thus far the principle that all men as such are to be

held equal,and worth is only to be attached to their
moral inequality,must have gained fresh support.
But on the other hand the moral as well as the
1 Seneca from this experience ciallyin regard to each man's

(Trcunqu. An. 11, 8 sqq. ; 16, 1 ; own conduct, that he dares not
"fy. 74, 4, et passim} deduces attach any value to things es"
the moral application,espe- ternal.

"36 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, social conditions of the time must have evoked a

VIII
livelyfeelingof human weakness and need of help ;
Stoic severitymust have
given placein some degree
to sympathy with the failures of humanity, and
to the claims of philanthropic
Stoic self-sufficiency
sympathy and assistance; the cosmopolitanism of

the school must chieflyhave been developed on the
side of feeling, in the form of universal love, of
mankind. Finally, the less that circumstances
afforded opportunity to individuals in the way of
effectual interference with the course of the world,

the moreheavilythe common fate pressed upon all,
and the more relentlessly it fulfilled itself the "
more must the inclination for public life have been
lost,and the predilectionfor the repose of private

life have gained ground, but the more stronglyalso
must the necessityfor submission to fate,and for
theinterdependenceof moral conduct with religious

which the Stoics
conviction, had never denied, have
made itself felt.
All this be
perceived in Seneca's moral
may
writings. The independence of external things,
wni"n *s assured to us by wisdom and virtue,is by
tMngsese-
ternal. commended
no one more energetically than by him.
No one requires us more pressinglyto seek our
happinesspurelyand entirelyin ourselves,1and to
1 Numerous authorities for Benef. iv. 2, 2, 4 ; Vita Seat.
this will be found in J$p.82, 2 ; 11, 2 ; 13, 5 ; 14, 1 ; De Ira, 1,
30, 4 8g$. ; 77, 11 *#. ; 8 sqq. ; 9, 2 *#.; of. JBjp.85, 10; Phil, d.
Cons, ad Marc. 19, 3 sq". ; Vita Or, III. i. 234, 252, supra 226, 1.
Beat. 4, 3 ," J@p.66, 14 ; 71, 18, To the more decided declara-
21 ; 85, 18 ; 39 ; 87 ; 11 sq. ; 44 ; tions on this subjectbelong : De
120, 3 ; 92, 14 sg$. ; 72, 7 ; Provid. 2, 9 sqq, ; De Const. 3,
ETHICS OF SENECA. 237
encounter bravelywliat fate may send us. But since CHAP,
it is his moral constitution alone which gives to man

'_
this freedom, he insists most emphaticallyon the

conscientious fulfilment of the conditions to which
it is attached, and he becomes the more earnest on
the subject the more he is convinced that the
victoryis only to be won over man's inclination to

evil by the most severe conflict,1 All are, as he
believes,
sick and in need of healing; the com- Strictness
bating of our faults is the chief problem of philo-

sophy ; the recognition of this,the first condition of
improvement ; 2 and even in his old age he says of
himself that he is visiblyanother man, as he now
sees what his defects are.3 He, therefore,cannot
5 ; 4, 4= ; 8, 2 sq. ; 19, 4 ; tive of Christian

2 ; 5, conceptions,
Vita Beat.
4, 2 sq. ; Hrevit. v. Ep. 6, 1 : InteUego^ Ludli, non
2 ; ad Helv. 5 ; JBenef. Hi. 20, em"ndan me tantuni, sed trans-
1; Mp. R3, 11; 59, 8 ; 64, 4; figwari. Much, Indeed, is al-
74, 19 ; 75, 18 ; 85, 39. ways in need of improvement :
1 Et Jwc est in
Cf. Baur, Drei AbJiandl. p. ipsum argumentum
40 sqff. meli'us transla-ti animi, guod
2
Besides quotations in
the vitia, sua-, qua adTvue igvwrabat,
PHI. cL. Gr. III. i. p. 253
^., videt. Quibvadam cegrisgratis
and supra, cf. Mp. 50, 4 : Quid latio
ipsi cegros se esse fit,eiim
nos deeipimus? J"on est extrin- Concerning the es-
senserunt.
seGus malum nostrum: intra pression transfigurari (fjuzra-
n"s est, in visceribus ipis sedet, popfyova-Qai) cf JSp. 94, 48, where .
et idea difficulter ad swnitatem these words are quoted from

pervenim/iis, quicu nos eegrotare Aristo : Qid didioit et fadenda,
nescimus. J2p. 28, : 9 Initinm ac mtanda percepit, nondwn,
est salutis mtitia, peccati (ac- sapiensest, nisi in ea, qua didiovk
cording to Epicurus) ideo animus
. . ejus transfiguratus est.
.
quantum potes te ipse coargue, The expressiontherefore signi-

inquire in te, "c. Vita Beat. 1, fies the inner transformation of
4 : One infects another : Sana" the whole will and disposition,
T)imur,simodo separemur accetu. as distinguished from the
Similarly,,%. 49, 9 j 7, 1 ; 94, merely theoretical conviction

52 s#". ; 95, 29 s%. on the one hand, and merely
3
In the remarkable passage temporary and occasional im-
which is so strikinglysugges- provement on the other.
38 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, too stronglyimpress upon us the necessity of a
1_ severe self-examination and a ceaseless labour within

ourselves ; l
he recommends to us what he himself
made duty,to take preciseaccounta every evening
of the day past ; 2 he refers us to our conscience,
from which nothing that we do can remain hidden ; 3
he reminds us of the gods, the ever present
witnesses of our words and deeds,4 of the day of
death, that great judgment day when it will be

shown how much in man is genuine or false ; 5 in
a word, he desires that we should regard the happi-

ness
of the wise as the reward of the most
unceasing
moral and
activity, he consequentlyfinds necessary,6
side by side with the universal principlesof virtue,
all those enquiries into individual circumstances of

and
life, those counsels designed for specialcases,
to which he himself has devoted so great a part of
his writings.7
But the more completely the individual corre-
5
1 Of. also Ep. 50, 5 *#"., 51, Ep. 26, 4 s$g. ; PUL d. @r.
6, 13 (nobis qiioqm militandum III. i. 204, 3.
6 He
e$t . . . proioe qii"eungue GOT goes very minutely
tmm lawiant*). into this in his 94th and 95th
2
De Ira, iii.36 ; cf p. 186, 5. .
letters, in the proving former
3
Ep. 28, 9 ; 41, 2 ; sup. p. 237, the indispensabilityof special
2 ; Ep. 43, 4 : Men live in precepts for practicallife,and
such a manner that scarcely in the latter that of universal
anyone could his
principles(deereta). In
bear whole ethical
conduct to be made public, both he maintains that, con-
Qwld autem prodest recorder e sidering the greatness of human
se et ocidos hominum auresqtte corruption, and the overwhelm -
wtcvre ? Bona conscientia tw- ing influence of society, no

bam advooat,mala etiam in soli- counteracting means should be
tudine anxia atgiw sollicita,ext left unemployed ; 94, 52 $g. ;
. . .
o te miêr-um^ si contemnis 68 sgg. ; 95, 14 "%%. ; 29 sqg.
7
kwic testem ! Especially in the treatise
4 Vita Beat. 20, 5 ; JBp.83, 1. De Benefciis and in the letters.
LOVE OF MANKIND. 239
sponds to Ms moral destination,the more closely CHAP.
will he find himself connected with others,the more L_
purelywill he apprehend this relationship, and the
more entirelywill he extend it to all men. The Universal
Stoic principlesrespectingthe 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
of this relation, however, the political element
throughout recedes before the universallyhuman

element, and the severityof the moral judge before
a lovinggentleness which bears witness not only to
the benevolent dispositionof the philosopherbut

also to his accurate knowledge and impartial judg-
ment
of human
^
nature. In politicallife Seneca
can feel no confidence,which is not surprising con-

sidering
the age in which he lived,and his personal

experiences: he finds the mass of mankind so evil
that we cannot without moral injury make ourselves
dependent on their favours,and the condition of the

Commonwealth too hopeless for us to waste our
strengthupon it ; the individual state seems to him
too small beside the great polityof mankind and of
the world, and the activityof the statesman, beside

that of a teacher of the human race to allow of his fining
con-
himself to them. Those connections have for

2
him a far greater charm which are based upon free
1 As is shown in Phil. d. Qr. Clement, i. 3, 4 sgg., where we
III. L286, 1; 287, 2; 299, 3. cannot suppose that what

2 Cf. ibid. III. i. 295 sgg. ; Seneca says of the importance
J3p.14, (cf.mpra, 230, 7),
4 sgq. of the roler of the common-
and, concerningpoliticsalso,De wealth, apart from some ex-
240 ECLECTICISM,
CHAP, choice and are regulatedaccordingto the needs and

YIII"
peculiarcharacter of the individuaL To marriage
he has devoted an entire and
treatise,1 we have every
reason to suppose, from what we are told on the
subjectthat Seneca held married life,of which he

himself had full experience,in the highestestima-
tion.
A- taste for friendshipalso appears in him in
a very degree, and we have already seen

marked
that he has difficulty in reconcilinghis need of
friendshipand his noble conceptionof this relation
with the wise man's for himself.2

sufficiency But
the real crown of his moral doctrine lies in the
universal love of man, purely human
the interest
which bestows itself on all without distinction,even
the meanest and most despised,which even in the

3
slave does not forgetthe
gentlenessof man ; in that
dispositionwhich is so especiallyantagonistic to
anger and hatred, tyranny and cruelty,4and which
travagances of expression, is roust have lost its cliarm for

merely the language of a cour- the best of them,
l
tier ; it was not only quite true For the fragments of this
according to the existingstate treatise which, however, consist
of things, but doubtless his for the most part of quotations
own personal conviction that in from other authors and exam-
the Roman empire as it was then pies of good and wicked women,
constituted, the emperor (as cf. Haase, iii.428 $qc[. On the
he says in c. 4) was the uniting view of marriage there enun-
bond of the state ; and that th e ciated,cf PML d. 6fr. III. i. 203,
.
pax Romana, the dominatio 4 ; concerning Seneca's second

urMs, was linked with his pre- wife (of the first we do not
servation : Olim enim ita se know even her name) vide sup.
induit reipublicceCtesar, ut se- p. 234, n.
duci aMerum non jyossit, sine * 2

Vide Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 289
utriusque pernicie ; nam ut illi syq.
wribiis opus est, ita kivio
Ample authority for this is
et 8
capite. But if the

republic quoted,Ibid, III. i.29 9 ^.286, 1.
was abandoned, public service 4 A
mode of thought which
FORGIVENESS OF INJURIES. 241
considers nothing worthier of man and more ing

accord- CHAP.
VIII.
to nature, than forgivingmercy, and benevolence
that is unselfish and disseminates happiness in secret,

imitating the divine goodness towards the evil and
the good; which, mindful of human weakness, would
rather punish, does not exclude
spare than even
enemies from its goodwill,and will not return even
injury with injury.1 Seneca's dissertations on these
subjects are among the most beautiful testimonies
to the purity of moral conceptions arrived at by

antiquity. In their content, as has already
classical
been shown, they entirelyharmonise with the Stoic
principles; but they have manifestly arisen from a

somewhat different idea of life and a milder temper
also itself in the cided

de- punish where
ought, the it
expresses
repudiation of the human other
in- in
punishing has regard
gladiatorial shows and to all really available grounds
in censure of the Roman lust of extenuation ; it desires only
for war. For the same reason, to carry out complete justice,
and also on account of his De Clem. i. 6 ; De Ira, ii. 9, 4 ;
passionate dispositionand want 10, 1 "0. 28 ; iii. 27, 3 (on the
of self-control, those severe weakness of man we should
"
sentences were passed upon not be angry with error, but

Alexander the Great which nished
fur- pardon it) ; JBenef. iv. 25 sqq.
such welcome material (how far, according to fche
for Seneca's rhetoric, Benef. i. example of the Gods, should
13, 3 Clement, i. 25 ; De Ira, favours be bestowed on the
;
iii. 17, 1, 23, 1 ; Nat. Qu. vi. ungrateful ?) ; vii. 31 sq. (vincit
23, 2, et -passim. malos yertinax bmitas). As the
1 Of. Ep 95, 52; Vlt. Beccb, gods, in spite of all unthank-
24, ;3 De Clem. i. 1, 3 ; Delra, fulness, continue unweariedly
i. 5 j De Otio* i. 4 ; 'Zte Ira, ii. to send upon rain
the worthy
32, 1; JBenef. iii. 18-28; De and the unworthy, and patiently
Clem. i. 18, 2 ; ii. 4 ; JEp. 31, bear with the error of those
11; Wt. Beat. 24, 3. In De who misconceive them, so also
Clem, ii. 4, he speaks of the should we act, and conquer gratitude

in-
possibilityof uniting mildness by benefits, as the

with justice and the tion
distinc- husbandman conquers ful
unfruit-
between this and culpable ground by tillage; L c. ii,
neglect; the one does not 9 s%. (hidden benefits).

242 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, than were found among the elder Stoics. The need
vin; of community is stronger with Seneca than with

them, and though the social nature and vocation of
man is in both cases recognisedwith equal decision,
in the older Stoics it appears more as the fulfilment
of a duty, in Seneca more as an affair of inclination,
of human and
affection, of benevolence ; and hence
he laysthe chief stress philan-
thropicon the virtues of the
disposition.How closelythis softeningof

the Stoic severityis connected with Seneca's deeper
sense of human imperfectionhas alreadybeen indicated.
From the same source we must also derive the

His reii- of his ethics.
religiouscast
"
Here, too, he y 7
follows
tern-
perament. throughout the common tendency of his school.1

The will of G-od is to him the highestlaw ; to obey
and to imitate that will,is the most universal mand,2
com-
3 with the claim of life accord-

ing
synonymous
to nature ; he perceivesin reason and conscience
the divine spiritdwelling in us ;
4
he bases the
equalityof all men on the propositionthat God can
take up his abode as well in the soul of a slave as
in that of a nobleman ; and the union of the dividual

in-
with humanity on the thought of the gods
who, with us, belong to the universe and govern it ; 5
1
Phil. d. G"r, III. i. p. 130. emplum sequi. L, e. vii. 31,2;
2
The Deity here coincides 15, 4-7V. Be. ; Mp. 16, 5 ; of,
with Nature, and, therefore, JEtenaf.
vi. 23, 1 ; Provid,. 5, 8.
also the will of Gfod with the 4 PUl. A, G-r. Ill.i. p. 319, 2 ;
laws of nature. 320, 1.
3
JBenef. iv. 25, 1: Proposi- *
Ep. 31, 11 ; Tr. JBe. 20, 5 ;
tf" est noUs seeundum rerum De Otio, 4, 1 ; PMl d, 6V. III.
naturam mere et Deorum ex- i. p. 302, 2 j 296, 3.
SENECA'S RELIGIOUS TEMPERAMENT. 24S
he pressinglyinsists on a willingand joyful ac- CHAP.
quiescencein the decrees of Providence,and sees in

this dispositionthe most secure foundation for the
freedom and peace of mind of the wise man ;
l
but,
at the same time, he would leave open to us as a
last refuge the voluntarydeparture from life,2

and
would have us accustom ourselves above all to a
contempt for death, without which, he says, no
happinessis possible.3 In all these utterances there

is nothing which does not flow from the true spirit
of the Stoic doctrine. Even the propositionthat
no one can be good without the assistance of the
deityis to be understood with Seneca wholly in the

sense of that system ; the divine assistance which
he claims is no supernaturalaid,but coincides with
the use of our reason and its natural powers.4 If,
1
Cf.ibid. III. I. p. 304:,!; test aliqms supra fortunam nisi
305, 1. ab illo adjutiis exsurgere ? Hie
2
Ibid. HL i. p. 306, 1. clai concilia magiiificaet erecta.
3 Nat. vi. 32, 5 : Si
Qw. vo- In, itnoquoque virorvan "bonoruwi
litmus esse felices, si nee Iw- (quis Deus incertum esf)Jiabitat
minum nee Deorum nee renmi Deus. Similarly, JEJp.73, 15 :
timore despicerefor-
veseari, si Non sunt Dl fastidiosi'non in-
tunam.swpervacKapromittentem, vidi: admittunt et adscendent-
levia, minitantem, si whimus i"bm manum porrigunt. Miraris
tranqnilledegere et ipsisDls de Iwmin"m ad Deos ire (through
felicitate controversiam agere, the elevation of the mind and
anima in expedito est kabenda, will)? D"us ad homines renit,
"c. immo, quod est propius, in Jio-
4 This plainly results from a mines venit : nulla sine Deo
comparison of the passages in mem ~bona est* Semina in cor-
which this proposition is ad- poribus Jiumanis divina dispersa

vanced. In JSp.41, 2, after he sunt, gii"B si "bonus eultor ess-
has said that there dwells in tipit,mmilia origini prodeunt

us a divine spirit(by which et paria Ms, ex quibusorta, sunt,
nothing else is meant but sivrgunt,"c. The help of God
reason and man's conscience), must, therefore,consist in this :
he thus proceeds : JBoniis vero that an effluence of the Deity
mr sine Deo nemo est : an po- as \6yos(nr"pfiaTucbs
is combined
B 2
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, therefore, Seneca's doctrine is

distinguishedfrom
the elder Stoicism by its religious this must
character,
on no account be understood to mean that he was
thereby carried into radical deviations from the Stoic

system, but only that the importance assumed by
the religious element in relation to the philosophical
is peculiarlycharacteristic of him ; his distinction

from the earlier Stoics is merely quantitative. That
the religiouspoint of view, however, acquired with
him such great preponderance,we must attribute
partlyto the practical and popularcast of his philo-

sophy
and partlyto his livelysense of human ness
weak-
imperfection,which must naturallyhave

and
disposed him to point more frequentlyand more

emphaticallyto the support which the moral life of
man finds in the belief

guiding in (rod and his
power in the world, and in the human spirit. How

is Seneca's conception of religion
pure, moreover, ;
how he keeps clear, not only of the belief of the
people,but of the fallacies of Stoic orthodoxy; how

the pluralityof gods is cancelled in the unity
of the divine nature, and external worship in the
spiritual cultus of the knowledge of Grod, and the
imitation of his moral perfection,have alreadybeen

shown.1 Here also Seneca appears as a worthy presentative
re-
of Roman Stoicism,in which a purer
with a human body in the the power of atonements are

spiritual nature of man. only defended condition-
very
1 PMl.d.
"9r.III.lp. 312$"#. ; ally; and Seneca elsewhere
315, 5 ; 324, 1 ; 326, 1 ; 337, 3 ; treats such things simply as
340 2. Even in the
passages absurdities (Nat. Qu. iv. 4, 6).
last quoted, soothsaying and
SENECA AND PANJETIUS. 21
and freer view of religionhad been implanted by CHAP.
Pansetius in its very which

'
commencement, and it
had constantlymaintained,as is seen by the example
of a a Varro, and
Scsevola, a Cicero.1 To Pansetius,
Seneca bears great resemblance in his whole mode
of thought. Both postpone the theoretical trines
doc-
of their school to the and
practical, seek to
make the latter as fruitful as possibleby a ment

treat-
generallycomprehensibleand an application
to individual details : and in this endeavour they
have scrupleabout recurringto other than Stoic
no
predecessors,
or departingfrom the Stoic tradition
on certain points. But these departures are far
more considerable with Pansetius than with Seneca ;

and on the other hand, with Seneca the ethical
base of the earlier Stoicism, confidence in the
moral power of man, is much more deeply shaken,
and the feelingof human weakness and defec-
tiveness more vivid than seems to have been
the case with Pansetius ; and while the healing
of the morally diseased human race is regarded as
the chief task of there
philosophy, arises the fusion
of philosophy with religionand the reaction of
ethical dualism on metaphysics,by which the later
Stoicism approximatedmore and more to Platonism.
1
Cf .
PMl. d. "r. HI. i.p. 340, partlyby Ms expositionof the
1, and j 170 syr.; 176
sup. p. 49, 2 Stoic theology in the second
""". If in the above sentences I book of the treatise De Natwa

name Cicero beside Scsevola and Deonm, from which some strik-
Varro, this is justifiedpartly ing passages are quoted, Phil.
by his particularconnection d, 6fr* III. i. 811, 1; 314, 2.
with the Stoic school, and
246 ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTEE IX.
THE STOICS CONTINUED : MUSONIUS, EPICTETUS, MARCUS
AURELIUS.
CHAP. STOICISM maintained on the whole the same ter

charac-
IX.
during the entire history,
course of its further
The Stoic
except that the traits by which Seneca had already
school con-
tinued.
diverged from the originaldirection of his school,
ultimatelyasserted themselves more strongly. The
rest of the Stoic philosophyknown to us may fore,
there-
be discussed more concisely.
Mtisoniits. A younger contemporary of Seneca's,Musonius
Rufus,1who resided in Eome in the reigns of Nero
and Vespasian,2 was a distinguished teacher of philo-

sophy,3
and was held in the highestestimation on
1
Hufi
C. Musonii sonius of whom Pliny (JEp.iii.
etApophthegwiatac.Annot. Edid. 11, 5, 7) makes honourable
J. Venhuizen Peerlkamp lem,
(Har- mention. He was of good
1822) ; the first 137 pages family,originallyfrom Etruria
are taken from Petri Nieuw- (Tac. Ann. xiv. 59; Hist. iii.
landii Dimrtatio do Musonio 81 ; Philostr. Apollon. vii, 16),
Rufo (which appeared in 1783) ; and more especially Volsinii
also, Moser, in Studien von (Suid.cf. the epigram AnthoL
Da/iib und Creuzer, vi. 74 sg[q. Lat. i. 79 ; vol i. 57, Burm).
2
Tac. Ann. xiv. 59 ; xv. 71, The year of his birth is known,
un-
and elsewhere. Vide the lowing

fol- but as he had already
note. in 65 A.D. aroused the jealousy
3 Musonius' Rufus, son of of Nero by his fame as a
Capito (Suidas),is apparently teacher of philosophy (Tac.

identical with the Cajus Mu- Ann. xv. 71) and according to
EUFUS. 247
account of his personalcharacter. TMs philosopher CHAP.

IX.
confined himself even more decidedlythan Seneca
Julian, ap. Suid. then filled a letters which Musonius is said

public office, it can hardly be to
exchanged with Apol- have
supposed later than 20-30 A.r". lonius. How the Tyrian Mu-sonius * '
An adherent of the Stoic school, is related 1 o 'our philo-

sopher
the friend of Eubellius Plautus, cannot be clearlyascer-
tained,
with whom we find him in Asia as we have seen (sup.
Minor in. the year 53 A.D. p. 199) ; but they seem to be
Thrasea Psetus and Soranus, identical. He was probably
whose death he afterwards recalled from exile by Galba
revenged by the judicialprose-
cution (cf Epict. Diss.
.
iii.15, 14 ; Tac.
of his accuser, the Hist. 81); iii. and when the
miserable Bgnatius Celer (Tac. philosophers were ordered to
Ann. xiv.
59 ; Hizt. iii. 81 ; iv. leave Borne Vespasian he
by
10, 40 ; Epict. Diss. L 1, 26) alone was excepted (Dio Cass.
was banished by Nero, 65 (Tac. Ixvi. 16) ; according to Themist.
Ann. xv. 71 ; Dio Cass. Mi: 27 ; ( Or. xiii. 173 c.) he had sonal
per-
Huson. ap Stob. Floril. 40, 9, relations with Titus. How
p. 75 ; Themist. Or. vi. 72, d. ; long he lived we do not know ;
vii. 94, a\ Suid., Movcr"j/ and but if he is really the person
Kopvovros, instead of this, presents
re- mentioned by Pliny he must
him as put to death, have survived the reign of
but this is
palpable error, a Trajan. Nothing is related as
arising perhaps from Justin. to any writings by him ; that

(Apol. ii. 8)j according to which Stobseus communicates
Philostratus, I. o.t his place of from him seems like an account
banishment was Gyara, which given of his lectures by a ciple,
dis-
was visited from all sides on and indicates the tence
exis-
his account. The same author of Memorabilia, such as
(ApoL v. 19) and the pseudo- those of

Xenophon, or Arrian
Lucian in his Nero, mention concerning Epictetus. Suidas
that one Musonius was ployed
em- ascribes
(TLcaXicayy Such airopvrj-
in penal labour in the fioyevfiaTa Wtovcrccviov to Asi-
proposed cuttingof the isthmus. nius
contemporary of Pollio, a
Philostratus also (I.
35, Pompey.
c. iv.
Eidiculous as this is,
46) mentions a Babylonian it is probable that one Pollio
Musonius, a wonderful sopher, had composed them ; but he is
philo-
whom Nero threw into not to be identified (as has
prison. But whether our sonius been
Mu- done by ancient and dern
mo-
is here writers) with

meant, and
Claudius
the 'Bafti"\cbj'io$ of Philostratus Pollio,who according to Pliny
should be altered to Boi/Turôy, (Êp.vii. 31, 5) had written a
or discarded (vide JNieuwland, Liber de Vita Anni (olderread-
ing
p. 30 sgq.") seems the more material

im- Mus"mi) JBassi,but rather
since these statements with the grammarian Valerius
are as valueless as the absurd MUSONIUS
Pollio, who (Suid. I. e.) lived
248 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, to moral problems. He too starts from the general

'
bases of the Stoic system, and even its theoretic por-

Practical tions neglected by him.
were not Epictetus relates
that he Practised MS scholars in the use of logical
"oflispU-
,losoj)7iy. forms, and demanded scrupulous accuracy with
regard to them ; ! a remark as to the originof moral

conceptionspoints to the Stoic theory of knowledge
and its empiricism.2 He mentions in a similar
manner physical doctrines; speaks of the

certain
unchangeable necessity of the universe, of the

ceaseless change of all things to which everything,
both in heaven and earth,is subject; of the regular
transition of the four elements one into another,3

itself through the
fulfilling same stagesupward and
downward ; of the divine nature of the heavenly
under Hadrian, and was called avrobs Oeiovs Kal Qeocitie'tsajv6-

a philosopher. According to pa"oj/. There is a similar claration
de-
the descriptionof the younger of Beneca, Ej),120, 4 ,*
Pliny (J3p. iii. 11) his son-in- cf. Ep. 120, 11.
law, the Artemidorus whom 3 Stob. Flaril. 108, 60. This
Pliny so enthusiastically praises, fragment bears with some others
is to be considered his disciple. (FLoril. 19, 13: 20, 60, 61;
1 Diss. i. 7, 32. When Bufus JBcl. ii. 356) the inscription:
blamed him for not knowing "
how to find what was wanting "pt\ia.$.That nothing more,

in a syllogism, he excused self
him- however, is meant by this than
thus : fdjy"p rb KaTnrdJAiov an account taken from tetus
Epic-
6êVp?7"ra, to which the other (i.e. from a lost portion
replied,av"pcbro"oj', eV0a5e rb of Arrian's dissertations)concerning
an utterance of Mu-
(*here is what you have looked,
over- sonius (cf. Schweighauser on
the chief thing '), Epictet. iii. 195) is the less
2
Ap. Stob. Ftoril. 117, 8, 89 open to doubt, since Musonius
(Mein.) : Man can attain to is always us EufEpictetus ; in
virtue : ov ycip eTf-pcodw and a comparison of Diss. iii.
rafacis 23, 29, with (Ml. JV". 4. v. 1,
shows that he is the person
Opwiretas svrv^VTGS
(^TLXTCCDS, av- intended.
s roioZcrSe ncriy, o'/ovs$VTOLS
JETIS PRACTICAL CHARACTER. 249
l
bodies"; and as these are nourished by vapours, so CHAP.
(in agreement with the Stoics and the

Heracleitus) Ixy
soul,he says, is nourished by the evaporation of the
blood ; the lighterand purer, therefore,
our food is,
the drier and purer will be the soul.2 Some other
standingin close
definitions, connection with ethics
"
such as those
respectingthe goodness and moral
perfectionof Grod,the natural kinshipof man with
(rod,3the divine omniscience,4the divine law, the

effluence of which is moral duty,5 or virtue as an
6
imitation of Grod "
we should have
necessarily supposed
pre-
to belong to him, even had no decided
utterances on these subjects been handed down
to us. popular religionhe also accorded
To the
the recognition allowed by the Stoic principles,
1
These are the gods for such as we conceive Him (Phil.
whose nourishment the evapo- d. Gr. III. i. p. 140), so also for
ration from the earth and from man, virtuous conduct alone is
the waters is sufficient. according to nature.
2 Stob. L e. Concerning the * Stob. Floril. Exc. Jo. Dam.
corresponding Stoic doctrines ii. 13, 125 ; J3d. iv. 218 (Mein).
vide Phil. d. Br. III. i.189. 4 and Musonius here infers from the
196, 2. The observation (Floril. omniscience of the gods that
79, 51, p. 94) that God has as- they require no demonstrative
signed the facultyof thought to proof; and he applies this in
the best protected place in the the manner discussed infra"
body, is of little importance; this p. 252; but the thought of
may mean either the header the the omniscience of God admits
breast (cf ibid. III. i. p. 197, 2).
.
of very forcible application in
3 Fl"ril. 117, 8, p. 88. Man the way of ethical admonition,
alone /4u7?/Aa0eou upon the
is a
5 Loo. cit. 79, 51, p. 94.
earth (similarly17, 43,p. 286); as 6 Cf. note 1 and Pint. De
there is nothing higher in God Aere Alieno, 7, 1, p. 830, where
than virtue (Musonias expressly a capitalist says to Musonius,
enumerates the four funda- who wishes to borrow money :
mental virtues)as virtue alone "5 Zevs a-cor^ bv "r" /UJMJical

6
makes him the perfect being, fy\oist ov Saj/effercu,and' the
beneficent,friendlyto man, and other laughingly replied,ouSe
exalted above all weaknesses, Sam'fei.
250 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. without apparently troubling himself with any

IX.
speculative justification or interpretation of it.1 But
with scientific enquiry as such, with a knowledge

that carries its end and purpose in itself, Musonius
has no concern. We see this alreadyfrom the fact
that among the many sayings and discussions of his
that have been preservedto us,2the theoretical doctrines
of his school are only mentioned in a casual
and superficial manner. But he has himself spoken
most definitelyon this subject. Men are to be
regarded as sick,from a moral point of view ; in

order to be cured they require continual medical
treatment.3 Philosophy must supply this need.
1
In this respect, however, the same way Musonius (JFloril.
there is little to be quoted 85, 20, end) argues against
from these fragments. The luxury that it hinders the filment
ful-
deity is called Zeus, and the our of
duties ; among
divine law the law of Zeus others, the duties connected
(Wloril. 79, 51, p. 94); the with service to the gods.
stars are treated as gods (sup. 2 There are in all,more than
p. 249, 1) ; and as Chrysippus had fiftyof them and
among these
blamed the unmarried state as many of considerable length;
an against Zeus Grame-
offence inVenhuizen Peeiikamp'swork
lios (PML d. Gr. III. i. 293, 2) so they occupy 135 pages.
3
Musonius urges, among other Pint. Coll. Ira, 2, p. 453 :
things,against the exposure of KCU uh\v "v ye [AejLLvfj/j.eda

Moucrw-
children, that it is a crime viov KU\$)V ev forty, " 2v\\a, rb
against the TrarpQai Qeol and SeTv ael fiiovv robs
depairevo/Jievovs
Zebs 6^6yvios (Floril. 75, 15) ; ffc"fecrdai.jji"\\ovrcts. Gell. N.
and in favour of marriage he A. v. 1, 2, and infra p. 252, 3.
says that Hera, Eros, and This pointof view, under which
Aphrodite have it under their the Cynics first represented
protection ; while the tion
observa- philosophy (vide Pliil. d. Gr. II.
: Qeol yap "irirpOTr"Ti"ovo"w au- i. 285, 3) becomes strikingly
T"J',tcadb vo/jiifyvrat Trap'a,v"p"a~prominent everywhere after the
irois, (teydhoi,even if we stitute
sub- beginning of the first century
voftlfcrai
and thus render A.B. j examples have already
the assertion less still
startling, come before us (sup.p. 77, 3 ; 237,
points the distinction between 2) and we shall meet with others
the popular and the philoso- among
phical Stoics, Platonists, and
notion of the gods. In Neo-Pythagoreans.
ETHICS OF JSlU"OyiUS. 251
Philosoplijis the only way to virtue,1and there- CHAP.

g'
fore occupation with it is necessary for every one,
even for conversely virtue is the
women;2 but
only end and content of philosophy; to philo-

sophise
means to learn and to practisethe principles
of conduct according to duty.3 A philosopherand

a righteousman are therefore synonymous ; virtue 4
and philosophy are only different designationsfor

the same thing. But whereas Socrates and Plato
understood this proposition in the sense that virtue
is merely the fruit of a real and fundamental ledge,
know-
Musonius, on the contrary, agrees with the

Cynics that true wisdom can be attained without
much knowledge by means of moral endeavour.
Philosophyrequiresfew doctrines,and may dispense

with theorems in which the Sophiststake such light
de-
; what is necessary may well be learned even in

the occupations of the spade and the plough.5 Virtue
is far more a thing of custom than of instruction,for
the vicious habits of men are only to be overcome by
1
Stob. Ftoril. faus QiAtravrai /caA"s,"Vep
48, 67, where ireiv
we read : St/caios- 5e îXocroêtVetm

TTCOS efy
; Floril.Q7t
"av 20 rb
"m fify eirKTTdfJLevos ere'
^LKaiO(f6miv end : ov yap 5^ "$"iXcxro"piiiv
6voi6v rl effri ; but this is im- pov TI âiverai*ov % rb a vpeirei
possible without philosophy. fcirpoo-^/cei "al
X6yq"pev bvafrretv
Likewise in cpyij? 54 irpdrreiv.
regard to Gca"$"po"r"vT}
and the other virtues. There- rj" 51 7e etva*4 FkriL 793 51 :
fore : TT"S Kal riva rp6irov 8u-

ayaebv r$ îX6ffoôveB/cu raMv
vaLTQ "v rts j8a"n\6i;cr"zi^ ftttavai earn. Similarly 48, 67 : the
/coASs, el "pi\o"rofyfiffcicif. good prince is necessarily a
fj.^)
2
Floril. Jo. Damage, ii. 13, philosopher, and the philoso-
123, 126 (iv.212 s^. 220 *^. pher is necessarily fit to be a
êil1)- prince (?),(cf.sup. note 1).
3 Loc. 13, 123, end,
Git. ii. 5 LOG. tit. 56, 18, p. 338 "q.
p. 216 : KaôKa-yadlas
"j"L\oa-o"j"ia Musonius here shows that the
Kal ov$ev erepoy
cVrlv "7riT^5ewo-ts calling of a husbandman is
(thus JfloriL 48, 67) ; 1. c. ii. best fitted for a philosopher

13, 126, p. 221 : CIJTCIVKal ovco-
252 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, opposite habits.1 The disposition to virtue,the

germ
IX' 2
of virtue,is implanted in all men by nature ; if we
have before us an unspoiledpupil of a good dispo-
sition,
it needs no lengthy argument to convey to
him rightmoral principlesand the rightestimation
of goods and evils ; a few convincingproofs, indeed,
are better than many ; the main point is that the
conduct of the teacher should correspond with his
principles,and that similarlythe discipleshould live
accordingto his conviction.3 To this practicalend,

then, accordingto Musonius, all instruction should
work. The teacher of philosophy should not duce
pro-
applause but improvement ; he should minister
ad-
to his hearers the moral medicinethey that
require; if he does this in the rightway, they will
not have time to admire his discourse,they will be

completelyoccupiedwith themselves and their con-
science,
with feelingsof shame, repentance, and

exaltation.4 In this manner Musonius himself tried
to work upon his ; he

disciples spoke so forcibly
to
their hearts that each individual felt as if per-

sonally
struck ; 5 he made the entrance to his school
1 LOG. oit. 29, 78, with which, from all, and all lay claim to
the statement of Lucius (sup. the honour of it (of.Phil. d. 6h\
p. 199) in the Exo. e. Jo. Dam. III. i. 224, 2).

3 Stob. Floril.
i. 7, 46 (vol.iv. 169 *#. Mein.) Exc. e Jo.
entirelyagrees. Dam. ii. 13, 125 (iv. 217 sq$.
2 Tldvres ireQvKa/JLevo#-
"j"infet M.)
T(os cScrre Qv Kal
avafjLapT-fjTcas 4 Grell. N. A. V. 1 ; Epict.
"s . . .
elvcu.
QvcriKfyv inrofio- Diss. iii. 23, 29.
5
ryavdp"irovû%^ vrpb*
rov Epict. I. c. : rotyapovy oifrcas
oKwyaQiav Kal (nrepfjia aper^s "\ey"y} o5cr0'e'/catriw TJJLLCOJ//ca*
Tjp.(av evewai, where this Q^psvov fftecrda.1.
tin.ris irore aurbv
is proved (ap. Stob. Ed. ii. 426 8ia/3ej8AT?/cey o^rccy ^TTTCTO r"v
sq.)by the argument that the yivo^vtav, ofrreu
laws demand moral conduct fridei rk. eKderov
PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHY. 33
more difficult,
in order to separate the stronger CHAP
natures from the weaker and more effeminate ;
l he IX"
soughtto brace their force of will by the thought of

the difficulties life would bring to them ;
2
and we
may well believe that the influence of such tion

instruc-
must have been very important and lastingon

the character of those who
enjoyedit. But we cannot
expect that a philosopherwho so decidedly subor-
dinated
scientific problems to practicalinfluence,

should distinguishhimself by originating new
thoughts or even by the firmer establishment and
logicaldevelopment of a doctrine alreadyexisting.

If, therefore,in most of the fragmentsof Musonius
we must acknowledge the purity of mind and cor-
rectness
of moral judgment which they exhibit,we

cannot estimate their scientific value very highly.
What we mostly find in them is merely an application
of the recognisedStoical principles
which sometimes
becomes so minute that the philosopher,

after the
example of Chrysippus,does not even disdain to
give precepts on the growth of the hair and beard.3

On certain pointsthe Stoic principles
are exaggerated;
Musonius exceeds the bounds of Stoicism and proximates
ap-
partlyto the of
simplicity the Cynics and
partlyto the asceticism of the Neo-Pythagoreans
; at
other times he deduces, even from thence, such pure
1 LOG. tit. iii. 6, 10. /caXcS (to treat this better)

2 Loc. tit. i. 9, 29 : ovr(0 Kal crov avra Xafieiv Swduevos.
fj."et""0et\"yeur 6, 62, where Muso-
s
*Pov$os ireipdfav JFloril.
ffvfL^creral "roi rovro Kal rovro nms, like Chrysippus before Mm
urrb rov $""nr6rov. irpbs (Athen.
Ka.fj.ov siii. 565, #), expresses
cwrbv airoKptvafjievov, #rt
av6p"- himself strongly against the
wtva- ri oSi/,""TJ,iicearov napa- cutting of the hair and beard.
254 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, and yet humane precepts as were not universal in

IXt
the Stoic school itself. His leadingthought is the
inner freedom of man. But this is linked to two ditions,

con-
(1)the right treatment of that which is in
onr and (2) submission to that which is not

power,
in In our is the use we make
our power. power
of our ideas, and on this depends all virtue and
happiness. All the rest is out of our power ; that we

must, therefore, leave to the course of the universe,
and must be satisfied and happy with whatever it
brings us.1 From this standpointMusonius judges

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 requiresthat we should defend ourselves against
the troubles of life,not by external means but by
elevation above the and indifference towards

external,
it; 3 that,for example, we should regardexile as no
evil,but should feel ourselves at home in the whole
1 Stob. Eel. ii. 356 : r"v $v- einrptyai r$ Kal

KScr/JLcp, e"re
e$3 ytuv "0ero 6 Bebs rcav TraiScev Secure) efrre rrjs va-
row ra psv
Ta e'4"'
8' oit;.TI/JUV jj,evrb KaX\iff- rptfiosetre rov cnûaros1 cfrre
TOV Kal (TTTQuScucW-aTOj', $" 5^ Kal drovovv, aar[jL"vovs 7rapax""peTj/.
aMs evtiaifjLW ecrrl, TTJV Xpyffiv Of. Floril. 7, 23 (^ Svo-x^paê
T(av tpavratriSiv. TOVTO yap opdajs rats Trepiffrdo-ecTLj/)

; I, c. 108, 60,
yiyrfpevoveXevQepia $"rrlv etfpoia where from the thought of the
evevfjila evo-rddeLa, T OVTO 8e Kal necessity of the course of the
SiKr; Iffrl Kal v6pos Kal ffutypo- world and of the change of all
"rvvn Kal |^7rao-a apeT^. ra 5' things, is deduced the moral

"\\a trdvra OVK "!"/"' fjfjuv eVoi^- applicationthat the condition
ffaTo. OVKOVV Kal Tjfjias of
crvfj^^)- a harmonious life is the
8ie\6vTas TO. irpdyuaTar"v 2 Floril. 29, 78, p. 15; cf.

ty
(jt."v
TfdvTa
Tip.1v Tpfaov avTi- G-ell. 2V. A. xvi. 1.
3
Ta 5e ^ *"!"'yj"v ^j?. p. 253, 2.
GENERAL PRECEPTS. 255
world,1that we should neither seek death nor shun CHAP.

IXt
it.2 In order to attain this strengthof mind, how-
ever, man needs not only the most continual moral
practiceand the most unremitting attention to
himself,3but also bodily hardening.4Musonius,

admonishes
therefore, us to learn to endure bodily
exertions,deprivations,and hardships; 5 he desires
to lead us back as much as possible,in regard to
food, clothing,and domestic arrangements, to a
state of nature ;
6 he goes further,and with Sextius
and the
Neo-Pythagoreans,counsels us to avoid the
eating of flesh,because this is not according to
nature for man, and because,as he thinks,it en-
genders
thick and cloudy evaporations which darken

the soul and weaken the power of thought.7 On
the other hand he cannot agree with many of the
'
Of. the lengthy discussion
1
runt is also quite in accord-
ap. Stob. Floril. 40, 9, which ance with his spirit that he
"
finallycomes to the conclusion prevented Rubellius Plautus

that as banishment robs a man from
escaping,by means of an
of neither of the four principal insurrection, the death with

virtues, it robs him of no real which Nero threatened him.
3 Cf. Stob.
good; it cannot injure the good Floril. 29, 78, and
man, and the bad man is in- the expression (ap. Gell. N. A.
jured by his wickedness and zviii. 2, 1), remitters animunl
not by banishment. quasi amittere est.
2 Cf. Phil. d. Gr.HI. i. 306,4, 4 For the body, he says (ap.
5. It is in entire agreement with Stob. I. #.),must be made the
this that Musonius (ap.Epict. serviceable tool of the mind,
Diss. i. 26 "7.) blames Thrasea and with it the soul also will
because he desired death rather be strengthened.
5
Stob. I. c. ; Pliny, Ep. iii.
than exile ; for we should nei-
ther, he says, choose the harder 11, 6, praises in Artemidoms
of the easier, nor the (st^.p.246,3,end),besidesother
instead^
easier instead of the harder, excellences,Ms hardiness,mo-
but regard it as a duty apKetcr- deration, and abstemiousness.
6
0cu T$ The
SeSofiLevcp. story Stob. Floril. 1, 84 ; 18, 38 "
which Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 59) 8, 20 ; 94, 23.

f e- 7
relates with a qualifying *
Zoc. tit. 17, 43, sup. 249, 2.
256 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. Stoics who carry the self-dependenceof the wise

__J_1__ man to the point of dissuadingeven from marriage ;
he is himself a warm advocate of a connection so
natural,and, in a moral point of view, so beneficial ;

and givesvery good and wholesome precepts on the
subject.1 He sets himself still more decidedly
againstthe immoral courses which the elder Stoics
had not unconditionally excluded,for he condemned
all unchastity in or out of marriage,2as also the
custom repudiationand exposure of children,3
of the
so common in antiquity,and justified even by Plato

and Aristotle. The gentle disposition which guides
him in all this is also shown in the propositionthat
it is unworthy of man to revenge injuries, partly

because such faults as a rule arise from ignorance,
partlybecause the wise man cannot reallybe injured,
and not the sufferingbut doing of wrong is tothe
be regardedas an evil and a disgrace.4When, however,
he condemns on this principle the judicial

indictment of offences,we recognisethe onesided-
ness of a standpoint where elevation above external
things has become indifference to them, and has
degeneratedinto a denial of their interconnection

with thingswithin.
With Musonius is connected his famous disciple
1 Loc. Git. 67, 20 ; 69, 23 ; 70, himself Mmoni sololes, lare

14 ; cf PMl
.
d. Or. III. i. 293, 2, cretus Vokiniensi.
and sup. p. 246, 3. He himself 2
Zoo. Git. 6, 61.
3
was married, for Artemidorus Zoo. tit. 75, 15 j 84, 21 ;
was his son-in-law (sup.p. 246, cf. sup. p. 250, 1.
3, end), and in the Program. 4 Zoo. Git. 19, 16 ; 40, 9 ; Sohl.
Anthol. Lat. i. 79 (vol. i. 57, 20, 61.
Burm.) Testus Avienus calls
DATE OF EPICTETUS. 257
Epictetus, a Phrygian who lived in Some Tinder CHAP.

TX.
Nero and his successors, went in the reign of
Domitian to Nicopolis,and seems to have died in
In the discourses 2 of this

that of Trajan.1 philo-
Epictetus'native city was
1 Even Spartian's ment
state-
Hierapolis in Phrygia (Said.
'ETrOcr.). He
slave
freedman
Diss.
of
of IN ero
i. 19, 19:
himself
Epaphrodltus,
(Said.,Epict.
of. 1
A.
sible.
was
familiaritate
as Hadrian's
1, 20;
ii. 18,
a
the
associated
to the
(Hadr.
throne
with
16),that
him
is somewhat
(117 A.D.) is more

removed
Hadrian
in summa
accession
picious,
sus-
from
i.26, 11 ; G-ellius,N. than 50 years
10; Macrob. Sat.
i. 11, 45; the time when Epictetus seems
Simpl. in JHjriet.
EncJwrid. c. 9, to have heard Musonius in
p. 102, Heins.), weak in body Rome ; but the last years of
and lame (Simpl. ; Z. c. cf. his life may nevertheless have
Epict. Emliir. 9; Celsus, ap. extended to the reign of drian,
Ha-
Orig. c. Cels. vii. 7 ; Suid. and or this emperor may have
others : according to Simplicius become acquainted with him,
he was lame from his yonth ; before he came to the throne.
according to Suidas he became He himself makes mention of
so through sickness ; according Trajan (Dm. 5, iv. 17 ; cf. iii.
to Celsus, through the ill- 13, 9). The consideration in
treatment of his master, who which Epictetus was held by
may indeed have used him his contemporaries and later
harshly, judging from the attested, among

tation
quo- authorities is
sup. p. 253, 2), and others, by Gellius, who

lived calls
in great poverty (Simpl. I. c. and him (ii. 18, 10) philosopJius
on c. 33, 7, p. 272; Macrob. nofiili$,"nd(inxviii. 194) maxi-
I.e.').
While he was yet a slave he ; also by Mar-
inusphilosoplioTU'ni cus
heard Musonius (Epict. Diss. Aurelius laur.
(irp. i. 7),who
i. 7, 32; 9, 29: iii. 6, 10; 23, thanks Ms teacher, Rusticus,
29). In the sequel he must even in mature age, for having
have beeome free. Under mitian made
Do- him acquainted with
he must have left Rome the Memorabilia of Epictetus ;
(sup. p. 190, 1, end) with the cf .
likewise Lucian, Adv. Iiid.
Qther philosophers (G-ell.If. A. 13 (who relates that an mirer
ad-
xv. 11, 5 ; Lucian, Peregr. 18) : of Epictetus bought his
he betook himself to Mcopolis earthenware candlestick for
in Epirus (G-ell.I. c. Suidas), 3,000 drachmas) ; Simpl. in
where Arrian heard him (Epict. JUncMr. Prof. p. 6 sq. and many
Diss. ii. 6, 20 ; 1, Prcef.; cf iii. .
others.
22, 52). According to Suidas 2 These are the Aiarpipaland
and Themistocles (Or. v. 63, the sE7%"/""5wy. Arrian wrote
he lived until the reign of down the former, as he says in
Marcus Aurelius : this, how-
ever, the preface,after Epictetus as
is chronologicallyimpos- faithfullyas possible, in the
S
HIS 259
The philosopher is a physician to whom the sick come, CHAP.
and not the healthy ; l he must not only instruct _
his scholars,but help and cure them ; of what use and pro-
is it to displayhis learning before them, to develop
dogmas, however true they may be, or to provoke sop}

their applause by proofs of his cleverness ? The
most necessary and important thing is rather that

he should speak to their consciences,that he should
bring them to the feelingof their wretchedness and
ignorance ; that he should call forth in them the
first resolve of amendment ; that he should make

them not
philosophers, in their opinions, but in
their behaviour ;
2 in a word, that he should produce
a,irrojj.ivois avrvjs (TvvafoBiiffts TTJS only in order to applaud thy

avrov CLffQevdas Kal advvafj.ia$ fine oratory ? (Similarly iii. 21,
ire pi TO. avayKOia. FT. 3 (Stob. 8.) TOVTO 2aj/cpc"r^seiroiei;
TOVTO
Floril. 1, 48) : el jSouAei aya"ls Z^vcuv", rovro KXedvQqs. And also

elz/ai, Tr/oTeuow fin KctKbs e?. Cf. ("passing over other utterances),
Seneca, sup. p. 273, 2. ii. 19. Bpictetus is here asked
1
Diss. iii.23, 30 : iarpeTJi/ ecmv, what he thinks of the Kvpietccy
(Phil. d. Gr. H. i. 230, 4),and he
Xeiav* ov 5e? ycrdevras J"eA.0e?y, replies that he has as yet come
aAA* a,\yf}"ravras."pxeor06 jfy to no opinion thereupon ; but he
Of. Fr. 17 (Stob. knows that very much has been
oi"x vyteis, "c.
Mor. 9i), and
Iv. JLtusonius, written about it. Has he read
733,2; 734,5 ^ the treatise of Antipater on

sitp-P-
2 Ittss. iii. 23, 31, Epicfcetus the subject? No ; and he does
continues : You come, not as not wish to do so: what does
healthy people, a\.x* " fi*v the reader gain from it ?
"5 S3 amJc
^/cjSejSA^/ccbs, pdrepos eorrat Kal a
" 5e a-hpt-vya.
e%"y, 6 ^ vvv Icrrt. Such things "are
elr' "y" Kadicras worth just as much as the
learning of the grammarians
ie'iS eiraLVecravres pe TjTe, 6 about Helen and the island of
elo"fi-Calypso. But even with ethical
doctrines it is generally the
"c. And shall the same thing. Men relate to one
men make long journeys, another the principles of a
young
leave their parents and belong-
ings, Chrysippus and a Cleanthes, as
and spend their property, they relate a history from Hel-
s 2
260 ECLECTICISM:
CHAP, on them the deep moral impressionwhich Epictetus

himself had received from Musonius, and his
scholars in like manner received from Epictetus.1
Inferior From this

point of view Epictetus could of
course ascribe to theoretical knowledge,as such,only

theoretical
a subordinate value ; and this must especially
very
hold good of that part of philosophywhich festly
mani-
stood in the most distant connection with
namely logic.The chief thingin philosophyis

ethics,
the applicationof its doctrines ; next to this stands
the proof of them ; only in the third rank comes
lanicus ; but if somebody were TOVS, GXevOepovs,eupoowray, eu-
to remind one of these disciples $aifj.ovovvTa5,els rbv Qebv a"po~

of philosophers during a
the puvras " iravrl Kal fJLeydty.
/u.LKp$
shipwreck or a trial before the Your purpose is to learn this.
emperor, that death and ishment 5i"
ban- ri ofiv OVK biderai; tfirare
are not evils,he would fjLotrV cdriav. It can only lie
regard it as an outrageous in you, or in me, or in both.
mockery. Of what use, then, is ri ovv] OeXere a.p^ff"fjL"8d
wore
such a philosophy1 Deeds must

show to what school a man
"belongs. But mostof those v, Tntrrccrare /U.QL
who call themselves Stoics 1fy"ff6e. A further example
prove themselves to be rather of the manner in which tetus
Epic-
Epicureans, or, at the most, admonished his pupils is
Peripateticsof the laxest sort. given in Diss. L 9, 10-21.
ef 1
"SrcatKbv 5e Seiâre poi, TLVOL Concerning Musonius, vide
sup. p. 252; concerning Epic-
tetus,
ffovvra. Kal evrvôvvra, Arrian, Dm. Prcef. 8 sg. :
vebovra avrbs
s rtav a.KOv6vT(av
irpbsrh fieXTLcrra. If his courses,
dis-
. . .
Qzbv l" avQp"irov as reported by Arrian,
fiovvra yevecrQai 5"|are.
. . .
did not accomplish this,
aAA.' OVK e^cre. ri ofiv atrdis Ttocrav ot
j "c. Kal vvv
ira/" e/jLo Trateea'de. My pur-

pose aurov, ftirep
is,cttroreAeVcu vfMcis avrbv
TOUS,
LOGIC. 261
the doctrine of proof,the scientific methods for that CHAP.

'
is only necessary on account of the proof,and proofs

are only necessary on account of their application.1
However useful and therefore,logic

indispensable,
be in order to protect us from and
fallacies,
may
though accuracy and thoroughness are undoubtedly
in its yet logic cannot
pursuit,2 be an end
necessary
in itself ; the questionis not that we should be able
to explain Chrysippusand solve dialectic difficulties,

but that we should know and follow the will of
nature, that we should attain the rightin what we
do and avoid ; 3
the only unconditioned end is
virtue ; dialectic is a the art of

tool in its service,4
speech is merely a subordinate help, which has

nothing to do with philosophyas such.5 In accord-
ance
Epictetus seems
with these principles, to have
occupiedhimself very little with dialectic questions;

at any rate the written records of his doctrine tain
con-
not a singlelogicalor dialectical discussion.
Even the refutation of scepticism gives him little
concern ; he declares it to be the greateststubborn-

ness
to deny self-evident things ; he says he has not
trouble ourselves about this last

1
Man. c. 52. Epictetus else-
"where (Zfe. iii. 2 ; ii. 17; 15 point unless we are clear about
s".) distinguishesthree the two first,

sq. 29
problems of philosophy: the
2
Zto. 7; c. 17; ii. 25;
1
first and most necessary is that vide sup. p. 248, 1.
it should set us free from 3 2"i$s. I 4, 5 "qq. : ii. 17, 27
1 sgg.i ii. 19
our passions ; the second, that sqg. ; iii. 2 ; c.^21,
it should make us acquainted $%%* (videpreviousnote) ; c. 18,
with our 17 sg[.; Man.
duties ; the third that 46.
it should strengthen ourconvic- 4 2Hss. i 7, 1 ; Jf"m._52.
tions with irrefragableproofs ,* 5 Diss. i. 8, 4 ; ii. 23.
"g_g/.
and he insists that we should not
262 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, time to contend with such objections;for his
part he has
'
never taken hold of a broom when he

wished to take up a loaf of bread ; he finds that
the sceptics themselves act in the same way,
and put food into the mouth and not into the 1
eye ;
finallyhe encounters them with the old reproach
that deny the possibilityof know-
they cannot ledge
without maintaining its impossibility.2Of
the proper signification of scepticismand of the
necessityof its scientific refutation he has no idea.

He is just as little concerned about the investiga-
tions
of natural
philosophy; indeed, he expressly
agrees with the saying of Socrates,that enquiry
into the ultimate constituents and causes of things
passes our understanding, and could have no value

in any case.3 If, therefore, he generallypresup-
poses
the Stoic theory of the universe,he not
only
institutes no independent inquiries
in that sphere,
but even in the doctrines of his school there are
very few points only the universal bases of the

"
Stoic conception of the world, and especiallythe

theologicaldefinitions which attract his attention. "
He is full of the thought of God, who knows our
1
Diss. 1 5 ; 27, 15 sq$. ; ii. Gpcairivr)
yvc"w el 5e Kal ra pd-
20, 28. Xiffra flefyTIS etviu Kara\yirra,
^
2
Diss. ii.20, 1 sqq. aAA' ovv ri 8(j""\o$KaraX-qfyBw-
8
Fv. 75 (Stob.Flov. 80, 14) : rw, "c. This discussion pro-
rl fj.oL /te\H, 077"rl, ir6rcpQve'" fesses to be a commentary on
e" "5/iot(yiepwi",$ "c the Socratic theory, as we see
r" fora; by the word
^yys^ ffvve"rrr]Ke "j"T)a-l,
which is
apjce'i/*a0e?j" rty ovcriav afterwards repeated; but it is
^
rov ayaeov Kal KO.KOV, "c. ra 5' nevertheless unmistakable that

s xalpew e$v ; arwa Epictetus adopts the same
^
aKardKirn-rdforty av- standpoint himself,
GOD A$D TKE WORLD. 263
words and intentions, from whom comes all good, CHAP.
in whose service the philosopher stands, without '
whose commission he may not go to his work, whom

he should have always before his eyes.1 He proves
the guidance of Providence by the unity, order, and
interconnection of the universe;2 he praises the
paternal care of Grod for men, the moral perfection
which makes Him a pattern for us.3 He recognises
in the world the work of Grod,who has ordered all
for the best : has made the whole perfectand fault-

less
and formed all its parts to correspondwith the
necessityof the whole, has destined all men to ness
happi-
4
and furnished them with the conditions of it ;
he extols,in the spiritof his school, the adaptation
of means to ends in the universe, which he says
meets us so clearlyat every step that our whole life
5
should unceasing song of praise to the Deity ;
be an
and, like his school, he condescends to point out
this adaptation even in the smallest and most ternal

ex-
things; 6 he does not allow himself to be turbed

dis-
in his faith even by the apparent evils and

injusticesin the world, having learned from the
Stoa to reconcile these also with the perfectionof

Grod and his works.7 This belief in Providence,
however, Epictetus, in the true fashion of the
Stoics, always refers primarily to the universe,
1
I shall recur to this later 4 Mss. iv. 7, 6 ; iii. 24, 2 sq.
on Meanwhile, cl JHss. 22, 5 JDiss. i. 16.
6 Of. ZHss.
2* 23, 53; 21, 18; ii. 14, 11, i. 16,9 *$g. and
18, 19 ; 19, 29 ; i. 16. PMl. d. Gr. HI. i. 172, end.
2
Diss. i. 14, 16 ; Man. 31, 1. 7
lUd. III. i. 175, 4; 178, 2;
3 Zto. i. 6, 40 ; 9, 7 ; ii. 14, and infra,p. 271, 1.
264 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, and to the individual only so far as is determined
by the interdependenceof the whole ; when he

_____
counsels submission to the will of (rod,this cides,

coin-
in his sense with the demand that man
should conform to the order of nature.1 Things,he

says, with Musonius, cannot happen otherwise than
as they do happen ; we cannot withdraw ourselves

from change to which the heavenly
under the law of
bodies and the elements are subject; 2 against the

universal order which all things serve and obey we
ought not to rebel.3 So also he expresslymentions

the doctrine which most strongly asserts that
nothingindividual is more than a transient moment
in the flux of the whole " the doctrine of the flagration

con-
of the world.4 And as the religious

conviction of Epictetus allies itself on this side
to physics,so on the other side it allies itself,

like Stoicism, to the popular religion. Stoic
pantheism with him also includes polytheism;

the derived divine natures are to be distinguished
5
from the primal divine nature ; and if all things
Diss. i. 12, 15 S$. 28 $".;

1 Kala^tvov virep
1L 5, 24 sgrg.; 6, 9 s$q. rat, pera r"v 8\cw Kal T)p.as vvv-
2 In the fragment mentioned $LOLK$"V. With Epictetus also,
sup. p. 248, 3,which begins thus: as with his whole school, Grod
#ri rota^TT? y rov K6"T/j.ov coincides
"pTLJ"rt$ with the universe.
Kal %crri Kal ecrrai.- Kal ou% oUv 4 Diss. iii.13, 4 sgg., where,
re "KXca$ yiyvecr6ai
ra yiyri/Meva,as in Sen. Ep. 9, 16, the con-
^ "s vvv %x"l- dition of Zeus after the
8 Fr. 136 (Stob. Moril. 108, universal conflagrationis de-
66 : ifdvra. viraKovei rqi K6(r^cp scribed. .
5
Kal earth, sea, stars,
vTrrjpere?" Hence he says in Diss. iv. -
plants,animals, our own bodies. 12,11: "y" 5' "%"" rivt ju." 5et
Our judgment alone cannot apeV/cetp,T(VI viroreraxQai, rivt
be set up in opposition to it. 7re"0e"r0ar r$ 6e$ Kal rots psr*
Kal ecrriKal Kpetcrffow,
yap Iffyvptis ^KCIVOJ/(ii.17, 25) : rep Ait , . ,
SOOTHSAYING. 265
are full of divine powers, so are they full of gods CHAP.
and daemons.1 The beneficence of these gods we con- __H_

tinuallyenjoy in all that we receive from nature and
from other men j to deny them is the more fiable,

unjusti-
the, greater is the injury that we thereby
cause to so many,2 Yet the relation of
Epictetus
to the popular religion is, on the whole, very in-
dependent
accordingly he seldom
; mentions the
popular gods,and then only casually,without further

committing himself to the allegoricalinterpretations
of his school, but prefers to speak in a general
manner of the gods or the deity,or even of Zeus ;
he retains indeed, with Socrates, the principle of

honouring the gods according to our power, after
the manner of antiquity,3but he also knows very
well that the true service of God consists in know-
ledge
4 about
and virtue ; the fables the underworld,
5
the worship of hostile beings he blames ; and if
he does not attack the belief in soothsaying,he

demands that men should be able to dispense with
prophecy, that they should make use of it without
fear and desire, being previously in harmony

with the result,and should not first enquire of the
rots "\Aois 0eo?s, and iii. 13, 4 Pluto are named ; but the Stoic
besides
"?.), Zeus, Here, Athene, unmistakably- reserves to him-
Apollo, and, generally speaking, self the traditional interpreta-
the gods, who do not survive tion of these gods in the """v-
the conflagration of the world, (ruths \6yos.
irdyra s Man.
1
JHss. iii. 13, 15 : Qf-cav 31, 5.
petfra /col Scufj,6vc0v. 4 Man. 31, 1 ; cf. Dfas. ii. 18,

ii. 20, 32 19 ; PML d. Gr.
Ill, I. 311, 1.
2 LOG. tit. *"#.,
where, as examples of gods the 5 Diss. iii. 13, 15 ; i. 19, 6 ;
denial of whom is censured by 22, 16.
Euripides, Demeter, Kore, and
266 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP soothsayer,where the fulfilment of a duty is in

'
question.1
Man an To Epictetus the belief in the kinship of the
*
emanation -i . .. .
~ _
. rt
from God.
ataman spiritto God
highest value ; man is of the
should be aware of his higher nature ; he should
regard himself as a son of God, as a part and

emanation of the deity,in order to gain from this
thought the feelingof dignity,of his moral his
responsibility, his independence of all things external,
brotherlylove to his fellow men, and the
consciousness of his citizenship in the universe;2
and in the same sense Epictetus,after the manner

of his school,elso employs the conception of daemons,
understandingby them merely the divine in man.3

On the other hand we vainlyseek in him for more
minute anthropological enquiries; even the question
of immortalityis only mentioned casually,and if
from his utterances on the subjectwe gather that
from
(departing the Stoic dogma) he disbelieved
in a personal existence after death, utterances of
his are also to be found which lead

logically to
the oppositetheory.4 Nor is the question of the
1 Diss. ii. 7; Man. 32. from the commencement, alien

2
Diss. i. 3 j c. 9 ; c. 12, 26 to the body, longs to leave it
5 sqqr.; ii. and to return to its
syg. ; c. 13, 3 ; c. 14, original
8, 11 s%q. ; iv. 7, 7 s%. j cf. Phil, state. Thus in Jfy. 176 (ap M.
d. Gr. III. i. p. 200, 2. Aurel. iv. 41) : ^VX^PLOV"I, fa
Diss. i. 14, 12 sqq. ; cf. Phil,
3 (rrafoyvutptv; cf. Diss. ii. 19,
d. Gr. III. i. p. 319, 2. 27 : " T" "rw parly ro^ry T$
4
Epictetus'view of the des- veicpQ,1. c. i. 19, 9 ; but espe-
tiny of the soul after death is ciallyDiss. i. 9, 10 sgg. He

not easy to state. On the one thought that they (he here says
hand he treats the soul (this to his disciples)
înyv6vres rfy
aspect will be spoken of again irpbsrov?6eobs a-vyyevetav, nal e6ri
' "
later on) as an essence which is, 5ecr/xc"

TIVOL ravra
FREE WILL. 267
freedom of the will discussed with, any exactitude ; CHAP.

IX.
it seems, however, probablethat Epictetusdid not
depart from the fatalism of his school1 since he
constantlyinsists that all faults are involuntary

and merely a consequence of incorrect notions, for
it is impossible not to desire what a man holds
rb Kal rty Krrjffiv avrov

ff"fjia vSdriov. What becomes of the
. . .
would wish to shake off soul we do
learn ; but as, on
not
this burden, Kal aireXBe'iv Trpbs the supposition of its personal
robs ffvyyevets, that they would continuance, this was to be
say to him, OVK"TL avex6jJ-e8aperk said before all things, we can
rov crcafJLariov rovrov only conclude

Se"Je/-ceyoi that Epictetus
. . .
OVK . ffvyyeve'is
, .
rives rov made the soul also pass into
6eov ecrp-ev Kaicetdev eAÂvfla/zey, the elements, fire and air;
""j)"S
yuMS aireXdeiv o6ev eATjAv- among the Stoics the soul was
\v87jvaiirore
crafjisv "tpes rcav Secr- universally described as Pneu-
P."V rovruv, that he, for Ms ma or as fire, and Epictetus
part, would have to remind would not herein have diverged
them that
they must await the from his school ; the faculty of
call God, of
and when that sight, according to the Stoic
came to them, he should have doctrine an emanation of the
to say, r6r' cmoXveffde irpbsavr6v. TjyefjLovLKbv,
is expressly scribed
de-
According to these utterances in Diss.
ii. 23, 3, as a
we should have supposed that Pneuma inherent in the eye.
Epictetns believed with Plato The same theory results from
and the majority of the Stoics, Diss. iii. 24, 93 : rovro Bdyaros,
that the soul after death was /xerajSoA^juei""jy,
OVK i/c rov vvv
transferred to a better life ftvros els rb ^ ftp,aAA' els rb

with God. Other passages, how-
ever, fry. ovKert o$v
render it doubtful whether OVK. eo"7)j aAA* "AAo TI, ov vvv 5
he meant by this a personal Kofffjios xpe'iay*X"L- Here the
existence. He says (JHss. iii. continued existence of man is
13, 14), when God no longer certainly asserted, but it is
grants to a man his subsistence not a personal existence ; it is
in life,we should regard this merely a continuance of his
as if He opened the door and substance ; he becomes SAAo nt
called to "hrm to come ; and to another individual.
the question ' whither
? ' this is 1
It is also plain from this
the answer : els ovftev SetvSv, oAA1 that Epictetus places the periority
su-
Kal orvyye-
86ev eyevov, els ret, (f"i\a of man over the
vfi,els rot. crroi%eTa.'6"rov"f\vIv "rol animals not in free will but in
irvpbs,els vvp fareurur 8crov %v 77?- consciousness (the 5tW/us irapa-
5tou, els yjjtiiov %(rov irvevfiariov,jcoAov0?7Ti/c7?)
j Diss. i. 6,
els irv"vfj,driov 8"rov iffiarlov,els ii. 8, 4 *"".
268 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, to be a good.1 How this fatalism is to be combined
U with moral precepts and exigencies is nowhere

indicated by our philosopher.
But even in ethics we must not expect from
Epictetus any more searchinginvestigation.He
who confines himself in philosophyto the practically
useful,and carries on theoretic enquiry only as an
to this,is necessarily, in
accessory and means even
his moral doctrine,devoid of any proper scientific

foundation and mode of treatment ; it only remains
for him, therefore,to found that doctrine,in the
last resort, upon immediate consciousness. Thus
like
Epictetus, his teacher Musonius, assures us that
the universal moral conceptionsand

principles are
innate in all men, and that all are agreed about them ;
the strife relates merely to their application in
given cases. Philosophy has only to develop

these conceptions and teach
natural us to include
the individual rightly under them: for instance,

under the idea of good we are not to placepleasure
or riches,and so forth. Here it is indeed ledged
acknow-
that the innate ideas do not suffice for
themselves alone ; and

application that in their
deceptive opinion is intermingled;2but since, as

Epictetus believes,there is no strife concerning
he hopes to put an
the universal conceptions, end
1 Dm. 18, 1-7 ; 28, 1-10 ;

i of free will ; for the Stoics,
our
ii. 26 ; iii. 3, 2 ; iii. 7, 15. It notwithstandingtheir fatalism,

forms no contradiction to the maintained the same,
3
above when Epictetus says Hiss. i. 22, 1 sg. 9 ; ii.11 "
again (.#".180 ; ap. Gell. xix. c. 17, 1-13.

1) that acquiescence is an affair
TRUE WISDOM. 269
to the discord of moral

presentationsin the simple CFAP.
IK"
Socratie manner, starting from that which is
universally acknowledged,by means of short dia-

lectic
discussions ; l the scholastic argumentations,
the systematic treatment of ethics,seem to him,
not, indeed, worthless, so far as they serve to
confirm our conviction, but at the same time not
indispensable.
If would somewhat Inde~
we enter closelyinto more
the content of Epictetus'ethical doctrine,we may

point out, as its fundamental feature,the endeavour
to make man free and happy by restriction to his
moral nature; from which proceeds the double
demand to bear all external events with unconditional
submission,and to renounce all appetitesand wishes

directed towards the external. This, accordingto
Epictetus,is the commencement and sum of all
wisdom "
that we should know how to discriminate
what is in our power and what is not in our
power ;
2 he is a born philosopherwho desires
absolutelynothing but to live free and not to be
afraid of any happen.3 Only one

event that may
thing is in our power namely,*~our will, or what "
is the same, the employment of our notions and
ideas ; everything else,whatever it may be called,
is for us an external,a thing that is not in our

power.4 Only this should have, therefore,any
1
LOG. (M. especiallyii. 11, quoted by Mnsonius from the
and Ii. 12, 5 sg. mouth of Epictetus, mp. p.
Of. sup. p. 261, 1.
2 254, 1.
3 Man. i. 1 ; 48, 1 3 JMss. i. * JHss. ii. 17, 29; cf. 1, 4, 18.
1 ; 21, 22, 0 *#. ; cf. what is Cf. sup. note 3, and Man.
270 ECLECTICISM,
CHAP, value for us, only in it should we seek goods and
! evils,happinessand unhappiness; l and this we can
do not ourselves 2
do, for thingsexternal concern ; our
will, our proper essential nature, nothing in the

3
world, not even the deity,can coerce ; only on the
will depends our happiness; it is not external things
as such that make us happy, but only our concep-
tions
of things; and the question is not how our
external circumstances are shaped,but whether we
know how to govern and employ our notions.4 So
long as we desire or avoid anything external to selves

our-
we depend upon fortune ; if we have ceived

per-
what is ours and what is not, we restrict
ourselves with our wishes to our own rational nature
we direct our efforts and counter efforts,5

to nothing
which does not depend on ourselves : then we are
free and happy, and no fate can have any hold upon
us; happen what will, it can never affect us and
that on which our well-beingdepends.6 And the
more completely we have made ourselves thus
independent in our minds of the external, the

6
6 ; Piss. i. 25, 1 ; 12, 34 ; ii.5, Mm. 1, 2,
Mss. i. 1, 7 19 "
*$.; 111. 3, 1; 14 sgg.; iv. 1, sqg.-, 21 sgg.; 18, 17; 19, 7:

c.
22, 10 m. ; 25, 1 m. ii. l, 4

10?"
"c:
1
V'tde ,.
note and 5, 4; 23, 16 sqq.\ iii. 22, 38*
.
preceding
Mew. 19 ; Diss. iii. 22, 38 sgg. ; iv. 4, 23 et pass, ; Gell N. A
ii. 1, 4; i. 20, 7 "c. xvii. 19, 5, where there is a
2
Dis$. i. 1, 21 sgq. ; c. 18, 17 ; quotation from Epictetus to the
29, 24 ; ii. 5, 4 ; Man. c. 9, and effect that the worst vices are
elsewhere. impatience towards the faults
3 i. 1, 23; 17, 27; ii.
Diss. .of others,and intemperance in
23, 19 ; in. 3, 10. enjoyments and in all things -
4
Man. 5, 16, 20 ; Diss. i. 1, the art of living happily and
7 sgg. ; ii. 1, 4; c. 16, 24: iii. without faults is contained in
3, 18; 26, 34 s$. and elsewhere, two words, aWvou and
PUl. d. Or. III. i. p. 224, 1.
COURSE OF THE UNIVERSE. 271
clearer it will become that all that happens is CHAP.

^
necessary in the interdependence of things,-
and so
far according to nature we shall acknowledgethat

to each event a moral activitymay be linked,
and that even misfortune may be used as a means
of training; we shall for this reason submit conditionally

un-
to our destiny and hold what Grod

wills to be better than what we will, and feel
ourselves free preciselyherein,that we are satisfied
with all as it is andhappens ; the course of the
universe will correspond with our wishes,because we
have received it unaltered into our wills.1 Even

the hardest experiences will not disturb the wise
man in this
only Ms property, his
temper; not
person, his health,and life,

but even his friends,his
belongings,his fatherland,he wiE consider as some-

thing
that is merely lent, and not given,to him,

and the loss of which does not affect his inner
2 and little will
nature ; as he permit himself to be
troubled by the faults of others in his peace of
mind ; he will not expect that those belonging to

3
him should be free from faults ; he will not require
1 PHI. d. Gr. III. i.p. 303, 1 ; ii. 15, 4 sg$. ; 6, 22 ; iii. 24, 95
304, 1 ; Man. 8, 10, 53 ; Diss. i. 6, $%%.
2
37 sqt[.; 12, sqq. ; 24, 1 ; ii. 5,
4 Man. 1 1 ; c. 3 ; c. 11 ; c.
24 sq$. ; ; 10, 4 sq. ; 16, 42

6, 10 14 ; Digs, i. 15 ; 22, 10 ; iii. 3,
*gtg[.
; iii.20 ; IV. i. 99, 131 j 7,20, 5, and elsewhere,
and elsewhere. It is consistent *
Mtm. 12 ; 1, 14. Still less
with this principlethat Epic- can natural compassion as to the
tetns, who with Ms school re- external misfortunes of other
garded suicide as the refnge men be permitted,though Epic-
kept open in the last resort, tetus is hnman and incon-
only allows it when circum- sistentenough to allow the ex-
stances unequivocally demand pression of sympathy {Man.

it (vide Diss. i. 24, 20 ; 9, 16 ; 16).
272 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. that no wrong should be committed againsthimself:

IX.
he holds the greatest criminal to be merely an
unhappy and deluded man with whom he dares not
be angry,1for he finds that all about which most men
excite themselves,is grounded in the things.

nature of
Thus does man win freedom here by withdrawing

with his will and endeavour absolutelyinto himself,
while he contraryall external events

acceptson the
with perfectresignationas an unavoidable destiny.
Inclina- We cannot deny that these principleson the
tion
of
Jfyictetus
whole are Stoic,but at the same time we cannot
to Cyni-
help feeling that the spiritwhich pervades the
cism.
moralityof Epictetus is not quitethe same as that
of the earlier Stoicism. On the one hand our
philosopherinclines to Cynicism,when, as we have
seen, he speaks disparaginglyof theoretic science ;
when he carries his indifference to the external and

submission to the course of the world so far that
the distinction of that which is accordingto nature
and contrary to it, that which is desirable and jectiona

ob-
"
which was the doctrine chieflydis-
tinguish
the Stoic morality from the Cynic for "
him almost entirelyloses its meaning ;

2
when he
1 Diss. i. 18 ; c. 28. i *6\ov vvv (j,ev ffoi vocrricrai

2
That distinction,be says in ,
vvv $" Tr\"v"rai KCU KLV$V-
Diss. ii. 5, 24 $([., only holds vevcrcu, vvv 5* 7rp5
airopTjQrlvcLi,
good so far as regarded
man is "pas 5' Zarrtv #re atroQavetv. ri
for himself irrespectiveof his ofiv ayavaKreis ; .
afivvarov
. .
place in the
interconnection of yap ev roiovrcf crc"fjiaTL,
"r rovrcp
nature ; rt el j "vQp(airos. (j.ev rq" irepLe-ôvrtj
et rovrois TOLS cfv-
"s "ir6\vTov a'Koire'is,Karh fyvffiv
""rrl (rjcrat
pexptyfjpas,
irXovreiv, rotavra. ffbv ofiv epyov, lA.-
vyialveivel 5' "s "v6po)irov"r"o- 66vra eliretv" 5eT,^laQecrBai ravra
ircTs Kal fiepos tt\ov nvbs, 5i' "s,brt0d\\"i. What falls to a

CYXIC TEXDEXCZES. 273
finds it dignifiedto disdain even those external CHAP.

IX.
goods which fate offers us without our co-operation; *
when in his exaltation above mental emotions he

advances to insensibility
;
2
when he forbids us to
feel compassionsympathy for onr fellow-crea-
tures, and
at any rate in regard to their outward dition

con-
;
3 when he believes that the perfectedwise
man will keep himself from marriage and the

begetting of children in the ordinary condition of
human society,because they withdraw him from
his higher vocation, make him dependent on other
men and their necessities,and have no value for
a teacher of humanity, as compared with his
man as his lot (as was said in not deterred from action by
c, 3 ; cf. c. 6, 1) is immaterial : their fatalism, neither did they
'
KO.I T6^-
"iriJJ,zXca$ allow it to interfere with tbeir
rovro Sr) efibv conviction of the different tive
rela-
v. In such observations values of things ; without
Epictetus to a certain extent is which no choice among them,
anticipated by Chrysippus, from consequently no action, and
whom he quotes these words would be possible (Cic. Fin. Mi.
(Dm. ii. 6, 9) : fJ-*xPLS "v a^Xa 15, 50). If that conclusion is
P.OL % ra "%rjs,ael r"v "v"pv"ffT"- more prominent in Bpictetus, so
ptav eôfiat irpbs T?" Tvy)(a.V"iv that he approximates to the
rcav Kara tyvcriv"airrbs yap \L 6 complete indifference of Aristo
6ebs T"V TOLofirav and the Cynics, this only shows
6i 5e ye rjSeiv$TI vo- the whole character of Ms cal
ethi-
/xoi KaOeifMaprai vvv, Kal theory of life,in which the
ITT* avr6. Kal yap 6 Stoic withdrawal from the ternal
ex-
nobs, "j"pevas elxey, "p/J.a"ay

"i world becomes total in-
difference
eirlrb TryXova-Oat. In a system to that world, and
so strictlyfatalistic as that of submission to destiny becomes
the Stoics, only a relative valne inactive sufferance,or tends to it.
could be allowed the 1
to sition
oppo- Man. 15.
3 2
of *
contrary to nature ZH$s. iu. 12, 10. Accustom
'
and '
according to nature ; from thyself to bear injuries: eW
the standpoint of the whole, all ofira}irpoj8^"n7, tva KOV wA^r? ere
that happens appears according ns e^Tnjs avrlts irpbsavr6v 8rf
to nature, because necessary. $6}-ov avdpidyrasirepieiXqQevai.
But as the ancient Stoics were
8 Vide my. p. 271, 3.
274 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, spiritualposterity;
l when he dissuades us from
takingpart in politicallife,because for him every

His gentle human community in comparison with the great
state of the universe is too small ;2 when, he
finally,
developshis philosophicideal under the name and
in the form of Cynicism.3 But, on the other hand,

there unquestionablyreigns in Epictetus a milder
and gentler temper than in the older Stoa : the
philosopherdoes not oppose himself to the unphilo-
sophicalworld with that haughty self-confidence
which challenges it to battle; resignation to the un-
avoidable
is his first principle.He comes forward
not as the angry preacher of morals who reproves

the perversityof men in the bitter tone of the
well-known Stoic propositionsabout fools,but as
the loving physician who desires indeed to heal
their diseases,but rather sympathises with than
1 Diss. lit 22, 67 sg". ; cf PMl. .

of life according to nature and
d. 6rr.IlLi.2QQ. Epictetushim- the necessity of human society
self was unmarried (Lucian, demand feimilylife ; the inde-
Detnon. 55 ; cf
Simpl. in JEpiet. pendence and self-sufficingness
.
J"fo"5Mr.c.33,7,p.272). Iniii.7, of the wise man forbid it.

19 ; i. 23, 4 sgr.he reproachesthe With Epictetus, however, the
Epicureans that their repudia- latter point of view manifestly
tion of marriage and of po- predominates, and thus there
litical life undermines human results a doctrine similar to
society,and in Lucian (L 0.)he that which prevailed at this
admonishes Demonax the Cynic time, and
subsquently in the
to found a family, trîîv jap Catholic Church : marriage is
tealTOVTO "pL\off6"i"tp
avSplerepov recommended, but celibacy is
avB" avrov ttwraXiireiv rrj Qtarei,considered better and higher,
(to which Demonax replied: and is advised for all those who
'
Very good! G-iveme then one profess to be teachers in the
of your daughters 1 '). But this service of God.
is only the same contradiction 2
PMl. d. 6r. III. i. 296, 3.
s
which we might everywhere Vide Dm. iii. 22 : iv. 8, 30:
find in the
Stoic treatment of i. 24, 6.
these questions. The principle
DUTIES TO GODS AND MEN. 275
accuses them, who is not irritated even by the CHAP.

IX '.
greatest wrong, but prefers to excuse it as an invo-
luntary error.1 When our connection with other Universal
men and the duties arising from it is in question,

Epictetus represents these relations chieflyfrom
the emotional side, as an affair of the affectionate
temperament: we should fulfil our duties to the
gods, to those belonging to us, and to our fellow-

citizens,for we ought not to be without feeling,
as if we were made of stone ;
2
we should treat all
men, even if they are our slaves,as brothers, for

they all descend equallyfrom Grod ; 3 even to those
who ill-treat us we ought not to refuse the love of
Vide, besides the passages

1
(T"avrtj" ,
quoted sup. p. 259, 1, the quota-

tions Kov fyfKeivois.
p. 268, 1 ; for example
2
Diss. iii. 2, 4. The first is
(i.18, 3) : ri ert iroTô'is xaê~ being without passions or tions
affec-
ircdvopev; K\eirrai, (pijcrlv,
elcrlKal ; the second is the ment
fulfil-
XcairoSvrcu. ri Herri rb KXcirrai of duty : ov ydp 5" pe
Kal \OTTO$vrai j TreTrXdvyyTaL ir"pl elvat airaBrj"s avSpidvra,
"c.
ayaQSov Kal KaKtay. xaXeiraiveiv 3 Diss. i. 13, where Epictetus
o$v 5eT avrols 3} "\eeij/ avrovs ; exclaims to the master who is
There is no greater unhappiness towards violent : av- Ms slaves
than to be in error concerning SpdiroSojr, OVK ave^y rov a8e\"f"ov
the most important questions, rov (ravrov tts %X"i T^y â ^P^'
and not to have a rightly con-
stituted yovov, ""nr"p vibs CK rSav avrSiv
will ,* why be angry crirepfjLar"v yeyove Kal ry$ avrTJs
with those who have this happiness? "vo*""V
un- KarafioXys ; . . .
ov yue/t-
We should rather rls el Kal riv"v "p%"ts; fin
compassionate them. And
finally,we are only angry with rov
them because we cannot free irov $\"TreLs ; %n eh TOVS raXat-

ourselves from
dependence v"povs rovrovs v6[JLovs
TOVS rSov
on the things of which they V"KpS"v; els 5e rovs r"v QeSav ov
deprive us : fi^j6avfj,a"e o~ov ret, 0\eireis ; cf. Sen. JBenef.iii. 18-

IfidnaKal rqi tcXeirrr)ov âAexa- 28 ; De Clement. 1 18, 2 ; JEJp.
Oavjj,a("
j/e7r fjt.^ rb uraAAos rrjs 31, 11 ; Vvt. Beat. 24, 3 ; Mu-
yvvaiKbs real sonius ap. Stob. Fl"ril. 40, 9 ;
jEIp.44 ; ZHss. iii. 22, 83 ; i. 9.
T 2
276 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, a father or a brother.1 How this dispositionis con-
nected with
religioustemperament of Epictetus
the
and how from this starting-point a divergencefrom
the older Stoicism is inevitable,

even in the theo-
retical
will
part of philosophy, be discussed further
on.
Marcus of Marcus
The greatest admirer Epictetus was
.s
Antoninus Aurelius Antoninus,2 and in his apprehension of
iii. 22, 54 : lonius; cf. sup. p. 197, note).

5e? avrbv (the Cynic, the truly The philosophers whose struction
in-
wise man) "s ftvov Kal Saip6- he attended were,
}j."vov "pi\"iv avrovs TOVS fiaipov-besides
mentioned, the above
ras, "$"irarepa irdvrcav,

us a5eA"""oz/
; Stoics ; Sextus, the Pla-
(/."?.)
cf Fr. 70 ; ap. Stob. Moril
.
20, tonist,of Chaeronea, nephew of
61 ; and nics Plutarch (M.Aurel.i.9; Capitol.
concerning other Cy-
who express themselves in 3 ; Dio and Philostr. 1. c. ; Eu-
the manner,
same PMl. d. Gr. trop. viii. 12; Suid. Mc"p/c.);
III. i. 299, 4. Alexander (M. Aurel. i. 12 ;
2 M. (for so he
Annius Verus Philostr. V. Soph. ii. 5, 2 s#.),
was originallycalled)was born but this last only at a later
on the 25th of April,121 A.D., period; and Claudius Sevems,
inEome(Capitolin. Ant. PMlos. the Peripatetic (Capitol. 3).
1),where his family, which had Among the earlier philosophers
emigrated with his great grand-
father none made a deeper impression
out of Spain, had tained upon

at- him than Epictetus, as
a high rank (I. "?.). we have

already seen (sup. p.
His careful education was warded
for- 738, 1 ; according to M. Aur. i.
his
anxiety to
by own 7. Adopted by order of Hadrian
learn ; philosophy very early (concerning his predilectionfor
attracted him, and already in him, vide Capitol, i. 4 ; Dio
his twelth year he assumed the Cass. MX. 15) by Antoninus
garb of a philosopherand pre-
scribed Pius, he took the name of Mar-
cus
to himself abstinences Aurelius after he had borne
which he only curtailed at the that of his maternal father
grand-
entreaties of his mother (I.c. Catilius for a while. On
c. 2). His teachers he loaded his accession to the throne the
with proofs of his gratitude surname of Antoninus was also
and respect, even when he added (Capitol, i. 5, 7 ; Dio
became Emperor (I.o. c. 3 ; cf, Cass. I. "?.).His later life be-
longs
Ant. Pi. 10; Philostr. V. Soph. to Roman imperial his-
tory,
ii. 9 ; and Dio Cass. Ixxi. 1, which exhibits to us on
who relate of Sextus
the same the throne of "
the Caesars many
as relates
Capitolinus of Apol- more powerful princes, but
MARCUS AUEELIVS. 277
Stoicism,as well as in his whole mode of thought, CHAP.

IX.
he approximates very closelyto him. Like Epic-
tetus he generallypresupposes the Stoic doctrine, resembles

Ep'tctetus
but only those determinations of it which stand in
in his
close relation to the moral and life possess
religious practical
vien" of
any interest for him. He does not feel called upon
jp/iilo-
l
to be a dialectician or a physicist; andthough he sophy.
admits the value of these sciences in he
general,2 is
none of nobler and purer racter, 180

cha- A.D. Marcus Aurelius died
no man of gentlerdis-
position,
at Tienna during tion
expedi- the
stricter ness,
conscientious- against the Marcomanni;
and faithfulness to duty. according to Dio Cass. c. 33. of
I refer,therefore,to Dio Cassius poison, which his son had
(B. IxxL), Capitolinus (Ant. caused to be administered to
Philos. -,
Ant. Pius. Ver. Imp.}, him. A monument of his cha-
racter
Vulcatius (Avid. Cass,)"and the and philosophy re-
his mains
well-known authorities for that in the aphoristicmemo-
randa,
part of Roman history; and in chiefly written in his

this place will only shortly later years, which in the MSS.
mention the rare and peculiar bear the title els eavrbv or KO."
relation in which Marcus Aure- tavrbv, but are also
quoted
lius as Caesar and actual co- under other designations(Bach,
regent stood to his equally p. 6). More recent monographs
excellent father-in law and concerning him are the follow-
ing
adopted father (136-161), to : N. Bach, De Mare. Avr.
whom he himself (i.16 ; vi. 30) Anton. Leipzig,1826 ; Dorgens,
in his meditations has raised so i-ide sup. p. 202, 1 ; Zeller, Vortr,
beautiful a monument. His uncL Abliandl. i. 89 $g". ; Cless
own reign was disturbed by M. Aurelius Selbstyesprciche
great public misfortunes mine
(fa- ubers. imd erlaut.
Stuttgard,
and plague in Eome, 165, 1866, And others in Ueberweg,
6 A.D.), difficult wars (with the Qrunfo. i. 228.
Parthians in 162 A.D., the Mar- 1 vii. 67 : Kal ^y %TL cnr^tan-
comanni, 166 syq. and 178 S$Y.)" Kas SioAe/CTi/cbs Kal (pwiicbs
eirecr-
dangerous insurrections (the 8ai,Sia TOVTO aTroyvys, Kal "A.etJ-

Bucoli in Egypt in 170 ; Avidius $"pOS Kal al^fLtaV Kal KOlV"VlKbs
Cassius Syria, 175) ; and em-
in bittered Kal euTrei^s16eq".
2 So he says
by the indolence of his in viit 13, in
colleagueVerus(died 172 A.D.), agreement with the Stoic triple
the immorality of his wife division of philosophy :
Faustina, and the wickedness V"KU)S Kal "7Ti
and excesses of his son Corn-

modus. On the 17th of March
278 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, nevertheless of opinion that a man may attain his

'
proper destination without much knowledge.1 The

important thingis not that he should search out all
things above and beneath the earth, but that he
should commune with the daemon within him and
serve him in sincerity;2the greater are the culties
diffi-
which oppose themselves to the investigation
of the Keal, the more should a man hold to that
which in the changefulnessof thingsand of opinions
can alone give us calm to the conviction that"
nothing can happen to us which is not accordingto

the nature of the universe, and that none can oblige
us to act against our conscience.3 It is only with
these practical convictions, therefore,that he is
concerned in his study of philosophy.Philosophy
must give us a fixed support in the flux of pheno-
1
Vide 277, 1 ; cf. i. 17, where Svo-KardXyirra5o/ce? Kal iraa-a TJ
he reckons among the bene- ^/zerepa
"ruy/caTc"0e"m
fj-eraTrrarTj'
tits of the gods that he did TTOV yap 6 aperdTrraros; If we
not make greater in go further with external
progress things,
oratory and poetry and such they are all transitory and
studies which otherwise might worthless ; if we consider men,
have exclusively occupied him, even the best are scarcely en-
and that when he
applied him- durable : eV row^ry o$v fy$y
self to philosophy he refrained Kal Kal
frvTrq rocra^rrj fiixrei . .
from aTTOKaBifrai eirl rovs crvy- ri iror e"rrl rb eKTLfjLyBijvai,

fyrb
ypatyets, ^ ffvKKoyLffôvs aya- 8Xcos ffTrovSacrdTJvat
^vvd^vov eiu-
\6etv, ^ ireplra /j,"T"a)po\oyiKa you. It only remains to await
KaraylvearBat. in peace his natural dissolu-
ii. 13 ; cf. ii. 2, 3 : aês ra tion, but until then rovrois
iravecrOar evl /xey
3 ^ ^
V. 10 : irpdy/jiara
TO; fjiey"v ot"%i Kara rfyv r""v
oLavry rptirov nva tyKaXfyei. i"rrtv erepcp 5e, $n "|""TT/JULOI
arly, fto-re "j"i\ocr6"t"ot$ 6\l- pijtev vpd"r"r"Lv ijj"v
irapa rbv
OVK
oLs, ov5e TO?S- rvxova-tv, eSoê 6(-bv Kal Salpova. ovSels yap 4
iv aKaraXTjirra elvai. avayKdcrcay
rovrov
auroTs ye rots 2ro)iKo?$
PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHY. 279
mena, and supply a defence against the vanity of CHAP.

IX-
all finite things. 'What is human life?5 he asks.
A dream and an exhalation,
a strife and a wandering
in a strange land. Only
thing can guide
one us
through it" namely, philosophy.This consists in
our keeping the daemon within us pure and clear,

exalted above pleasureand pain,independent of the
conduct of others ; in our receiving
all that happens
to us as sent by (rod,and awaiting the natural end
of our existence with cheerfulness and

courage.1
The problem of philosophylies,therefore,in the
forming of a man's character and the calming of
his mind ; only accordingto their relation to this
problem is the value of scientific enquiries and

dogmas to be estimated.
For this purpose there are three points in the HU o^-
theoretical portion of the Stoic system which are reti"!

eon'
chieflyimportant in the eyes of philosopher,

our ^xtf
First,the doctrine of the flux of all things,of the all things.
decay of all existence, of the rotation of becoming

and passingaway, in which nothing individual has
1 ii. 17: rov avBpuvtvov fttov "s cKeiBev Tro6ev ,
" V*v % 5e ovffta aMs

Xpfoos ffrrypfi' fafcir eVl iran 5e rbv 0a-
f
peoutra,"c. crvvsXtwri. "5e elireiv,varov ?\eq"ry yvt"fjiri
Treptpevovra,
ic"VTO) ra jitej/ rov "rdfjc.aro$fro- "fo ou5"y 2UAo fy Xvtrtv rtev
ra/iJi^ ra 5c TT}S "pv%risfoeipos aroixel"v,e| wv tKaffrov ($oy
Kal Tvtyas. d- SimHar utterances
5e jSfas-Tr6X"fio$ a-vyKpiverai.
Kal %4vovbriSiipia' TJ vffrepoQyfjLfaconcerning the vanity and.
5e X'fiBif]. rb irapairât transitoriness of life and
riôvv
SwdfjiGvov ; ev Kal pivots,(piXoa-o- the worthlessness of every-
Se ev r" rt\p"iiv rbv thing external to found in
"fa. rovro are
"j/5oy Salpom a,j"6ftpi"rrov /col ii. 12, 15 ; iv. 3 (d K6ffpos d\-
affunj, "c. ^ri 5e ra ovfifiai-Xoieacrir d 0los fa6\i$is); iv.

vovra Kal airovefjttfjLeva lexêi/ov, 48 ; v. 33 ; vl 36 ft
280 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, permanence,1but all returns in course of time ;

2
of
'
the ceaseless transmutation to which even the ments

ele-
are subject; 3 of the change which conducts

even the universe to its future dissolution.4 With
these doctrines he couples these reflections : what an
unimportant part of the whole, what a transitory

phenomenon in the stream of universal life,
is each
individual ;
5 how wrong it is to set our hearts upon
the perishable,
to desire it as a good, or to fear it
as an evil ; 6 how little we ought to disturb ourselves

if we form no exception to the law which holds
good, and must hold good, for all parts of the
world,if we hastening to our dissolution.7

too are
But the more livelyis his consciousness of the
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 sub- serves
the end of the highestreason ; and this is
the conclusion of those propositions on the deity
and providence, and on the unity and perfection of
the world, to which Marcus Aurelius so often recurs.
The belief in the gods is so indispensableto man
that it would not be worth while to live in a world

without gods ; 8 and justas little can we doubt that
1 iv. 36, 43 ; v. 13, 23 ; viii. know of the existence of the

6 ; ix. 19, 28 et pass. gods whom we do not see,
2 ii. 14: ; viii. 6. Marcus Aurelius answers (xii.
3
ii. 17, end; iv. 46. 28): We believe in them be-
4
v. 13, 32. cause we experience the effects
5 23 ; ix. 32.
v, of their power ; but that we
6 iv. 42 j v. 23 ; vi. 15 ; ix. 28. do not them is not
see quite
*
ii. 17, end; viii. 18; 7, true, for they (i.e. a
x. portion
31 ; xii. 21. of them, the stars)are visible ;
8 ii. 11. If we ask how we and we believe in our souls
ORDER OF THE WORLD. 281
the Divine Providence embraces all

thingsand has CHAP.
IX'
ordered all thingsin the most perfectand beneficent
l
manner ; whether this care extends to the indi- Belief i
vidual immediately as such, or is related to him by
means of the general interdependenceof nature.2
The same divine spiritpermeates all things; as the t?ie uni~
substance of the world is one, so is its soul ; 3 it is
one rational and efficientforce which throughall

goes
things,bears in itself the germs of all things, and
bringsforth all thingsin fixed and regular succes-
sion.4
The world, therefore,forms a well-ordered
livingwhole, the parts of which are maintained in
harmony and interconnection by an internal bond,5

and all in it is regulatedfor the best,the fairest
and the most appropriateends ; the worse is made
for the sake of the better,and the irrational for the
without seeing them (cf. "iraKo\ov8r}(ny rb 5e

. . .
Xenoph. Mem. 0ebs, eS eêi vdvra tfre

8, 14). "#re
1
ii. 3 : ra r""v BeSsv irpovoiaseiKTJ,p)jKCU "rv titty. Therefore,
fJL""rrd
(xii.5) ; irdvra KaXws KOL iii. 11, 8*5 ""i e"p3ettd(rrov Ae-
dtardâvresot
(pLXavQp"iras Qeoi yetv rovro pzv irapa 8eov 7jK"i.
(ii.4,11 ; vi. 4:4:,
"C.). rovro 5e Kara r^jv "TV\XTI%IV/col
2
Marcus Aurelius allows us T^\V (firyKXoxriv^
ffv{jLfjL7jpvo/j.evT]v
to choose between these two "c. The same distinction be-
theories,whereas he repudiates tween indirect and direct di-
the third " that the gods do vine causation, between G-od
not trouble themselves about and destiny,we find PMl.d."r.
anything" as wicked and sub- HI. i. 143, 2 ; 339, 1.
versive of all religion; though xii. 30 ; ix. 8 ; iv. 40 ; Phil.
3
even were it the case he holds d. 6fr. III. i. 200, 2 ; 140.

that man could still take care
4 Ibid. in. i. 159, 2, 3 ; v. 32 :
of himself and his true welfare rbv 5ia TTJS obcrias S^/coj/ra
\6yov
(vi.44 ; vide Phil. d. Grr. III. i. ical 5f^ vavr'bs rov ai"vos Karci
163,3. Similarly ix. 28: %roi icepi6$ovsT"'raryfjL"yasoiKovofJLovvra

"(j?"Ka"rrov 6pfj.%
TJ rov cfAou did- ri" Tray.
vota, then be satisfied with it iv. 40 ; Phil. d.
5
: Gfr. III. i.
$ cwra" 8pjLty(r",
ra 5e Xonra KO.T p. 140 j 169, 1, 2.
282 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, sake of the rational.1 Even that which seems to us

IX-
burdensome and purposelesshas its good end for
the economy of the whole ; even the evils which
seem to conflict with the divine goodness and
wisdom arepart merely the inevitable reverse

in side
of the good, and in part things by which the inner
nature and happiness of man
true are untouched.2
And not content with recognisingin the usual
course of thingsthe traces of Divine Providence,An- toninus,
in the spiritof his school,does not deny
even the extraordinary revelations of God in dreamst

and of which he
auguries,3 believes himself to have
had experience; 4 on the relation of these tions

revela-
5
to the course and connection of nature he
says, however, little as concerningthe relation of

6
his gods to the popular deities ; and in other pas-
1
Loo. cit. 170, 1 ,* v. 16, 30 old Stoics so greatly (PJiil.d.
and elsewhere. 6V. III. i. 339 $#.)" "
Phil. 6
2 d. 6V. III. i. p. 174, 2; Marcus Aurelius always
175, 2 ; 176, 3 j 177, 1 ; 178, 1, 2 ; speaks in a general manner of
ii. 11 : ro'is p.ev /car* aA4)0eicw the 6 col or the 6eb$,for whom
KaKo'ts Tva fj"i d fydpv-
TrcpmiirTr} he often substitutes *
Zeus '
;
TTOS, in* wry rb irw edevro' T"V in regard to the popular deities
8e Xonroov ef ri fy Kal he doubtless followed, as Epic-
Kaicbv
TOI/TO "v wpo'foovro,"iva.
en-f? tetus did,the universal theories
r b
Trdvrfi /JL^J irspnrLirTSiv ctirtp'" of his school, but held to the
Se %efy"ftj fj.))
iroi"i faQpuirov,ircas existing public worship the
"v rovro frlov av6pcîrov xelpca more steadily,since for him as
iTQLT}ff"iev ; xii. 5, and elsewhere, head of the Roman state it was
3 ix. 27. Even to the wicked a political
necessity; and thus
we must be friendly : Kal ot we can understand how Chris-
6eol $e iravrolco? avrots ftoyQovcri,tianity appeared to him as re-
Si* bvelpwv,5i" fjLavT"i5"v. bellion against the laws of the
4 i. 17, where the ô-nQâTa State, and the constancy of
5i} oyeipca v are mentioned which the Christian martyrs as a
were imparted to himself, wanton defiance (^tX?) napd-

among other things, against raîs, xi. 3), which must be
blood-spittingand giddiness. crushed by severity. Under his
5 Which had occupied the reign,as is well known, great
FUTURE EXISTENCE. 283
sages lie altogetherrepudiates the superstitionof CHAP.
his age.1 The

primal revelation of God he con-
siders to be the human spirititself,as a part and
emanation of the Deity, the daemon within us, "
on which alone our happiness and unhappiness

depends ; and this doctrine of the kinship of man
to Grod is the third of the points which determine
his view of the universe.2 He diverges,however, Kin*Up
to
from the Stoic doctrine of man's existence after death 0@"j,an
by the theorythat the souls,some time after the paration
se-
from the body, return into the world soul or
the Deity,as the body returns into the elements.3

The central point,however, of the philosophyof
persecutions of the Christians referred to in iv. 14 :
took place (Zeller, Vortr. und ( = ev T(p 5X

AJbh"ndl. i. 106 s^.)
In i. 6, he says
1 in praise of es TOV
Diognetus that he owes to him \6yov OVTOV rbv cnrep/jLariK^v

ttbv TOLS Vlib TU"V T6- Kara juerajSoA^j/
; v. 13 : "% al-
KO.I
yQ'flT"V irepl Kal vXtKov a"vvea'T7jKa'
ireplfiaifJi6vMV OTTO- 5e TOVTCOV els
Kal
rrijs r"v roio-inrfav Xeyofj.4-
vots. ovros inrearTi, "c. Of. further
2 Of. on this subject, to xii. 5 ; how is it consistent
which he often recurs, the with the divine justice that
quotations,Phil, d, Gr. III. i. even the most pious persons
p. 200, 2 ; 319, 2. die, in order not to return
3 Marc. Aur. ii.1 7 ; iii.3 ;iv. 14,
21 ; v. 4, 13 ; vii. 32 ; viii.25, 58. aldts yveffat, aX\ es r" vav-
The most strikingof these sages

pas- T"\es 1
aweo'"TjKevai) to which
is iv. 21 .
As bodies which the answer is not that the supposition
pre-
are buried last for a time, but is false,but rather
then decay, ovrws at eh rbv rovro 5e eftre/?Kal ovroos ^X"l?"^
aidepa fiedLffrdu-evai
$v%al, H-iii laBi #T", el "$ (this is to be
[j.era"dXXova'iomitted, or
Tfoffbv crvfjifieivacratj else to be replaced
Kal xeovrai Kal e^dirrovrai,
els by Trojy)erepcos eêiy e5et,îroirj-
rbv cnrepfiariKby
TV*V ftXtav \6yov "rav "v. Also ii. 17, end j v. 33 ;
Kal rovrov
ava\afjiâv6fj,"vai,l rbv viii. 18; iz. 32 j x. 7, 31; xi.
TpoTfov "ywpav Tats irpoffffwoiKtô- 3 ; xii. 1, 21, 31.
r irapexovffi. The same is
284 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. Antoninus lies,as has been said,in the moral life of

'
man, and here his likeness to Epictetuscomes out most
MMcs. strongly; but the difference of their nationalityand

social position made it inevitable that the Eoman
emperor should displayin his theory of the world a
strongercharacter and maintain the duties of the

individual towards societymore emphaticallythan
the Phrygianfreedman. For the rest, we find with
him also that the fundamental determinations of
his ethics are the dependence of man upon himself,
to
resignation the will of Grod,and the warmest and
most boundless love of man.1 '
Why dost thou dis-
'
turb thyselfabout others ? he says to man ; retire
into thyself
; only within dost thou find rest and
into
wellbeing;reflect thyself;be careful of the
upon
daemon within thee; loose thy true self from all
that clingsto it in a merely external fashion ; con-
sider
that nothing external can affect thy soul,

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
changeableand futile, that only within thee streams
1 Aurelius
Marcus himself in effect asserted in v. 33 ; the
often brings forward these essential thing is 0eota fj.ev {re-
virtues, sometimes all three, j8eu"Kal avdptiirovs

ev^petv, 8e
sometimes only two of them, as e3 voieiv, /cal aye'xe"r0cu avr"v
the chief point. So in the pas- "oi a-7re'xe"r0at
(of. p. 270, 6).
sage quoted sup. p. 278, 3 j 279,1, oVa 8" e'/crtagpajz/ rov KpeaSiov
he mentions purity and freedom Kal rov irvevfAartov, ravra
ûeu-
of the inner life,and submis- vrjo-daip^re "r" Svra, ^re M
sion to the course of the uni- "roL But as he does not at-
verse, iii.4 ; and togetherwith tempt any systematic enume-
these a recollection of the kin- ration, cannot
we expect any
ship of all men and the duty consistency from him in this
of caring for all. The same is respect.
PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE. 285
an inexhaustible fountain of happiness,that the CHAP.
passionlessreason is the only citadel

'
in which man
must take refuge if he would be invincible.1 His

rational activityis the only thing in which a being
endowed with reason has to seek his happinessand
his goods ; 2 everythingelse,all that does not stand
in connection with the moral constitution of man,
is neither a good nor an evil.3 He who confines

himself to his internal nature, and has freed him-
self
from all
things external,in him every wish and
every appetiteis extinguished, he is every moment
satisfied with the present,he accommodates himself

with unconditional submission to the course of the
ie
universe ; he believes that nothing happens except ^ Of
the will of Grod ; that that which advantages the """""
whole and lies in its nature must be the best for
him also; that nothing can happen to a man
which he cannot make into material for a rational
activity.4 For himself he knows no higher task

than to follow the law of the whole, to honour the
god in his bosom by strict morality,to fillhis place5

at every moment as a man (and as a Roman, adds
the imperialphilosopher),
and to look forward to the
end be it
of his life, sooner or later,with the serene
1
ii. 13 ; iii. 4, 12 ; Iv. 3, 7, i. p. 177, 2 ; 178, 1. Hence the
8, 18 ; v. 19, 34 ; vii. 28, 59 ; principle (x. 40 ; cf. v. 7) that
Tiii. 48 ; xii. 3 et passim. men should not ask external
2 Phil. d. Or. III. i. p. 210, prosperityfrom God, but only
2, 3 ; 212, 4. the dispositionwhich neither
3 Ib. HI. i. 216, 1 ; 218, 1 ; desires nor fears what is ex-
viii. 10 ; iv. 39. ternal.

x. 1 ; iii. 12 ; ii. 3, 16 ; iv.
5 ii. 5, 6,
4
13, 16, 17 ; iii. 5,
23, 49 ; vi. 45 ; x. 6 ; viii. 7, 35 16. "c.
et passim. Cf. PML d. ffr. III.
286 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, cheerfulness which simply content

is with the
IX"
thought of that which is according to nature.1 But
how can man feel himself part of the world, and

subordinate himself to the law of the universe
without at the same time regarding himself as a
member of humanity and finding in work for hu-

manity
his worthiest 2 and how he do this
task ? can
if he does not bestow upon his more immediate

fatherland all the attention which his position
Lore to demands of him ? 3
Not even the unworthy mem-
m n'
bers of human society are excluded by Antoninus
from his love. He reminds us that it befits man to
love even the weak and erring,to take interest even
in the ungratefuland hostile ; he bids us consider

that all men are our kindred,that in all the same
divine spiritdwells ; that we cannot expect to find
no wickedness in the world, but that even the
sinning sin
only involuntarilyand because they do
not perceivewhat is reallybest for them ; that he
who does wrong harms only himself; our own
essential nature can be harmed by no action of

another's wrongdoing ; he requires,therefore,that
we should be hindered by nothing in doing good,
that we should either teach men or bear with them,
and instead of being angry or surprised at their
should
faults, only compassionateand forgivethem.4
We know how consistently
Antoninus himself acted
1
For further details cf Phil. .
(pi\"7vKal robs irralovras, "c. ;
d. @r. III. i. p. 286, p. 301 sg. I o. c. 26 ; ii. 1, 16 ; lit 11,
2
./". p. 297, 2, 3. "c.; iv. 3; v. 25; viii. 8, 14,
3
Ib:III. i. 297, 2, 3. 59 j ix. 4, 42; xi. 18; xii. 12,
4 vii. 22 : ffiiov av6p""irov
ri" et passim,.
CHARACTER OF LATER STOICISM. 287
to these precepts.1 From "his life, from Ms CHAP.

Tip as
words, there comes to us a nobility of soul, a purity '
of mind, a conscientiousness, a loyalty to duty,2 a
mildness, a piety, and love of man which in that tury,

cen-
and on the Koman imperial throne, we must
doubly admire. That the Stoic philosophy in times
of the deepest degradation of morals could form a
Musonius, an Epictetus, a Marcus Aurelius, will
always redound to its imperishable glory. But it
made no scientific through these men and

progress ;
though the severity of the Stoic moral doctrine was
modified by them, though the feelings of lence

benevo-
and self-sacrificing love to man attained with
them a strength and reality which we do not find in
the ancient Stoicism, yet this gain, great as it is in
itself, cannot compensate for the want of a more
methodical and exhaustive philosophic enquiry.3
1
Zeller, Vovtr. und Abhandl. mand for strict self-examina-
i. 96 98 101 tion.
sgr. ; sq. : s%.
in 3 In the
2 As is seen,
for example, regard to ids
anthropo-
repeated expressions of dis- logy and theology of Marcus
satisfaction with himself (iv. Aurelius, something further
37 v. 5 x. 8) and in his de- will be said later on.

j ;
238 ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTER X.
THE CYNICS OF THE IMPERIAL ERA.
FROM this later Stoicism the contemporary Cynicism

" " "
is only distinguishedby the onesidedness and
B. The thoroughness with which it followed the same
direction. Stoicism had originally formed itself out

of Cynicism,for the Cynic doctrine of the ence
independ-
of the virtuous will had furnished the basis
of a more comprehensive and scientific view of
the world, and in consequence of this was itself
placed in a truer relation with the claims of

nature and of human life. If this theoretic basis
of neglected,Stoicism reverted to
morality were
the standpoint of Cynicism, the individual was
restricted for his moral activityto himself and his

personalendeavour after virtue : instead of creating
the rules of his conduct from his knowledge of the
nature of thingsand of men,
obligedto resort he was
to his immediate consciousness, his personal tact

and moral impulse ; philosophy,instead of a science,
and a rule of life founded upon science,became a
mere determination of character,if not an entirely

external form, and it was inevitable that in this sided
one-
subjective
acceptationit should not seldom be
LATER CYNICS, 289
at strife with general custom and even with legiti- CHAP.

x
mate moral claims. We may observe this tendency
of Stoicism towards Cynicism in the later Stoics,
in
especially Musonius and Epictetus; indeed,the
expressly designatesand describes the
latter true
philosopher
as a Cynic. On the same road we also
encounter the school of the Sextii,though these,

so far as we know, did not call themselves Cynics ;
and it is undeniable .
that the conditions which tinguish
dis-
the last century of the Eoman Republic
and the first of the Imperial Government "
the
universal immorality and luxury, and the pressure

weighing upon all
"
gave a sufficient opening for
meeting the distress and corruption of the time in
the same way as had been

analogousbut done under
much more mitigated circumstances by Diogenes
and Crates.1 Soon after the beginning of the Revival of
Christian era we again hear of the Cynics, and "^ni^m

J 3
won Gjjt"r
under that name is united a numerous host, partly the "?-
of genuine, partly of merely nominal philosophers,t^Ckril

who, with open contempt for all purely scientific tia"lfl"ra-
activity,set before them as their only task the
liberation of man from unnecessary wants, idle
endeavours, and disturbingmental emotions; who

herein far more than the Stoics set themselves
definitelyin opposition,even by their dress and

mode of life,to the mass of men and their customs,
and came forward as professedpreachers of morals

and moral overseers over the rest. That under this
mask a number of impure elements were hidden,

3
Cf, Bernays, Litcian und die Kymker, 27 *g.
U
290 .
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, that a great part,perhapsthe greaterpart, of these

x'
ancient mendicant monks, through their obtrusive-
ness, shamelessness,and charlatanism, through their
coarse and rude behaviour, through their extortions
and and, despitetheir beggarlylife,

impositions, even
through their covetousness, brought the name of
philosophyinto contempt, is undeniable,and may be

provedfrom Lucian alone; but we shall find that the
its adhe- l
new Cynicalschool,like its predecessor,had never-

theless
a nucleus worthy of esteem. But even the
better Cynics are of little importance in a scientific
point of view.
1
E.g. De inorte Peregrini',
Piscat. 44 sq. 48 ; Symp. il s%. ; ,
"c. ; and about the
Fugit. 16 ; also Nigr. 24. lar
Simi- same period Dio Chrysost.(Or.
complaints had been raised 34, p. 33 E.) says, with refe-
by others. Seneca warns his .
rence to the philosophic dress,
Lucilius (JEp.5, 1) against the he knows well that those who
strange manner of life of those are seen in it call themselves
qui non proficeresed conspici Cynics and regard themselves
cupiunt, against the cultus as- as jMLiifOfjLevovs rivets avQp"Trovs
per, the cajmt, the
mtonsum Kal raXanr"povs. The plaints
com-
negligentior the
"ba/rba^ indiotum of Lucian are echoed
argcnto odium, the ctibile Tiumi by his contemporary Aristides,
positum, et quicyuid aliitd am- the rhetorician (De Quatuorv.
"bitio perversa via, sequitur, all p. 397 sqq. ; Bind, cf Bernays,
.
traits of the new Cynicism: Lucian 'wnct, die Kyn. p. 38,

and there is also reference to 100 From these passages,
^.)-
it,no doubt, in Up. 14, 14 (cf. to which may be added Lucian,
103, 5): non contur"bal)it sapiens Dial. Mort. 1, 1, 2 ; Galen,
piiblieos
mores nee populwn in Dig ii. An. Peec. 3, vol. v. 7l,
se vitce novitate convertet. Kpic- we see also wherein the external
tetus also (iii.22, 50) sharply tokens of the
Cynic life con-
sisted
discriminates between the ner
in- : in the mantle, of ten very
freedom and the outer ragged, worn by these philoso-
phers,
moral qualities of the true the uncut beard and
Cynic; and that which many hair, the staff and wallet, and
substitute for these irv\pi$iov
: the whole rough mendicant
Kal i-v\ov Kal yvdBoi /u.eyd\ai'life, the ideals of which were
iray b "av 8""s,
^ cwro- a Crates and a Diogenes.
3}TO?S cLTravruffi Xot-

DEMETRIUS.
The first who

philosophers assumed the Cynics' CHAP.
name and mode of life are to be met with about the
middle, and before the middle, of the first Christian
century,1and the most prominent man of the school
at this date appears to have been Demetrius, the friend
of Seneca and of Thrasea Psetus.2 Greatly,how-
1 Cicero always treats Cynic- The Menippus to whom Lucian

Ism as a phenomenon belonging In the Icaromenippm and a
to the past ; yet the passage in great portion of

Dialogues the
Of. i. 41, 148 (Cynicorum vero of the Dead has given the chief
ratio tota est ejitiefida,
; est roles, is unmistakably the
enim inimica verecundice)seems Cynic of the third century
to be aimed against panegy-
rists B.C., famous for Ms Satires,
of the Cynic life. Some-
what who had already written a
later Brntns (Pint. JBrut. Ne/cwa (Diog. vi. 101): Lucian
34) names M. Favonius (who (Accvs. 33) also calls him Mey-
is mentioned, sup. p. 74, foot, anr6s ris rtav itaXaitav KWCOV
among the Stoics)with expres-

sions [j,d\avKoLKTiKos ; treats him as
descriptiveof the Cynics a contemporary of the events

(airXoKvuv and ^/evSo/nJojj/), but of the third century (Icavomen.
we cannot certainly Infer from 15), and mentions Ms
having
this that there was a Cynic killed himself (Dial. Mart. 10,
school. Under Augustus is said 11), cf. Part II. a; 246, 3.
to have lived that Menippus The supposed contemporary of
who plays so great a part in Augustus seems to have arisen
Lucian in Luc. Piseat.
(SeJiol. out of an arbitrary combina-
tion
26 ; Iv. 97 Jac.)"and he is also of this Menippus with
said to have been identical the Menippus of Philostratus,
with Menippus the Lycian, who was, moreover, assigned
whose ad ventures with a Lamia much too early a date. The
are related
by Philostratus first Cynics capable of histori-
cal
(Apoll. iv. 25), while at the proof will be named in the
same time he calls him a ciple
dis- following note.
of Demetrius the Cynic 2 This contemporary of neca,
Se-
(Ibid. iv. 39 ; 43).v. Of these who often mentions him,
*
statements only is the
not was, according to Benef, vii.
second spective11, already in
manifestly false (irre- Rome under
of the Lamia); for Caligula, and was offered by
Demetrius did not live in the the Emperor a giftof 200,000
reign of Augustus, even posing sesterces, which, however,
sup- he
that he had a disciple declined. We find Mm in Rome'
called Demetrius ; but the first under Nero (Sen. JSenef. vii
is also untrue, though it was 1,3; 8, 2; ^.67, 14; 91,19).
formerly universally accepted. The utterances of Seneca on
TJ 2
292 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. ever, as this philosopher

is admired by Seneca,1and
X. his freedom from
advantageouslyas wants contrasts
his poverty and Ms manner of who mention him, as a Cynic.

life (Vit. Beat. 183) date from Nothing is known as to any
this time QIOG pauperiorem, writings left by him. ing
Accord-
to Eunap. V. Soph. Procem.
qua/m ceteros Cynicos,quod,cum
siU interdixerit liabere,inter- p. 6, Musonius and Carneades
dixit JEp.20, 9 (ego
et posoere'), were, as well as Menippus,
certe aliter audio, qua (Licit contemporary with Demetrius.
Demetrius noster, cum ilium Two of these names, however
vidi nudum, quanta minus, (Menippus and Musonius), he
in xtramentis, inciiban- doubtless merely takes from
quam
tem), Hip. 62, 3 (he lives, nan Philostratus (vide sup. pp. 291,
tamquam contempserit omnia, 1; 246, 3), and we know not
how much of what Philostratus
the word of Epic- says has any historical tion
founda-
tetus (JDiss.i. 25, 22), and the ; as to Carneades we can
anecdote in Lucian, Saltatory form no judgment, as he is
63. When Thrasea Psetus was mentioned nowhere else. But
put to death (67 A.D.),whose that there were other Cynics
intimate friend he was, he in Rome at the time of metrius
De-
raised Ms voice in opposition is plain from the going
fore-
(Tac. Ann. xvi. 34 s#.)"anc^ statements, and the
still more to his own tage,
disadvan- quotations (p. 290, 1) from
after the accession of Seneca. One of these Cynics,
Vespasian undertook the de-
fence by name Isodorus, who on count
ac-
of Egnatius Celer (Tac. of Ms biting words had
Hist. iv. 40 ; cf .
been
Ann. exiled by Nero
xvi. 32), from
On account of injurious Italy,
his is mentioned by Sueton.
expressions concerning Ves- pasian (Nero, 39).
he was banished (71 1
JEtenef.vii. 1, 3, he calls
A.D.) to an island, but his tinued
con- him : Vir meo judicio magnus
insults were not further etiamsi maximis comparetur ;
punished (Dio Cass. Ixvi. 13; and in I. c. 8, 2, he says of him :
Sueton. Vesp. 13). In Lucian, Quern,milii videtur rerum na-
Adv. 2nd. 19, he appears in tura nostris tulisse temporibus^

Corinth ; in Philostratus, ApolL ut ostenderet,nee ilium a noHs
iv. 25 ; v. 19, we meet with corrumpi nee nos ab illo corrigi
him in the reign of Nero at posse, mrum eocactce,licet neget
Athens and Corinth ; subse-
quently ipse,sapientitB,"c. Cf. Ep. 62.
he was recommended According to Philostr. ApolL iv.
by Apollonius.of Tyana to 25, Favorinus had also greatly
Titus (vi.31), and in the reign praisedhim. He appears in a
of Domitian was still in the less brilliant light in what

company of that necromancer has just been quoted from
(vii.
42 ; viii.10 s##.); but these Tacitus, Dio Cassius, and tonius.
Sue-
statements untrustworthy.
are
He is described by most of those

DEMETRIUS. 203
with, the luxury of the Roman world, his philosophic CHAP.

value cannot be estimated very highly. At any _1_L__
rate, there have come down to us no remarkable
thoughtsof his,and the meagreness of the tradition
renders it probable that none of any importance

were known. He recommends his scholars not to
trouble themselves with much knowledge, but to
exercise themselves in a few rules of life for practical

use ;
l he appealswith impressive eloquenceto their
moral consciousness ;2 he expresses cynical with
rudeness his contemptuous opinion of others;3 he
opposes himself with bitter scorn to the threats of
the despot;4 he welcomes outward misfortunes as
a means of moral training,and resigns himself

willinglyand joyfullyto the will of Grod.5 In all
this there is nothing that a Stoic might not also
have said ; and even his lightestimation of learning

and knowledge Demetrius shares,at any rate, with
the Stoicism of his time. The peculiarityof his
Cynicism therefore lies only in the severity with

which he stamps his principleson his life.
1
Sen. Benef. vii. 1, 3 *#. ances concerning- Vespasian,
What follows, however, from and Sen. Mp. 91, 9, who quotes
" 5 onwards, is, as well as c. 9, from him : Eod"m, loco sioi esse
10, Seneca's own dissertation. voces imperitorum, cpio centre

2
In I, e. 8, 2 : He was elo- redditos crepvtwt. *
Quid enim,
ejus,quce
q\ienti(B res foriissimOrS inquit, mea refert,swsvm isti
9
deceat, non co7icinnat"z nee in an deormm gonent ? If Seneca
eQer~b" solliettte, sed vngenti applies the word elega/nter
to
animo, prcnct inpetm tuttt,res these words, this is a matter
su as proseqfitentis. of taste.
3 Cf .
Lucian, Adv. Indoct. 19, 4 Li Epikt. Dus. 1 25, 22, he
where he takes the book out of says to Nero : awei\ets poi 8"va-
the hand of a bad reader, and rav, "rol 8s % ""tScns.
tears pieces. Further, his
it in 5 Sen. Promd. 3, 3 j 5 j 5 ;
previously mentioned utter- J$j).

67, 14.
294 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. Of the Cynicsof the periodimmediately follow-

ing,1
X. down to
some details have come us respecting
(Enomaus of Gradara,who is said to have lived under
(Enomaus
of Ga- 1
the it otherwise, the
Besides Cynics tioned
men- even were
darci. when Demetrius
supra, p. 291, 2, the lowing time
fol- lived
names are connected can only be approximately cluded
con-
with this school, of which, how-

ever, from Agatho
c. 34. -
our knowledge is very im- bulus

perfect. in Egypt (Lucian, De-
mon.
Under Vespasian lived 3; Peregrin. 17) must
Diogenes and Heras, of also be counted among the
whom, on account of their Cynics of this period. Under
abuse of the imperial family, Antoninus Pius and his cessor
suc-
the former was scourged and lived Dem onax, Pere-

the latter beheaded (Dio Cass. grinus, and his pupil Thea-
Ixvi. 15); and probably also genes, of whom we shall
Hostilius (7.c. 13),who was speak later on; also Honora-
banished with Demetrius. tus (Luc. Demon. 19, where it
Under Domitian Trajan
or we is related of him that he was
must place Didymus with clothed in a bearskin, and that

the surname of Planetiades (if Demonax, therefore, called him
he was an historical person),in and
'Ap/cecr/Aaos) Herophilus
whose mouth Plutarch, De Def. (Icaromen. 16) seem to be his-
torical
Orae. c. 7, 413, puts a sarcasm persons, Crato, on the
against the oracle ; under contrary
drian,
Ha- (Luc. De Saltat. i.$##.)
besides (Enomaus (vide imaginary. To the period of
infra\ perhaps that trius
Deme- Antoninus likewise belongs
of whom it is related Pancratius, who lived in
(Lucian, Tax, 27 ###.) that he Athens and in Corinth (Phi-
came to Alexandria to devote lostr. F. Soph. i. 23, 1), and
himself under the guidance of Crescens, the accuser of Jus-
tin
a certain Bhodius (or of a the Martyr (Justin.Apol.
Rhodian ?) to the Cynic philo-
sophy, ii. 3; Tatian, Adv. Gent. 19;
that he tended his Eus. Hist. Ecel. iv. 16, "c.) ;
unjustly-accusedfriend Anti- to the period of Severus, An-
philus with the greatest self- tiochus, the- Cilician, whom
denial in prison,and finallyac-
cused that emperor esteemed because
himself in order to share he set his soldiers example
an
his fate. When their cence
inno- of endurance (Dio Cass. Ixxvii.
was brought to lighthe 19 ; cf.
Bernays, Lucian und
gave over to his friend the siderable
con- die Xyn. 30). After this time
compensation which there is a gap in our knowledge
he received, and himself went of the Cynic philosophers ex- tending
to India to the Brahmans. The over a hundred and
historical truth of this rence,
occur- fiftyyears, but the continuance
however, is as little cer-
tain of the school is beyond question.
as the authenticity of the When Asclepiades lived,
treatise which affirms it; and who, according to Tertullian,
(ENOMAUS. 295
the reign of Hadrian.1 Julian reproachesMm for CHAP.
destroyingin his writingstlie fear of the gods,for

despisinghuman reason, and tramplingunder foot 2
all laws,human he says,
and divine ; his tragedies,
are beyond all descriptionshameful and terous

prepos-
;
3 and if in this verdict the horror of the
pious for the despiser of the popular

emperor
religionhas perhaps no small share,we must still
suppose that GEnomaus must have

departed in a
strikingmanner from the prevailingcustoms and
mode of thought. In the lengthyfragments from

againstthe Jugglers,'which Eusebius " 4
his treatise
has preservedfor us,5we find a polemic as violent as
it is outspoken against the heathen oracles,in the
Ad travelled
Nat. ii. 14:, through 3 LOG. tit. p. 210 D. When
distant lands with a cow; or Suidas, Aioyerrjs fy Olv6fi.calls
Sphodrias, is quoted by
who (Enomaus a writer of tragedies,
Athen. 5, with a ri'xy'nwhose name
iv. 162 was also Diogenes,
epariicf); or the Cynics named and who lived in Athens after
Phot. Cod. 167, p. 114, 5 23, the fall of the Thirty Tyrants,
ap.
among the authorities of Sto- this statement seems to be
baeus" viz.,Hegesianax, Po- founded on a confused lection
recol-
lyzelus, Xanthippus, of this passage, where
Theomnestus " we do not tragedies are mentioned, dedi-
cated
know. to Diogenes or to his
1 Heplaced in that period disciple Philistus
is (Philiscus,
by Syncellus,p. 349 B. The cf. vol. ii. a, 244, 2), and
statement of Suidas, Qiv6p.that then tragediesof (Enomaus are
he was a little older phyry, spoken of.

than Por-
is perhaps inferred from 4 The title of this book runs
the circumstance that Eusebius thus, according to Eus. Prcep.
(with whose more count, MJ.
definite ac- v. 18, 3; 21, 4; vi. 6,52;
however, Syncellus was Theod. Cur. Gr"r"zc.Affect, (par.
acquainted) Pr"p. EG. v. 19 1642) vi. p. 561 : yofyrwy (fxapct.,
him immediately named less accuratelyby Julian
$$$., discusses
before Porphyry, and calls Mm vii. 209, B : rb KO,T" x/wjtrrTjpW.
(C.18, 3) ris T"V vewv.
5
Prcep* Ekang* v. c. 19-36,
2 draft,
vii. p. 209 B. Spanh. vi. 6.
cf. vi. 199 A.
296 ECLECTICISM.
l
CHAP. of cynicalfreethinking
spirit ; but it is based on no
X.
properlyphilosophicarguments ; and in connection
with it QEnomaus likewise turns againstthe fatalism
of the Stoics,
and exalts in its stead free-will as the
rudder and foundation of human declaring

life, it to
be as much an incontrovertible fact of consciousness
as our itself,and expoundingthe irrecon-

existence cilability
of foreknowledgewith freedom, and of
fatality with moral responsibility.2In these utter-
ances
we recognisethe self-dependence of the man
who, in spiteof his Cynicism,would be a follower

neither of Antisthenes nor of Diogenes;3 but he
was doubtless neither inclinedadaptedfor any

nor
deeperstudyof philosophic
questions.
The famous Demonax4 also, who was highly
esteemed in Athens, and extolled in a treatise
1 similar
Expressionsentirely c. 3) had enjoyed the tions
instruc-
are put into the mouth of the of the Cynics Agathobulus
representativeof Cynicism by and Demetrius (supra,p. 291 ;
Plutarch, Def. Orac. 7, p. 413. 294,1) and of the
Stoics Epic-
Moreover, cf.m/ra,p,298, 3,and tetus and Timocrates (#gpra,pp.
PMl d. Gr. II. i. 280 s##. ; Ber- 197, 256); he afterwards lived
nays, 1. c. 30 $%%. in Athens, and died there when
2 LOG. dit. vi. 7, 11 a#. (The- almost a century old, having
doret, I, c.) with tion:the
proposi- starved himself to death on
ISoi/ 7"p, $ rp6irq"^JMOOV account of the advancing weak-
ness
avrcav TOTL"T"P teal
a.vreiX'hfJLju.eOa, of old age (Z,c. c. 63 *"".),
r"v ev TjfjuvavQatperuv
KOI fiiaicw* but as he still had intercourse
But of self-consciousness it was with Herodes Atticus (c.24, 33)
previously said: OVK "\\o tKavbv in this latter period, he may,
ovrcas cos- % cruj/a""r07j"m
re teal perhaps,have lived till160 A.p.,
avrwv, or even longer. The treatise
8
Julian, Orat. vi. p. 187 C : said to be by Lucian shows (as
d Kwitfiibs otfre 3AvTi"rO"i/i"r]j.6s
Bernays, Z. c., remarks), by the
ktfTW 01JT" A.LOy"VtfffJl.6s. way in which Herodes is alluded
*
Cyprus of a good
Born in to, that it was not written till
family,Demonax (accordingto after his death 176 A.D.
DEMONAX. 297
bearingLucian's name,1 Is much more distinguished CHAP.

x*
by his character than, by his science.2 From QEno
maus he differs chieflyin that he tried to mitigate
the severities of the Cynic mode of thought,and to
reconcile it with life and its necessities ; in other
respectshe is
considerably
in harmony with it. As
QEnomkns had neither held strictly
to a definite
system nor troubled himself at all about any tific

scien-
knowledge, so Demonax, according to the

assurance of his biographer,3
carried his eclecticism
to such an extent that it is difficult to say which
of his
philosophicalpredecessors he preferred.
He himself,to all outward proclaimed
appearance,
himself a Cynic,without,however, approving of the
exaggerationsof the party;but in his own ter

charac-
he chose for a model the mild, benevolent,
and moderate temper of Socrates,4
and
large- was
hearted enough to esteem Aristippusside by side

with Socrates and Diogenes.5 His principalefforts
were directed to the liberation of mankind from
all things external: for the man who is free,said
he, alone is happy; and he only is free who hopes
1 Bekker has denied that it for suspicion as to its credi-

is Lucian's, and
Bernays (Lu- bility.
has 2
dan und die
Kyn. 104 sg.*) Concerning his gentle, hu-
def ended this opinion with very mane, and amiable character,
important arguments. But that his imperturbable cheerfulness,
its author, who nowhere
gives his efforts for the moral welfare
himself out to be
Lucian, was of those around him, and the
really a contemporary of his extraordinary veneration he
hero, and had intercourse with thereby acquired, cf Lucian, .
him for many (eirl /djf""r~Z. c.

years c. 5-11 ; 57 j 63 ; 67.
have 3 Demon.
TQV "rvv"ryev6fji'r)v,
c. 1), we 5.
no reason to doubt, nor is there 4 LOG. dt. 5-9 ; cf .
19 ; 21
;
any internal reason in his work 48 ; 52. s
LOG. dt. 62.
298 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, nothing and fears

nothing,being convinced of the
'
of all men.1
transitoriness and paltriness In order
to resignnothingof this independence he abstained
from marriage; 2 but he seems to have specially

included in it, in the true spirit of Cynicism,freedom
from the prejudices of the popularreligion; he him-
self
was indicted because he never offered sacrifices,
and despisedthe Eleusinian mysteries,and he ceals

con-
neither in his defence nor elsewhere his low
opinionof existingworship.3 In his suicide and

the
his indifference to burial,4 we recognisethe disciple

of Antisthenes and Zeno ; and though the departure
from this life,accordingto the Stoic doctrine,must
open an entrance to a higher life, Demonax, like

Pansetius and Epictetus,disclaimed this view.5 As
to any scientific enquiry, however, we hear as little
on this point as on any other. The philosopher
considers his task to be solelythe exercise of
1
Lucian, Demon. 20 ; cf .
c. 4: : make them acquainted with
rl *6Xov ejue/teA^/cet
avr$ them.
jUTj"ej/bs- In c. 27 he refused to
"X\ov eB/at.
Trpoo-Sea
"
enter a temple to pray ; for

* Cf. the anecdote quoted God, he said, could hear him
supra, p. 274, 1. just as well in any other place ;

3 LOG. oit. 11. To the com- and in c. 37 he confounded a
plaintthat he did not sacrifice soothsayer with the dilemma :
to Athena he replied he had either he must believe himself

hitherto refrained, ovSe 70^ to have the power of altering
$"?"r0c" avrfyv wap* e/uou
T"V the decrees of fate, or his art
6v"uS"v ; and when
vir"\dppavoj/ was worthless,
censured in respect to the * Loo. cit. 65 sg.
mysteries, he said that he did s LOG. oit. c.32: "\\ov 5e irore
not get himself initiated,be- tyon"ov, el bOdvaros avrQ 77

cause it would be impossible T^WX^ So/cei eTâi;bOdvaros, e^"^,
for him not to speak to the a\\* "s irdvra. Cf. c. 8, where
uninitiated about them ; in he says that in a word, x^07? ns
order, if the mysteries were hyaQ"v Kal KUKUV Kal ^\ev9epta
bad, to warn them against /zawp^ irdvras fr o\lycp /cara-
them, and if they were good, to Aêrcw.
PEREGRINUS. 209
practicalinfluence on those around Mm, and the CHAP.
means to this end is with him, as with Diogenes, U

not so much instruction as counsel, and before all
things,ready and trenchant wit, the old weapon of

the Cynics,which he in most cases employed very
skilfully.Cynicism appears, indeed, in his person
in its most
interestingand attractive shape, but
still with the same
essentially features which have
alreadybeen long familiar to us.
In contradistinction to this ideal picturewe find Peregri-

nm'
a caricature in Lueian's descriptionof Peregrinus,1
who bears the According to
cognomen of Proteus.2
him, this Cynic escaped from a reckless and profli-

gate
youth first to Christianity and then to Cyni-
cism,
the most absurd and disgustingexcesses of
which he adopted, until at last the wish of making
himself talked about induced him, half againsthis
will and in constant strugglewith the fear of death,
to throw himself into the flames of a funeral pyre
3
1
n. TTJS UepeyptvovreXevTTJs. found in the treatise of Zelle
Of modern writers concerning already quoted. In that of
Peregrinus and the literature Lucian, ride, concerning the
relating to him, cf Eckstein, .
excesses imputed to him, c. 9 ;
EncyHop. v. Ersch. it, Gniber, the murder of his father, of
sect. iii. vol. xvi. sub wee ; which he is accused, c. 10, 14
Zeller, Vortr. u. Afihandl. ii. sg.; his relation to the Chris-
173 sq. ; Bernays, IMC. u. d. tians, and the imprisonment
Kynik"r, 21, and Z. "?.,p. 65, the which he suffered in
cpnse-
translation and commentary of quence, c. 11-14 ; Ms intro-
the treatise bearing the name duction through Agathobulus
of Lucian. to the Cynic philosophy(supra,
a He first received this name, p. 294, 1); his arrival in Italy,
according to Gellius, 2V".A. sii. c. 18 ; his
burning himself to
11, 1, after the time when that death (which is also mentioned
author made his acquaintance ; in Athenag. Suppl. 23 ; Tert*
what it means we are not told. Ad Mart. 4 ; PMlostr. V. Soph.
3
Further details will be ii. 1, 33), c. 20 $##. Some few
300 ECLECTICISM.
.CHAP, at the Olympic games in the year 165 A.D. But

the most serious of these charges are too ciently
insuffi-
.
attested l
by Lucian's testimony,the uncer-
tainty
of which he himself cannot entirelyconceal,

to allow of our unconditionallyendorsinghis judg-
ment
of Peregrinus. If we separate from his
account all that is internallyimprobable,this Cynic
appears as a man who was sincere in his endeavours
after virtue and austerity,but was, at the same
time, always exaggeratingand pushing forward his

principlesto an absurd extreme,2 finallyinvesting
even suicide " in regardto which he has so many allies
in the Stoic and Cynic school " with theatrical pomp,
in order to produce the most effect possible.3
striking
There is other evidence to show that he asserted the
claims of his school with some exaggeration; 4 but
praisesthe earnestness
Orellius and steadiness of his
character,5and the value and usefulness of his
years after his death, previous Attlcus, he is said to have tried

to the year 180 B.C., Athenagoras to raise an insurrection against
(I.0.),in agreement with Luc. the Eomans (Luc. 18 sg.).
c. 27 $([".41, speaks of an oracu-
s
The fact of this suicide
lar statue of Peregrinus which (which has been disputed by
stood in the market-place of A. Planck, Theol. 8tud. in Krit.
his native city. 1811, 834 $g., 843 ; and Baur,
1
Cf.Zell"c,Vwtr. ii. 175 sg.; MrehengescJi. ii. 412), accord-
Bernays, 52 sqq. ing to all the above quotations,
2
If he was thrown as a is beyond a doubt.
Christian into prison while his 4 Luc. Demon. When Pere-
fellow-Ohristians remained un- grinus said to Demonax, on
molested, he must have given account of his cheerfulness :
occasion to this by his beha- oi" KVVO.S, the latter replied,riepe-

viour ; he was banished from ypwf9 ofac Mpcairlgeis.
Italy on account of his abuse 5 He calls him (Z. "?.)mr
of the Emperor; in Greece, grams eb constant, whom he
besides his quarrels with the often visited in his hut before
Eleans and his attacks (also the city,and whose lectures he
'mentioned by Philostratus, F. attended.
Soph. ii. 1, 33) on Herodes
THEAGENES. 301
doctrines,1
and quotes a discourse of Ms, in winch he CHAP.
s-
says that a man should not avoid wickedness through _ .......
fear of punishment, but from love to the good ; and

the wise man would do this even though his action
remained hidden from gods and men ; but he who
has not made so much progress in morals still
may
be restrained from wickedness by the thought that
allwrong-doing comes to lightin the end. \Ve are
acquainted,however, with no scientific achievement
either of Peregrinus or his scholar Theagenes,2or,
indeed, of any of these later Cynics.
But for the very reason Cynicism wasthat this
far more a mode of life than a scientific conviction,
it was able to outlast the vicissitudes of the philo-
sophic
systems, and to maintain itself down to the
latest periods of Greek philosophy. Even in the
second half of the fourth century the Emperor
Julian found occasion for those two discourses
againstthe Cynics,which give us a pictureso favourable,

un-
but at the same time probably not
essentially
untrue, of this school at that time.3
1 Zoc. cit. : MultOf Ji"rcle di- Kvvas. Or. vii. : irpbs '
cere ewn utiliter "t lioneste au- "KwiKby, "jr""s Kvvi.a"r4ov. For
divimus. Of. the same authority example, cf .
Or. vii. 204, C. sq.,
for what follows. 223 B sqq. Julian (p. C.) 224
2 This Cynic, whom Lucian mentions, besides Heraclius, as
(c. 3 sqq. ; 7 ; 24 ; 30 sg. ; 36) Cynics of his time, Asclepiades,
treats with the greatest ma- Sereniarms; and Chytron. In
lignity, is described by Galen, Or. vii. 198 a, he mentions
Metfi. Med. xiii. 15, yoL x. 909 Iphicles of Epirns,whose free-
Z. (as Bernays, p. 14 sqc[., has spoken notions expressed before
shown) as a philosopher of the Emperor Valentinian in the
repute (8m rty M"v rwQp"xov) year 375 are related by Am-
who gave lectures daily in Rome mian. Marc. xxx. 5, 8. CynicA
in the Gymnasium of Trajan. named Demetrius Chytras, who,
3
Or. vi. : els robs awatSeinovs in extreme old age, was tor-
302 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. Further traces of the which

recognition Cynicism
X.
stillfound in this periodare to be met with both in
heathen and Christian authors.1 About the ning
begin-
century,Augustinetells us that all
of the fifth
the schools of philosophy,except the Cynic,Peripa-

tetic,
and Platonic,had died out ; 2 and even in the
first decade of the sixth century we find in Athens
a Cynicascetic,Sallustius.3 With the overthrow of
heathenism this school,as such, naturally

came to
tured under Con stan tins on a aut Peripatetieosaut Platoni-

and
political religionscharge, cos. M Cynicos guidem, quia
but was finallyset free,is tioned
men- eos vitce quGdcwn, delevtat liber-
by Amniian. xix. 12, 12 ; tas atqm licentia. Later on,
another in Julian's time is Civ, D.xix. 19, he remarks that
spoken of anonymously by if philosopher goes over
a to
David, Sehol in AT. 14 a, 18. Christianityit is not required
1
Bernays, I. c. p. 37, 99 s#., that he should change his dress ;
alludes in this connection to the Church does not trouble
the panegyric which Themis - itself about the Cynic garb. An
tius pronounced on Cynicism example of an Egyptian Cynic,
and its founders in his course Maximus
dis- by name, who came
be-
on Virtue, especiallypp. a Christian in370 A.D.,
444:, 417 (preserved in the and retained his dress a long
Syrian language,and translated time, is quoted by Bernays,
into German by Grildemeister 1. c,, from Tillemont,MSmoires,
and Biicheler in the Rliein. ix. 2, 796 *##.
Mus. vol. xxvii.); also the 3 Damasc. V. Zsidori,89-92,
violent attack of Chrysostom 250 ; and at greater length
(Somil. 17,c. 2 ; Chrys. Opp. ed. voce\ who has Suidas (sub
Migne, ii. 173) upon the phi- taken the first of his articles,
losophers
(clearlydescribed as and probably also the second,
Cynics) who left Antioch on from Damascius. That tius,
Sallus-
the approach danger, of but as is here
observed, ex-
aggerated
who enjoyed, it would appear, the Cynic severityas
a certain degree of reputation well as the irai^Lv"rl rb y"\oi6r"-
among the inhabitants of that pov, is confirmed by Simplicius,
city. in Epiet.Man. p. 90 H j accord-
ing
2
Cicero, Acad. iii. 19, 42 : to whom
he laid burning
Itagruenwio ghilosoplios
now, coals upon his leg to see how
fere videmus, nisi a,ut long he could endure it.
DISAPPEARANCE OF CYNICISM. 303
end the only element which

an ; was peculiar to it, CHAP.
X'
the Cynic mode of life, the Christian Church had
long since appropriated in Monaehisin.1
1
Julian, I. c. 224 A, already airoTaKriffrai ( qui s"culo
= re-
the Cvaics with the f)ii.nria.rrrnnr\ nf t"i"mhi-io""-no

304 ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTEE XI.
THE PERIPATETICS OF THE FIEST CENTURIES AFTER
CHRIST.
CHAP. THE direction taken by the Peripatetic school in

XI.
-
- the first century before Christ was maintained by it
C. The
during the whole of its further existence.1 Those
Peripa-
tetics
of members of it with whom we are acquainted,2
1
In regard to what follows, teorol. i. xvi. sqq., believes we
cf. Fabric. MU. Gr.iii. 458 sqq. ; should perhaps attribute to

Harl. ; Brandis and Zumpt in Alexander the commentary on
the treatises mentioned sujara, Khz" which

Meteorology, has been
112, 1 Prantl, GescJi. der handed down under the name of
p. ;
Logik, 545 Alexander of Aphrodisias; and
sqq.
*
Our knowledge of the patetic he
Peri- seems to suppose that the
school periodin this is Sosigenes whom Alexander tions
men-
According to his teacher is the

very imperfect. as
famous astronomer of the time

the writers supra, pp. 113
named
find, about the middle of Cassar. "We shall, however,
*#"., we
of the first Christian century, find that Alexander the Aphro-
Alexander of âSgae,the in- disian had
structor a Sosigenes for his
of Nero (Suid. *AAe", teacher. Towards the end of
A*7.), from whom Simplicius, the same century we encounter
Categ. 3, a (Sclwl.in Arist. 29, (ap. Plut. Qn. Gonvvu. ix. 6 ;
a, 40) quotes observations out 14, 5) a Peripatetic named
of a commentary on the gories,
Cate- Menephylus, perhaps the
and Alex. Aphr. head of the school in Athens,
ap.
De Ccelo,Scliol. 494, 5, and ibid. Frat. Am. 16, p. 487,
Simpl.
28, from a commentary on the Apollonius tne Peripatetic,
Books of the Heavens. (Kars- one of the '
later philosophers,'
ten, 194, 6, here substitutes who was praised for having sisted
as-
",
Aspasiusfor Alexander, whether brother Sotion to his
by Ms own conjecture,or ac-

cording attain greater honour than
to manuscripts, does himself. This may, perhaps,
not appear.) Ideler, Arist, Me- be Apollonius the Alexandrian,
PERIPATETICS OF THE EMPIRE. 305
so far as we have any details concerning their CHAP,

XI.
writings,are mostly mentioned in connection with
the first
from whom Simplicms,i?iCateg. taught, as Galen (De Cogn. an. centuries
Selwl. in Arist. 63, Z",3, quotes Morb. 8, vol. v. 42), in his four- B"c"
a treatise on the Categories. teeiith or fifteenth year, fore
there-
Sotion, another Peripatetic, in 145-6, B.C. had for his
has already come before us in teacher a pupil of this pher,
philoso-
Phil. d. Grr. II. ii. 931, 3 (videsit}), who apparently was still
181, 2), as author of the Repay alive ; and Herminus(ap. Simpl.
3AfjLa\6elas,This man I have De Ccelo,Sohol. 494, I, 31 $##.)
there conjectured to be the quotes from him. Adrasttis of
same from whom Alex. Aphr. Aphrodisias (David, Schol. in
Top. 213, apparently out of a Ar. 30, a, 9 ; Anon. I. e. 32, 5, 36 ;
commentary on the Topica, and Simpl. Categ.4, 7, Z. "?. 45 ; Ach.
Simpl. Categ. 41, 7, Schol. in Tat. Isag.c. 16, 19, p. 136, 139),
AT. 61, a, 22, from a commentary who is named togetherwith him
on the Categories, quotes one or (Galen, De Libr.
Propr. c. 11 ;
two unimportant and erroneous vol six. 42
Porph. V. Plot.
sq. ;
observations. His tion
compila- 14) -was probably not far removed
seems to be referred to in point of time ; this

by Pliny, Hist. Nat. Prwf. 24. appears partly from the above
In this case Sotion must bably
pro- juxtaposition, but more cially
espe-
have lived in the middle from the use made of
of the first century, which him by Theo Smynueus (infra,
would harmonise well with the p. 309, 4) ; for Theo was a temporary
con-
theory that he was the author of Hadrian (infra,

of the Ai6K\eioi "\ejx"L) an(i p. 335). If, however, he is
the brother of Apollonius tioned
men- the author of a commentary on
by Plutarch. His own the Ethics of Aristotle and

brother Lamprias is also Theophrastus (Phil d G-r. II. ii.
described by Plutarch, Qu.Conv. 855) mentioned ap. Athen, xv.
ii. 2, 2 ; cl i. 8, 3, as a tetic
Peripa- 673, c (where our text has
; he likewise describes his "ASpacrroi')
he may have been
friend the grammarian from still alive in the time of ninus
Anto-
Egypt (Qu.Conv. i. 9, 1, 1 ; viii. Pius. Ari st o cle s, the
8, 2, 1), theo (vide, concerning rhetorician Pergamus, of
is
him, DeFao. Luna, 25, 1 3 s#.)De placed by Suidas (sub voce}
Ei. 6 ; Pytli. Orac,. 3 sg., as a under Trajan and Hadrian:
man of Peripatetic tendencies. according to Philostratus, V.
On the other hand, Favonius, So2)h.ii- 3, he was a contempo-
rary
who is spoken of 1. "?. viii. 10, 2, of Herodes Atticus, there-
fore
dai[j.ovi"TaTos
1, as 'ApicrroTeXovs somewhat earlier,but had
tyaa-rtys is probably only the only occupied himself with the

well-known Platonist, whom Peripatetic philosophy in his
we shall discuss later on. In youth. What Synes. Dio, p. 12
the second half of the second R, says of Aristocles* desertion
century Aspasius must have of philosophy for Rhetoric must
PERIPATETICS OF THE FIRST CENTURY. 307
the attention of these commentators. But what we CHAP.

XL
are told in this respect about the of
Peripatetics the
Cat. ScJiol. 28, a, 21, Alexander Or. 5, 17, would Indeed agree
was named Aristotle, oTov 5eu- with his sceptical bearing to-
ward
T"pov ovra. 3Apicrror"\7iv. sides

Be- soothsaying. More nite
defi-
these whose
Peripatetics, signs are wanting, ever,
how-
dates may be at least approxi-
mately that Diogenianus was
fixed, a good many described by Plutarch as a
others named, of
are whom we Peripatetic. Enarmostus,
can scarcely say more than that whom Aspasius blames (ap.
they must belong to the first Alex, in
Metapfi. 44, 23 ; Bon.
two centuries after Christ. 552, J, 29, Bekk.) because
Among these is Archaicus Eudorus and he had altered a
(erroneously regarded by bric.

Fa- reading in the
MetajvJiysics,
MUwtli. 6fr. iii.536, Harl. was also probably living in the
as Stoic),from whom
a Stobseus first century. The philosophers
(Cat. SeTtol. 61, a, 22; 66, a, quoted by Ales. Aphr. De An.
42 ; ", 35 ; 73, I, 20 ; 74, I, 31) 154, ", o-y Socrates ably
(prob-
quotes observations on the the Bithyniaii Peripatetic
Categories,doubtless from a named in Diog. ii. 47); Vir-
commentary on thatwork ; in ginius Rufus, and perhaps
the first of these passages he also Polyzelus (L c. 162, "b,
distinguishes Archaicus and note); Ptolemy, concerning
Sotion as disciples of the cient
an- whom cf .
Phil. d. G-r. II. ii. 54 ;
commentators " cus,
Androni- Artemon,thecollectorof totelian
Aris-
Boethus, "c. Perhaps chaicus

Ar- Letters (1H". II. ii.
is the same person 562),who is probably older than
mentioned as the author of a Andronicus ; N ic a n d e r
,
who,
work on ethics Diog. vi.
in 99. according to Suidas (AiVxpiW),
Also the following : Deme-
trius wrote about the disciples of
of Aristotle; Strato,
Byzantium (Diog. v. the Alex-
andrian
83), if he is not the other De- metrius Peripatetic (Diog. v.

named sujprafp. 124, 1 ; 61; in Tertullian, De An. 15,
from whom it is not this Strato, but the
Diogenianus,
Eusebius (Pr. Ev. iv. 3 ; vi. 8) pupil of Erasi stratus, also
quotes long fragments directed named by Diogenes, who is intended).

of Concerning the two
against Chrysippus' doctrines
Prophecy and Destiny, perhaps last-named philosophers,it is
from a treatise -jrepleifutpfievris
; not certain whether they lived
he be the as before or after the Christian
may same person
of Pergamos, who era; Julianus, Tralles, of
Diogenianus
as one of the speakers whose theory of the movement
appears
in Plutarch, De Pyth. Or devils. of the heavens by the Platonic
vii. 7, 8 ; viii. 1, 2 ; world-soul is discussed by Alex.
Qu. Conv.
rate, what is put into Aphr. ap. Simpl. De Coelo, 169,
at any
his mouth has nothing to tradict
con- 1, 42 ; ScTwl. 491, ",43. Whether
this theory, and Pyth. he was a Peripatetic or a Pla
x 2
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, first century l is very unimportant. In the second

'
century we hear of several works of Aspasius : tf

mentaries
Com-
Categories,2
on on the treatise Trspl
the
4 the Books
spfji^vsias? on the Physics,' about the
'
Metaphysics; 6 but though he

c '
Heavens,5 and the
seems
7 to have carefullyexpounded the writingsof
Aristotle, and especially to have paid attention to the
various readings,nothing has been handed down of

his that indicates any independent investigation of
philosophic questions. We have more preciseinfor-

mation
concerningAdrastus.8 From his treatise on

the arrangement of the Aristotelian works,9 there
are quoted observations on their order, titles,

and genuineness.10 A commentary on the Categories
tonist, and whether this

quota-
tion 23 ; 340, 10 ; Bon, 543, 31 ;
",
refers to a commentary on 552, ", 29 ; 704, 7;,11 Bokk.
the Boolts the JEFearens,or to
on
7 The Scholia on the four
a commentary on the Timtmts, first books and parts of the
cannot be discovered from the seventh and ninth books of the
passage. JVicowMdhfian /#/wt#,which Haso
1 Alexander of JEgae and has published in the Gorman
Sotion, vide sujpra, p, 304, 2. Classical Journal, vols. xxviii.
2
Galen, De Lilr. Propr. c. and xxix.,claim to bo extracted
11 ; vol. xix, 42 8%. from a commentary of Aspawius ;
8 Boet. DB Interpret,cf ,
In- but they arc otherwise of no
dftx to the edition of Meister. groat value,
8
Boethns repeatedly expresses Concerning him ride Martin
much dissatisfaction (it p. 41, on Theo. Smyru. Astronomy,
14 ; 87, 17 Meis.)with his pretations,
inter- p. 74 8ff.
4
Simpl. Phys. 28, 5; 96, 0, Pkys.
Jj 99, #; 127, A, J; 130, a\ 1, 5; Cate.ff. 4, f. The designa-
tion
132, "; 133, a; 185, a; 188, "; is leas specificof Gatey* 4,
151, a; 168, 5; 172, a; 178, a; 7 : TT.
10
192, I ; 199, a ; 214, a\ 219, a; According to Simpl. C"teg.
222, a 223,
', I ; 239, a, b, 4, 7, he wished to place the
"
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 a commentary on the CHAP.

XI.
Physics,Simplicius2 gives us a detailed statement
concerning the conceptions of substance and of
essential and accidental quality,which well ex-

plains
the Aristotelian definitions and expressions.

He also perhaps wrote on the ethics of Aristotle
and Theophrastus.3 If we add to this all that we

are told concerning his mathematical knowledge,
his writings on harmony and astronomy, and his
Commentary on the Timseus, and what has been
preserved of these writings,4 we must allow that
the writings of Aristotle, plicius,

other however, does not seem
and next theTojtiea; and
to them to have had the commentary
he, therefore,like some others, itself,which he never quotes,
entitled the Categories : 7r/"b in his possession, but to have
TWV T^TTWJ/ (Anon. Schol 32, ", borrowed the passage from Por-
phyry,
36, whose account is to be pre-
ferred who, as he observes,
to that of David, I. c. 30, had mentioned it. The extract
a, 8, as David, or perhaps his from Adrastus probably refers

transcriber, evidently confuses to the words : ou"5e \4yerai 'direp
the statements of Adrastus
and the pseudo-Archytus). In Of. supra, p. 306 *#. and
the
Analytics, of
are
same treatise
forty
genuine (Phil d. 6Fr. II. ii.70,

1), and expressed his opinion
books
which
he had
only
of
3
tioned
men-
four
the
Phil
De
4
Adrastus
d. 6V. II. ii. 855.
He is described
Statu
as
by Claudian
he
An. i. 25,
mentions
a matician
mathe-
Mamert.
Ms
if the
is the
on the title of the Physics and same person. From mentary
com-
its principal divisions (SimpL on the TWTUBUS, Por-

phyry
Phys. 1, " ; 2, a ; cf .
Phil d. Or. (in Ptol. Harm. ; Wallis,
II. ii. Opp. iii. 270) quotes a tion
defini-
86).
His mony,
Har-
Galen, Lilr. Propr. 11 ; six. Consonance.
1 on
42 *#.
in three books, still exists
That this dis-
cussionin MS. (Fabr. Bill Or. iii.
2
Phys. 26, 5.
is taken from a mentary
com- 459, 653). From the first of
on the Physios is clear these books, the quotation ap.
from the words with which Procl. in Tim. 192, C ; 127, 0 ;
Simplicius introduces it : 6 5e 198, E ; and probably also ap.
"
Ach. Tat. c. 19, p. 136 (80), are
"bv' (ap. Arist. PJiyn.i. doubtless taken ; a treatise on
3 ; 33) vap*$n\9"V v*v the Sun is mentioned by Ach.

186, ft,
tav, "o. Sim- Tat. c. 19, p. 139 (82). Lastly,
310 ECLECTICISM,
CHAP, the praise accorded by Simplicius to this Peri-

XI"
pateticl is entirelyjustified.But he nevertheless
seems to have deserved it rather for his faithful
transmission and elucidation of Aristotle's

intelligent
doctrines than for any new and originalenquiries.
As in the isolated definitions which have been
handed down as his he almost entirelyfollows
Aristotle,
so in his generalview of the universe and
of Gk"d, he is allied with him. The universe,the
construction of which
accordingto the he describes
pattern of Aristotle,2is formed by the highest

essential nature for the best,and is moved thereby
in the manner belonging to it,namely, in a circle.
A consequence of the contrast between the terres-
trial
elements and the various influences which the
planetaryspheresin the
multiplicity of their move-
ments
exercise upon them, is the change in our

world ; 3 but in saying this, Adrastus expressly
guardshimself againstthe opinionthat the heavenly
bodies are created for the sake of that which is
meaner and perishable; they have, on the contrary,

their end in themselves,and their influence on the
earth is only .an effect of natural necessity.4All
Martin has shown {7. "?.)that 8i"nefo,
avtypr"v
the greatest part of Theo's TTJTIK"V yeyovds.
astronomy is borrowed from a
2
Vide the dissertations on the
treatise of Adrastus ; and that spherical form of the universe
this is the commentary on the and of the earth, the place o-f
TimfGus is proved by Hiller, the earth in the centre of the
Uliein. Miis. JV, F. xxvi. 582 whole, the smallness of the
sgg. The same writer shows earth in comparison with the
that Ohalcidms has adopted a whole, in Theo Smyrn, Astron.
great deal from this commentary c. 1-4.
into his own.
3 L. c, c, 22.
1 M" 4, -7: *A5p. "5 3A"fy"o- 4 L. c. Beneath the moon
HEEMINUS. 311
this is Aristotelia,n.sought likewise to Adrastus CFAP.

XL
maintain in principlethe Aristotelian theory of the
spheres,which he connected by means of ingenious
modifications with the theories of later astronomers.1
He therefore seems, of his mathematical
irrespective
and other learning,to have been merely a skilful
expounder and defender of the Aristotelian theories.

Not even as much as this can be said of Herminus.
reigns change, generation, and from the upper to the

destruction
(Adrastus), atria
r"v
"av,
Geiwv
atrrpav.
oi"x ""$
Kal
:
aiSiuv
rovr"v
ravra
rcav
TO,
5"
riftKarepow
ayevy^rcav
5e, "p7]"rlv
tends
lower limit of
irXav^êva concentric with
AC'YOITIS
teal
re
stars.
east
the
This
to west
ecliptic,but
in the
a
sphere
hollow
that of the
more
turns
direction
sphere,
fixed
from
slowly
of
Kal a"p6dpra"veVe/cct r"nv eAar- than the sphere of the fixed

r6vcav Kal Bvrir"v Kal stars (or perhaps also, says
Adrastus, it is drawn round in
rb Kdhhicrrov Kal apicrrov this direction by the sphere of
fixed stars, while its own motion
r"v Se "j/ravQa Kara (TVfji is from west to east); at the
efceôis- eiro/Jievcav. The circular same time the sphere which
movement of the universe holds
supposed
pre- the planet,corresponding
a central point at with the Epicycles of Hippar-
rest, and therefore an element chus, moves itself within the
the natural motion of which hollow sphere, so that the
was towards the centre ; but planet describes a circle the
then there must also be one diameter of which extends
the motion of which was wards from
to- a point on the outer
the circumference, and boundary of the hollow tary
plane-
also elements lying between sphere to the opposite
the two. These elements are point on its inner boundary,
in their nature changeable ; the centre of which, therefore,
their variation is really sioned
occa- is distant from, that of the con-
centric
by that of the seasons, spheres as far as the

which is, on the other hand, radius of the sphere bearing
conditioned by the changing the planet. Adrastus had, there-
fore,
position of the planets, espe-

cially in his theory taken count
ac-
of the sun and moon (cf .

of the hypothesis of
Phil. d.Or. II. ii. 440, 468 *q. eccentrics. The theory, apart
1
In Theo, c. 32, with which from its other deficiencies,
cf. c. 18, and Martin, p, 117 sq. would only explain the parent
ap-
Adrastus here assumes that revolution of the sun
each planet is fastened to the and moon, as Martin observes,

surface of a globe, which ex- p. 119.
312 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. we are told of his commentaries on the

logical
XL l
_
writingsof Aristotle is sometimes unimportant,
Her minus.
an"i sometimes displaysan external and formalistic
treatment of logicalquestions,with much standing
misunder-
of the Aristotelian propositions.2He derives
the infinityof the motion of the heavens
1
Among these the tary
commen- Z. 22 ; David, ScJioL 28, ", 14).
on the Categories is most He leaves it undecided whether
commonly quoted ; mde the there are only so many highest
following note and Simpl. in kinds as Aristotelian Categories
Categ.Schol. inArist. 40, a, 17; (Simpl. Schol. 47, ", 11 sgg.).
42, a, 13; 46, a, 30; J, 15 (14, It is observed De
Interpret. 1
S Basil.) 47, 19 1 ; 56, 5, 39, that the psychic processes desig-
nated
and p. 3, e Bas. ; Porph. 6^7. by words are the same in
33, a, Schol. 58, 5, 16. Also all ; but Herminus would not
the commentary on the treatise admit this,because in that case
Boet. De What
Inter- it would not be possible to
pret. (cf. the Index of the take the same expression in
edition of
Meiser); Ammon. different senses. He, therefore,
De Interpret.43, a, SchoL 106, I. c. 16, a, 6, instead of Taurcfc
#, 5. Also the following note, iracn ira"fifMTOftyv^s, reads
1. c. and ap. Alex. Anal. Pri. 'raSra' (Boet. De Interpret.
28, #, concerning his tary
commen- ii. p. 39, 25 sgq. ; Meis. Schol.
"b
on the Analytics-, and 101, ; Ammon. De Inter-

pret.
Alex.Top. 271, 274, m, in the 21, a-, SohoL 101, ?;,6). In
Tojpioa. regard to the so-called infinite
2
Prantl, Ge"ch. ci.Log. i. 545 propositions, he distinguished
$([%. |The substance of the tations
quo- three cases: the predicate or
from Herminus's Logic the subject,or both, might be
is as follows. The treatise on infinite notions (negativelyex-
pressed)
the which
Categories^ he sidered
con- ; but he erroneously
as the foundation of compared not merely the first
Dialectic, and, therefore,with class, bat also the second and
Adrastus entitled rS"v r6itwv
7rp2" third, with the corresponding-
(David, ScJwl. in Arist. 81, J, negative judgments (Boet. p.
25, according to whom he thus 275 M). He instituted a fruit-
less
explainedthe precedence of the enquiry concerning Anal.
doctrine of opposites, Categ. Pri. 26, ", 37, as to which ception
con-
c 10), treats neither in ontb-
an in syllogisms of the
logicalmanner of the highest second figurewas the primary
kinds of the Real, nor merely and which the subordinate
of the parts of discourse, but conception (Alex. Anal. Pri.
of the designationsproper for 23, #, mj Schol. 153, ", 27;
each class of the Beal (Porph. Prantl,555 $#.).
7. 4, " ; ScJiol. 31, I ; cf. 1. c.
SOSIGUNZS. 313
not from the operationof the first moving principle CHAP.

XI.
but from the soul inherent in them; 3 a devia-
tion
from Aristotle and an approximation to the
Platonic doctrine which Alexander had already
contradicted.2 From the commentary of Aehaicus AcJiaicu*.
on the Categories very little has been handed

down to us, and that little is unimportant.3 Nor
has much been preserved of Sosigenes' logical
writings; 4 but we get a very favourable idea 5 of
his mathematical knowledge and the care with
which he appliedit to the elucidation of Aristotle,
from his commentary and criticism of the Aristo-
telian
theory of the spheres.6 In regard to sophy,

philo-
however, the most considerable of these
1
Simpl. De Ccelo,ScJiol. 491, could not decide. An tion
observa-
1, 45 (169, I, 45 K), according on Analyt. Pr. L 9 is given
to a statement of Alexander, by Philop. Anal. Pr. xxxii. ly
which, however, seems to have Sffhol.158, 1 28, after Alexander.
referred not to a commentary, "
Ap. Simpl. De Ccelo,ScJiol.
but to the discourses of Her- 498, a, 45 -7
500, a, 40 ; 504, ",
mimis ; as in I. c. p. 494, J, 31 41 (219, a, 39 ; 223, a, 29 ; 228,
sqq." an utterance of Herminus ", 15 3L), where Simplicius
concerning a reading of As- seems to follow Sosigenes, not
pasius is also quoted from his merely in that wherein he pressly
ex-
discourses. appeals to him, but

2 "We shall find,however, that throughout. Of. ps.-Alex.Me-
"this opposition did not extend 677, 25 *"#. ; Bon. (807, a,
tapli.
to the theory of a particular 29 Br.),who also names genes
Sosi-
soul in the heaven of fixed at the conclusion of his
stars. discussion.
8 The passages relating to 6 Such enquiries concerning
this are given infra, p. 327. mathematics and natural science
4 From a commentary on were contained in the tise
trea-
the Categories,Porphyry, ##7. of Sosigenes, ireplfycots,
2, " (SoJiol 31, "), and after from the third book of which.
him Bexipp. in Categ. p. 7, 20 Themistius (Phys. 79, a) takes
sqq. Speng. gives his reflections something concerning the

on question whether
the the shining of many bodies in the
tey6[JiGvovis a "t"cav)i
or a irpayiJ.a dark ; and Alexander (MeteoroL
on which, however, he
or a v6ri(jLa3 116, a) quotes some observations
314 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. younger Peripatetics are Aristocles and Alexander

XL
of Aphrodisias; for they alone have left us discus-
sions
which, startingfrom the details of logicand

physics,proceed to enquiries affectingthe whole,
theoryof the universe.
Aristocles Aristocles of Messene, the teacher
Sicily,1 in of
Alexander of is chieflyknown
Aphrodisias,2 to us
from the fragments of an historical work of his
from the eighth book ing

concern- p. 307 ; and (2) it is
the halo round the sun and highly improbable that a scriber
tran-
moon. should have changed the

1 Suid. 'AjDioTo/cA.. universallyknown name of Aris-
totle
2 That he was so, is asserted for the unknown name of
in the older texts of Simplicius Aristocles,whereas the converse
(that retranslated from the might very easily happen, and
Latin), De Ccelo,p. 34, I ; and has often happened. For exy
Karsten, p. 69, 5, 25, has lowed

fol- ample, Muller, JFragm. Hist. Gr.
it. But in the collection ii. 179 ; iv. 330, shows that, ap.
of Academic SGJwUa,"n, cu, 30, ps.-Plut. Parallel, 29, p. 312;
we read, on the contrary: 6 and Apostol. xiv. 70, we find
j whereas
'Api"TTOT"'A.i7s Stobgeus,
Ftoril. 64, 37, and Arsen. p. 385,
also ap. c. Mian.
Cyrill. ii.61, 1) : give correctly 'Apta-rotthys
(the
*ypafy*iTQfivvv*AA.e"aj/8po"^5 "Apf"r- historian of Ehodes). Simi-
larly,
"rore\Qvs /uadyrtys,and similarly the Scholiasts on Pindar,
in Alex. JDe An. 144, a, sq. (wde Olymp. vii. 66, fluctuate tween
be-
infra,p. 315, 4),according to the the two names, of which
printed text Aristotle is named that of Aristocles only is cor -
as the teacher of Alexander. rect. According to Hoche,

Nevertheless, there is every Prcef.ii. two manuscripts have
reason to suppose that the older 'A/Herrore'A^yinstead of 'Apurro-
text of Simpliciusis right,and and
/eA.f/$, in Boet. De Interpr.
not that of the Academy ; and ii. Meiser (p. 56, 2) was the
that even in the two other sages
pas- first to correct the statement
3ApicrTOK\"ov$is to be read, of the Basel edition (p. 309, m)
and not 'Apiffrorehovs. For (1) that Plato was at first called
there is no trace of any Peripa-
tetic Aristotle. On the other hand,
called cording in
Aristotle,who, ac- the various cases where
to the dates,could have Eose, Arist. Pseudepigr.615 $#.,
been the teacher of Alexander of assumes the same mistake, the
Aphrodisias; that the supposed matter is very questionable, as
mention of him in Syrian comes Heitz shows ( Verlor. SbJw. d.
to nothing,has been observed Arist. 295"
ARISTOCLES OF MJBSSENE. 315
preserved by Eusebius ; 1 and these contain, as CHAP.
might be expected in a work of the kind,no original

'
enquiriesinto philosophy. Aristocles criticises and

combats the doctrines of other schools "
the Eleatics
and the Sceptics,the Cyrenaicsand the Epicureans,
and even the materialism of the Stoics ; while,on
the other hand, he defends Aristotle against many
charges; 3 the whole work must have contained a
complete critical review systems of the Greek

of the
philosophers.The language of this Peripateticcon-

cerning
Plato is nevertheless remarkable. He calls

him and, as well
genuine and perfectphilosopher,
a
as we can judge from the scanty escerpts in our

possession,in expounding his doctrine, himself
with it.3 He seems to assume that the
agrees
Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy in the main
coincide, a statement at that period more quently

fre-
to be met with in the Platonic school.
But Aristocles also combines the Peripatetic doc-

trine
with the Stoic, in a manner which shows
that the author of the treatise on the universe was
not alone in this tendency. In a remarkable sage

pas-
from Alexander of Aphrodisias,4
we are told
1
Prop. Ufa. xi. 3 ; xiv. 17- t "?., and Scfiol. 15. Suidas
21 ; xv. 2, 14. The title of this further names a work on Ethics
work is, according to Bus. xi. by him in nine books. What
J",5 : accord-
ireplQvcrLoXoyias, he elsewhere ascribes to him
ing to Id. xiv. 17, 1 ; xv. 2 ; seems to belong partly to Aris-

14: ; Suid. : vepl"f"t\o- tocles
*Api(rroK\. of Pergamos and partly
In
c-o"f"{as. Eusebius (Z.0.)there to the Khodian.
are quotationsfrom the seventh 2 Of. Phil, d. 6fr. II. ii.8 ; 37,
and eighth books ; of this work 2 ; 43, 3.
in Suid. SooraSay from the sixth 3 Eus. xi. 3, 1 : on the other
book. The Se'jcaPi"xta TT. QtXo- hand, " 2 relates to Socrates.
mentioned by Philop, * This passage is found in the,
ffofytas
are
316 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, that in order to escape from the difficulties of the

Aristotelian doctrine respectingthe reason which
comes to man from without, Aristotle set up the
followingtheory. The divine reason, he says, is in
all things,even in terrestrial bodies, and is stantly

con-
working in the manner proper to it. From

its operation in things arises not only the rational
capacityin man, but also all union and division of
substances,and therefore the whole conformation of

the universe whether it affects this immediately,
for itself alone, or in combination with the fluences
in-
heavenly bodies, or whether

of the nature
originates primarilyfrom those influences,and determines
all things in combination with vovs. If,

then, this activityof vovs, in itself universal,finds
in any particular body an organ adapted to it,vovs
works in this body as its inherent intelligence, and
second book wepl^vx^" P- 1^4, seem strange in themselves,

a ; 145, a,, and, in my opinion, our doubts are increased by
must have been derived from what follows,and especiallyby
Alexander even if Torstrik p. 145 #, whether the exposi-
(Arist.De Ann. p. 186) is right tion which they introduce
in asserting that the second should be ascribed to Aristotle
book, we pifax/is,was not writ- and not to a teacher of Alexan-
ten by him; for even in that der, who took them from his
case it could only be the re- mouth, though not himself
clwMffee of the second half of agreeing with them. That this
Alexander's work. Torstrik, teacher can be than
no other
,
however, has given no reasons Aristocles, thatandconse-

for his judgment, and it does quently *Api"rroK\"ovs should be
not seem to me justified.After substituted for 'ApurroreXovs
Alexander has here treated of has already been shown (p. 314,
the passive and active intelli- 2). Brandis ( Q-esck. der J"n-
gence in the sense of Aristotle, twicbelung der Gtriechischm
he thus continues, according to Philos. ii. 268) declares himself
ourprintedtext : ^Kovcra 5e vepl in agreement with the observa-
vov QvpaQev irapk*ApKrroT"s\ovstions on this subject in my first
$ 5i""raxrcfyn?y.
If these words edition.
ARIST OGLES. 317
there arises an individual intellectual activity.This CHAP.
capability for the reception of vovs is,as Aristotle L _
believes,conditioned by the material constitution of

bodies, and depends especiallyon the question
whether they have in them more or less fire. The
corporealmixture which affords an organ for active
intelligenceis named potentialintelligence, and
the operationof the active divine intelligence upon

the potential human intelligence,whereby the latter
is raised to actuality,and individual thought is
realised,consists only in this : that the all-pervad-
ing
activityof the divine vovs manifests itself in a
specialmanner in particularbodies.1 Alexander

himself observes respectingthese theories of his
master, which he seeks to reconcile with the Aristo-

telian
text,2 that they have considerable affinity

doctrine ; 3
with the Stoic nor can we conceal from
ourselves that working

vovs- in the whole
corporeal
world, and in the
especially fiery element, closely
approximatesto the Stoic reason of the world,which
is at the same time the primevalfire and, as such, the
artistic and shaping force of nature. As the Hera-
clitean hylozoismwas rendered more fruitful at the
appearance of the Stoic system by the doctrine of

Aristotle concerning vovs, so now we see that doc-
trine
Peripateticschool itself,even
in the in so
as Aristocles,
a representative
distinguished entering
1 LOG. cit. 144, I, Med.

B
Loc. cit. 145, a : avrtiriw-
- LOG. Cit. : xQw
fcal r}\v 5e reiy es8o/c"ifAOi r6re TOVTOIS, rbv
irepltyv^s Kal âvXoraroLs
rty *v rV rpircf) TOW- VQVV ev rots eivai
(-etowj eAeye Qeiov ovra, "s rots airb TT/S proas

roiS irpo"roiKOVV
$eo". $$olcvt"c.
318 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. into a combination with the Stoic theory of the

XI.
universe, which prepares the way for the later
union of these systems in JSTeo-Platonism.1
Alexander The Aristotelian doctrine of Alexander of
Aphro-
of Apliro-
disias is purer and stricter.2 This vigorousPeripa-
tetic,
ealled the
celebrated by posterityunder the distinguished
Commen-
tator
and names of the Commentator and the Second Aristotle,3
1 Of. sup. p. 137 Sd. How down to us. His date can be
far Aristocles was from being fixed by the statement in De
tlie only philosopher of that mentioned
Jfy'to, sup. p. 304, 2.
period who intermingled totelian From
Aris- his native city, Aphro-
with Stoic theology is disias (not Aphrodisium, cf.
also shown
by an utterance of Arnmon. De Interpret, 12, 5;
his contemporary Athenagoras. 81,0; 161, 5; Simpl. De Coelo.
This apologist,who was so well 168, l\ 28 K), his invariable
acquainted with Greek sophy,
philo- surname is 'AQpoSia-iebs.
(he de-
scribes
says (Supplic, c. 5, p. himself in MetapJi. 501,
22 P.) of Aristotle and the 8; Bon. 768, a\ 20, Br. 132, by
Peripatetics: eVa "JOVTCS olovel the predicates icrxvbs(f"i\6"ro"f"o
Xevicbs 'AtypodLcriebs)
; but which
Aphrodisias is thereby meant
pJevavrov " ouQlpiov does not appear. Concerning
rovs re ir his writings,vide Fabric. MbL
acrrepas r\\v crtycupav ru"v Gr. v. 650 sqq, and the passages
farXavuv Kivov^va KvK\o(j"opr)ri- there quoted.
5e rbv
K""S,"fyvyfyv "iri ry Kiviiffei 3 Cf. Syrian and David in the
TOV \6yovr, avrbv
crd^fj-aros [jikv
ov passages quoted p. 307, w.; Simpl.
KLVOV^VOV ctfrLOv Se rys rovrov DO A)l. 13, " : " TOV *A/3JO"T0T"r-
Kivijffstas If this does
yiv6jj."vov. Aous Quiwriis 5AAe'". ; Themist.
not precisely correspond with DeAn. 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 In-
"b
Stoic manner, as the world- terpr. 32, : 6 'AtypoSio-Lebs

""77-
soul ; only that the body of the j-nrts. He is also called 6 ^77-
world-soul is formed not by all yr)r)]$
simply ; e.g., as Olympio-
parts of the world, but merely dor. Meteorol. 59, a ; ii. 157, Id.
by the heavenly spheres. But On the other hand, by the ^"17-
Alexander himself did not yyrfys spoken of (iMd. 12, a ;
(with Aristotle)place the seat L 185 Id.),who makes some
of Deity outside the furthest remark on Alexander's mentary,
com-
sphere, but in it (vide infra, a far earlier man is
p. 329, 1). meant, a teacher of the author,
2
Concerning Alexander's sonal
per- as we see from the mode of
history nothing has come quotation, ^ (not ô-ly).We
ALEXANDER OF APHRQDISIAS. 319
has unquestionably
won for himself great merit by CHAP.
XL
his commentary on the Aristotelian works, a great
portion of which he has furnished with detailed ex- he Se-
planations,1
carefullyentering into the words as
cannot, therefore, infer from this would rather point to a

this passage that the tator
commen- later revision or to gaps in our
on Meteorologyis dis-
the tinct text. Meantime it is a tion
ques-
philosopher of
from the whether by the ""17777-
Aphrodisias. Alexander's com-
mentaries r%$ in 01. i. 187 Alexander
were read by Plo- is meant, and whether the
tinus together with those of passage which Olympiodorus
Aspasius, Adrastus, "c., to his quotes from him (evidentlyat
pupils(Porph. V. Plot. 14). third hand) really stood in his
1 The still
existing taries
commen- Meteorology; at any rate Simpl.
Alexander, which
of are (Ve Cceld,
'95,a, ; ScJwl 492, b,
now collected in the Academy 1), on which Ideler also pends,
de-
edition of the commentaries certainly refers to the
on and
Aristotle, have appeared commentary on the books of
in a new and improved form of the heavens ; cuo-^crews,
(4) irepl
test, embrace the following quoted by Alexander himself
works (1) Book I. of the First
: (JDe JLw/133,0; Qu". Nat. i.
Analytics ; (2) on the Topica 2, end, p. 19, edition of
(partly revised, mde Brandis, Thurot, 1875). On the Meta-
p, 207, of the treatise alluded to pJiyaics,the commentary on
suj". p. 112, 1) ; (3) on the Ite- Books i.~v. has been preserved
teorology. That this tary
commen- entire ; the rest in a shortened
was not written by another form ; the first part, and tracts
ex-
Alexander already
has been second, are from the
stated (*?//?.p.304,2,and31 8,8). printed in the Scholia, of Bran-
dis,
Also the citations of Olympio- a,nd both at length in the
dorus from the Aphrodisian har-monise separate edition of Bonitz. An
almost exactly with our explanation of the cro^LcrrLKol
Alexandrian commentary ; cf lAeyxoi, which likewise bears.
Olymp. i. 133, Id. ; Alex. 126, the name of Alexander, is tainly

cer-
a" \ 01. i. 202, where Ideler spurious(cf.Brandis, 7-.^.

finds a difference that is quite p. 298). Lost commentaries
groundless, between the tion
cita- on the following works are
Olympiodorus and
of our quolecl: (1) The Categories, by
commentator (Alex. 82 a\ 01. Bimpl. (Gafafl.1, a; 3, a. e. ;
i. 298*#. ; Alex. 100, 5 ; 01. ii. 23, % and often ; De- Ccelo,76,
157; Alex. 124, "; 01. ii. 200; #, 26 K ; Dexipp. Catcg.6, 16 ;
Alex. 132, 0). If, therefore, 40, 23 55, 13
Speng. ; David,
;
something is here and there Schol. 51, ", 8; 54, ", 15, 26;
tributed
at-
to the latter which is 65, ?;; 47, 8.1, 7",33. (2) ttepl
not to be found in our mentary
com- veifasÂmmon.
IP/XT? DB Tnte-r^ret.
(Ideler,I G. I. xvii.), 12, " ; 14, a ; 23, I ; 82, " ; 4(5,
320. ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, well as the thoughts of the author.1 His own

*
however,
writings,2 are no more than explanations
5; 54, 5; 81, "; 161, J; 194, 5; 1. G. 645, 12 Bon. 799, b ; 1 Fr.

;
Boot. De
Interpret,[very frequently]title to Alex. Qu, Nat. ii. 22 j
; cf the Meiser
.
Index. Philop. 6fenu. et Corr. 14, a, "
Mich. Ephes. Sehol. in Arist. 15, a ; 18, Z",et passim). (8)

100, a). (3) The second book De Ammo, (Simpl. De An,. 18, ~b
of the First Analytics ( Philop. a, ; 25, 1); 27, 5, *tf pamm ;

SchoLinAr. 188, ft,3; 191, a, Themist. D0 J.w. 94, a ; Philop
47 ; Anon. Paris [a commentary Dtf J.W. A 10 ; 16, B, I. ; Ps.-
under Alexander's name, but Alex. Metaph. 473, 6 ; 405, 28 ;
much later, concerning which 410, 20 ; 560, 25 Bon. [734, a
cf. Brandis, I.e. p. 290] ; Sehol. 28; 735, a, 32 ; 783, 1"923 Fr.;
188, a" 19; 191, a, 10, ft,28^ the first passage is wanting
passim. (4) The Second lytics
Ana- with him] ; cf Bonitz, Alex. .
(Ps.-Alex. in Metapk. 442y Comm. in Metaph, xxii. mentaries

Com-
9 Bon, 745, ", 7 Br. ; Philop.in on the smaller thropological
an-
PostAna.lyt.Sclwl.ISS, a, 33 ; 200, writings are not
J, 30; 203, ft,18; 211, ft,34 ^ mentioned with the exception
passim; Bustrat. in Lilr. ii.; of the still existingcommentary
Anal. Post, 1,# ; 5, ", 0 ; 11, #, De 8ensu. Concerning some
0; cf. Fabric. Z. c. 666 ; Prantl supposed commentaries on the

(Sksc/A.d. Log, i. 621, 18). (5) Rhetoric and Poetics,vide bric.
Fa-
On the Physics (Simpl. Phy*. 665, 687. That Alexander
3, # ; 4, "x ; 5, fr; 6, a, and expounded other writings sides
be-
many other passages, especially those of Aristotle we
the three first books; Philop. cannot infer from the absurd
Phys. B, 16 ; M, 28 ; N, 13 ; statement of David (Scliol. in
T, 1; 4.; 9. This tary
commen- Ar. 28," % 24), that he com-
mented,
seems to have been the not only the works of
principal source from which Aristotle the Stagirite, but
that of Simplicius is taken ; those of the other men of that
and the fragments of the pre- name ; also the discussion con-
cerning
Socratic philosophy,especially, the harmonic numbers
which give such great value to of the Slmffitit mentioned by
the work of Simplicius,would Philop.(DcAn. D 6) must have
appear to have been altogether, been found in the commentary
or chiefly,borrowed from it). on the Treatise of the Soul,
(6) The treatise on the heavens 1 Cf
on this point and against .
(Alex. Meteorol. 76, a-, Ps.- Bittor'a (iv. 264) depreciatory

Alex. Mefaph. 677, 27 ; 678S 7 judgment of Alexander, Bran-
Bon. [807, 0; 36, ", 11 Fr.]; dls, I. G. p. 278 j Schwegler,
Simpl. De Coelo. Selwl. 468, a ; Metaphy"k de# Arist. i. ; Torr.
11 sqq. [Damasc. I. c. 454, ft,
11] ; s, viii. ; Bonitz, Alex. Comm. in
470, ft,15-473, a ; 485, a ; 28 Mefaph. JPrtstf. i. ; Prantl, Oesrh.
$$$, et passim. (7) De Genera- tier Log. i. 621.
tiane et Covruptione(Ps.-Alex. 2
We possess four of those
ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS. 321
CHAP.
and for Aristotle's doctrines. XI.

apologies In this
manner, in his still

existing commentaries, he has
treated of meteorology, and metaphysics; in
logic,1 Writings
besides the commentaries vrfpl a treatise -Trepi

âi^vtav (Michael
^VXTIS, 2, B. (ap. Themist. Opji. or whoever may be the author
Venet. 1534, p. 123 SQQ.} ; w. of this commentary, printed
(ibid.163 8C[c[,
elpapfjiev'ris et pass. ; with Simpl. De Amma^ on the
latest Orelli, Zur. 1824);
ed. treatise TreplT^S /ca0' tiirvovp.av-
Kal
"f"v(riK"v fyQiK"v aTropi"v teal riKTjs, p. 148, b) : another tise
trea-
\v"recavs 4, B. (qutpstionesnatu- against Zenobius the Epi-
curean
rales, "c., edition of Spengel, (Phil d. Gr. III. i. 377)
Munich, 1842, who in the face,
pre- in which, according to Simpl.
together with Fabricius, PJiy. 113, 2",he had sought to
I. c. gives all informa-
661 tion
s#., prove the distinction of the
respecting the title and Above, Below, "o., to be a
earlier editions) ; -jrepl/j"eo"s natural distinction. The tise,

trea-
(attached to -the Aldine edition however, on the seat of the
of the Meteorology, and fect
imper- rjyefjLovLK^v,
alluded to in the
commencement).
in the commentary on the work -repi
On the other hand the Probl"nis, "jW Kw^crecus,154, b, 155, a, is
larpLK"v Kol QvffiK"v TrpojSATj^ci- doubtless not distinct from
rcoi/, 2 B (cf. also Fabric. 662 Alexander's dissertation, X"e
sqg. and, in respect to Base- An. i. p. 140 s^fjf.
; and the
maker *s edition in the fourth lAovofiipXlov,
quoted by Eustrat.
volume of Didot's Aristotle, in Mh. N. 179, a, in which it
Prantl, Munch. Gel. A?iz. 1858, is proved as against the Stoics
No. 25) and a treatise on Fevers that virtue does not suffice for
(Fabric. 664), certainly do not happiness, is the same as the
belong to Alexander. Among portion of the work bearing
lost writings are mentioned : A the same independent title, p.
treatise on the difference be-
tween 156 $%{[. Concerning essay an
Aristotle and his ciples

dis- on the virtues, which still exists
in regard to syllogisms in MS., a very doubtful treatise
with premisses of unequal mo- dality on the powers of stones quoted
(Alex. Anal. Pr. 40, 1, 83, by Psellus ; the allegoricalpretations
inter-
a ; cf PML d. "r. II. ii.224) ; this

.
of myths (Ps. Alex.
is no doubt the work referred Probl. 87) which
i. are tainly
cer-
to by Philop. Anal. Pr. xxxii. spurious, and some
ft; Snlldl. 158, bt 28 (HvruHfio- Arabic treatises mentioned by

vo"l"\"i),on the other hand the Casiri,all,erroneously no doubt,
Xoyucb (Alex.
"rx"iA.ta Anal. Pr. attributed to Alexander (vide
83, a ; Sohol. 169, ", 14) must Fabric, v. 667 .?#, 658).
_
distinct from, it ; 1 Concerning his logic, vide

be something
the words "rni irheoj/ f^ral poi Prantl, Gcsoh. der JLogW, i. 622
"v rols "rxoA.ioi" TOIS Xoyticois s$$. But, except his definitions
seem to me to be a gloss. Also on the relation of the individual
322 ECLECTICISM,
CHAP. two concerningthe soul,and in

books many passages
XI. has
of enquiriesinto natural science,he developed
the anthropologyand psychologyof his master ; in
consist
wholly of the first three books of the last mentioned work he
for Aris- has discussed many physicalquestions,and in the

totle's
and
fourth many definitions of the Peripateticethics,
in
commen-
taries oppositionto
on the cavils of the Stoics ; in Book i. 18,
them.
he defends the necessityand eternityof the world
againstthe Platonists ; in the .treatise Trspl

/ufscos*
he combats the Stoic doctrine of the mutual inter-
penetrationof bodies ; in the treatise on destiny,1he

defends the freedom of the will against the Stoic
fatalism. The weaknesses of his adversaries are
pointedout in this treatise with acuteness and skill,

but we cannot expect to find in it a thorough and
searchingenquiry into the human will. Alexander
layschief stress on the practical

results of fatalism,2
among which he does not forgetthe theological

arguments which for himself are not exactlyfitting,
namely, that fatalism does away with Providence
and the hearingof prayer ; 3 he also repeatedlyand
and the universal, to be spoken js, cf. De An.
of, infra ; there is not much of ii. p. 159 ay. ; Qu. Mit. i. 4 ; ii.
importance to be derived from 4 sqq. ; Hi. ,13. Tennemarm (v.
it. The most noteworthy por-
tion 18G *'##.)
and, more concisely,
(though in fact this is to Hitter (iv.265 *#.),give extracts
be found already in Aristotle) from the former treatise. It is
is the distinction of the analytic unnecessary to enlarge further
and synthetic methods (Anal, upon ic in this place,as the trea-
tise
Pr. 3, 5 ; cf Nat. Qu. i. 4 ; p.
.
contains no thoughts es-sentially
13 sq. Speng.) ; the discussion new ; and moreover
on the subcontrary opposi-
tion has been made generally sible
acces-
(Boet. De Interpr. ii. p. through the edition of
158 sq. Meis.); and the asser-
tion Orelli.
that 2
only the categorical j" Fate, c. 16 w.
syllogismsare pure and legiti-
mate
(Toj".6).
THEORIES OF ALEXANDER. 323
emphaticallyinsists on the principlethat the uni- CHAP.
versal opinion of mankind, and the innate ideas '
which express themselves especially

in language,are
a sufficient and irresistible proof of truth.1 The
Peripatetichere falls back upon immediate sciousness

con-
in the same way that we have so often

noticed in the popular philosophysince the time of
Cicero. More originaltheories are brought forward
by Alexander in the discussions of some other meta-
physical,
psychological,and theologicalquestions.
The doctrine of Aristotle,of mind, divine and
human, as we have seen, has much obscurity,and
his sayingsabout the relation of the deity to the
world, as well as those on the relation of human
reason to the divine reason, and to the inferior parts

of the soul,labour under a mystic vagueness. But
this itself is connected with the fundamental minations
deter-
of the system concerningform and matter,
and can hardly be removed without a recastingof
these. Therefore,while Alexander is intent upon
a conceptionof the Peripateticdoctrine, which shall
set aside the mystic element as much as possible
and establish an altogethernatural interconnection
of phenomena, he cannot avoid considerable tions
devia-
from the doctrine of his master, however little
he may confess it to himself. Aristotle had indeed

declared individual essences to be the truly Sub-
1 Do Fato, c. 2 ; c. 7 ; c. 8 ; 32, p. 35 sqg. ; 93, M). The
of. c. 5, 12, end; 14, beginning; contradictory statement of Am-
"b
De, An, 161, a. Speech,how- monius (D# IntiWjpr.32, \

ever, itself inborn
is not ; only ScJioL in, Ar. 103, ", 28) is
the faculty of speech is (Qu. rightlyrejectedby
so Frantl (I."j.
Wat. iii. 11 ; Boet. De Interyr. 624, 27).
Y 2
324 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. stantial,but at the same time he had declared the

XL
Universal to be the proper objectof knowledge; he
Aristotle's had conceded that forms, with the exception of
doctrine
pure reason and the deity,are not separated from
ofthepar-
ticular matter, but he had nevertheless sought the proper
and uni-
versal
;
essence of thingsin them alone. Alexander goes a
form, and Of the two
step further. conflictingdefinitions that
'matter.
the higher realitybelongsto the individual and the
How
treated T)y highertruth to the universal,he gives up the second
Alex-
ander.to save the first. The individual,he maintains
(hereindepartingfrom Aristotle1), is not only for us
prior to the universal,for if the indi-

but in itself, vidual
were not, the universal could not be ; 2

and
consequentlyhe not onlyincludes incorporeal

natures,
such as the Deity, under the conception of indi-
vidual
substance,3 but also holds the individual to
be the proper object of

conceptions; yet universal
in these universal conceptions,

onlythose determina-
1 Cf. Phil. d. 6V, II. ii. 197, with
this, cf. Dexipp. Cat. c.
12; 54, 22 zqq. Sp. (Sdlwl, in
*
Simp. Cat. 21, /3: 6 ûeVrot Ar. 50, #, 15 sqg".)who pares
com-
*AAe"aj/5pos
evravda Kal ry ^"i5"rei Alexander in this
respect
titrrfpa
ra Ka66\ov rcov KaQeKacrra with BoSthus (suj".119, 2) ; and
David, in Cat. ScJwl. 51, #. 10.
ovde/jitav rb 5e
KO/mtfav"r%"$bj", ev We have no right to refuse
ftrav Xey?;,
a/"Xf?Xa/mftdvcav, rb credit to these utterances(as
"?vcu Kal TV overlay ra KOtvairapa Prantl does 1. 623) because
T"V Ka63 Xafj,fidv"iv
e/cacrra . . .
Alexander also maintains the
KOIVOV yap "VTQS,(f}7}fflv,
avdyKy incorporealityof the concept
Kal rb aropov elku, " yap ro?y (cf.Boot, in JPorpk.
a se" Trausl.
KOLVQLS ra "ro]jia ire m) ; for the aro/jLov is not
p. 56,
ar6fjioi)5e cWos, ov irdvrcos necessarilysomething corporeal
Kowhv, "#ye r6 KOW"V iirl7roAAo?y. (vide next note), and as Boe-
Loc. cit. ": (JAAe|.) Kal rfj"j"6a""i thus (Z."?.) says, quoting from
irporspas $Qv\6fJiGvo$ etvai ras aro- Alexander, even from the cor-
poreal
IULQVS ovcriasrQv KQIV"V. jj.^ OVG"V the conception of incor-
poreal
yap rS"v ardpow,ovSkv elvai Sî/arai, form can be abstracted.
l,rwy a\\ow. In agreement 8
Simpl. Cat. 21, ": 6 ^vroi.
FORM AND MATTER. 325
tions of the individual are broughtunder tion

considera- CHAP.
XI.
equallypresent in several individuals
which are
or may be present.1 The universal conceptionsare

therefore,as he observes,universal only in the in-
telligence
which abstracts them from individuals ; as
soon as this ceases to think them, they cease to
exist : it is onlyour thoughtwhich releases the forms
bound up with matter from matter, and gives to

them realityin their absolute existence (fursich-
sein}.2 This indivisibility of form from matter
Kal rb voyrbv Kal "^97 ou"6 %ffriv avrobv ri vovs
eTSos aro/u,ov ov"iav e^ye iv rep voeTcrflcu avrols y rov

Aeyeerflcu(priori.JBM. 23, y : "s vorjro'istlvat VTrocrravis. ra, yap
'
Ka66\ov Kal KOLVOL rfyvfitv vitapîv

ev ro'is Kad"Kao~rd re Kal GVV\OLS
KLVOVV %v avrfj
repcu at airoplaL. KOivd re Kal KaddXov yivsrai,Kal
1
Alexander shows this, Qu". r6r" "crri vovs ftrav vortrai, "i
Nat. i. 3. The generic con-

ceptions, Se fj.^ VOO'LTO oi"8e HffTtv
he here says, relate %TI. ""rr" "x.capicrQ^vra
rov
neither to individuals, nor to voovvros avra vov tpQel-

an absolute self-subwistent perai, e^ye h r"p voslffQai rb
universal, aAA' ei"rlv ol opicrôlelvai avrols. Sâota8e rovrois Kal
rcav "fv rols KaQ^Kao-ra KOLVCOV, ra biroid ecrn
e^ a"pai.p"(r"cas, ra
^ rcav Ka6eKao~ra "rar" ra $v jua^^/xari/ca.LOG. c-it. 143, " :
auroTs Kowd . . . hcyovrat 5e T""V ra fj,%vyap %vv\a sYS?}virb rov

VQVj/jLdrcavKal r"v KOLV"V ol fipicr-
vov voyra ylveraL 8vra tivvd/Afi
pol, *6n vov rb xcaptcrai. rbv avQpa)- vorjrd. -^(apl^(av yap avra rys
ifov (the essential nature of 6
ij\7]s VQVS, fJiÔ ?)$ icrrus avrys
'
mail) farb r""v ffbv ols {KpeffryKev (1. auTOiV) rb etvat,^vepysta,

$AAft"jf Kal Ka6' avrltv Xaftsiv' 6 vofira aurbs- avra TTOLS?, "c. Cf.
"" rov v"p"crrS"TOS ftev /-ter'aXXcav, also Metaph. 763, 1", 37; Br.
voQV}j".4vov Se xwpls %K.t:(v"av [/cai493, 30 Bon. The discussions
ahhuv, no doubt,
in Nat. shoiilcl be
Qu. i. 17, 26, refer to
omitted],Kal v"p"(rrr)K"v, this relation
oux ^ of the ei$?} %vv\a
6pHTfAbs elz/aiSo/eel Kal to their substance.
vo'ft/Aaros Alexander
KOIVOV. Cf. yimpl.Phys. 1G, b, here shows that Form is in sub-
stance,
2 De An. 131), t" : rwv yap not ecy iv vTroKGtfievcp "
?", not as if in something

fJidvov,
r"p "pQopav avrwv which existed without it, and
rbv airb rys ttXys ^(apiff^v to which it ia there-
fore
superadcled,
'crav }J,fy
VQVJTCLL ra rotavra not Kara crv^"l37)Kos(of.
326 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. must hold good also of the soul,the more decidedly

XL
Alexander maintains the Aristotelian definition that
the nothing else than the form

soul is of the
organicbody.1 As the form of the body, it is so
closelybound up with it that it cannot exist without
it,its originand constitution is conditioned by the

body, and no activityof the soul is possiblewithout
a corporeal motion.2 Even the highestactivities of
as to the meaning- of this pression,
ex- rovrois (the parts of the body)
Phil. d. 6rV. II ii.308, 1 ) yivoîvv}. Kal eVrl rb ara"ju.aKCLL
for matter became this definite 77 rovrov Kpacris alrta rf) "fyvxfj
substance first through the rijs e" ap^Tjs 'yei/ecrecus,as
strumentality
in- we can
of Form; and see from the fact that the

Form, on the other hand, is constitution of our souls sponds
corre-
only that which it is, as the to that of our bodies :
form of this body. Similarly

Alexander explained Time, in eivaijOVK etVl rr)$ "$"v)(ri$
avrys
partial agreement with totle
Aris-
(Phil. d. Gr. 401) II. ii. avr'fiv . . .
iracrat y"p at rrjs
as something existingonly in "fyvxysKivfjffets

rov (rvva/uLtyorepov
our idea, and he called man rov (tovroseiVi^. Cf. Qa. j\ra,t.
TTOLyrtys rov xpdvov(Themist.De ii. 2 ; Simpl. Phys. 225, a ; and
An. 220, 26 Sp.) concerning the Aristotelian
1
De An. 123, a, ; 124, ", et doctrine which Alexander here
pass ; cf. Qu. t\rat.i. 17, p. 61 j follows, cf. vol. ii. /;,597, G.
i. 26, p. 83." On account of this indivisibility
2
De An. 126, a. The tinuation
con- of soul and body Alexander will
of the proposition not allow their relation, to be
apprehended according to the
ou "ffri tyvxti.Ibid. 125, a" : analogy o f that between the tist
ar-
that the soul is not a self-sub- and his tool (PMl. d. "r. II.
sistent substance, but the form ii. 487), for the artist is separate
of body, is plain from its
the from his tool ; but the soul is
activityj ov yct,p ol6v re Hvepyeidv in the body, and especiallyin
rivet. yevecrdai xojpls*the
^v%t/c}/j/ .central organ, as its form
Kiv^crews. This
{Tca/jLariK^s is and tho force inherent in it ; the
then proved in detail, and the other parts of the body can only
inference drawn "$ rov ff6âros be regarded as organs : J)" An.
tan rl
(namely its form) /ml 127, i, J; cf. 8impl. J)e An.
ax"pLVfos avrov. p"rriv yfcp 13, /";Alex. ""itu ^ "$ "pydv"p
^Sîaz/ r"v vlKelwv Xp?i"rQou
etV;xtaPLO''T^J rrj tyvxf}'M 7"P ytvc"r-
^vspyeiSivKa6* avr^v ^vepy^cfat 9ai "v ri "?/crov xp"^vov Kal TOW
Loo. olt. 14B, d : The
Sui/afteV^f. opydvov.
soul is 8vva/At$
rts Kal ovcrla Hirl
THE SOUL, 32
CHAP.
the soul form no exceptionto this. The Aristotelian
doctrine of the parts of the soul is also defended 1_ ,
by Alexander;1 but he insists the more strongly

that the higher faculties of the soul cannot exist
without the lower, and that the unity of the soul
depends upon this ; 2 and whereas Aristotle had tinguished

dis-
vovs as to its origin and its essence very
decidedly from all other faculties,Alexander ordinates

co-
it in one series with the rest. Intellect
in man exists primarilyonly as a disposition vovs "
V\LKOS teal merely potentialthought.3

(frvcrifcbs "
the development of this there

disposition,
Through
arises the real activityof thought "
intelligence
as
an operativequality,as an active power, the vovs The soid
i /" e/o A T-" "1 j 1 "

1. "C J.
MWi VOVS.
" i
Qi vovs fcau sgtv. But that WHICH, effects

STTLKTTITOS
the potentialintelligenceand
development of
bringsit to actualityas the lightbringscolours,the

vovs is, accordingto Alexander, not a
TroL'TjTitfcbs,
part of our souls,but only the divine reason ing
operat-
it, and in consequence of this operation
upon
conceived 5
by it. Thus the mystic unity of human
1 D$ An. sqq. ; 146, ".
128 the Arabian and Scholastic phi-
2 Loc. tit. 128, a, 1); 141, a. losophers derived their well-
3
Perhaps it may be in con- known doctrine of the intelkc-
nection with this, that Alex- tm acqni*?itu$.
ander, according to Simpl. DC Loo. cit. 130, 1)\143, b, ^.;
5
An. 64, ", would, admit no pure 130, b: cnradfa 5^ "v ("5TTQM?"-
self -consciousness, related to abs vovs) ical ^ fj.ejj.iyju.4j/os
v\rj
vovs as such ; for he taught nvl teal ftpOaprds^ffnv,Ivepyeia
that conceived directlythe
vovs "v KO.I elSos XUP^S5vi/(f/a"c"js
re Kal
etor}alone; and itself only /CCCT^ $Xr)$. rotovrov 8% ~bv SeSeiKTcu
far as it is one
(rvjuLfieftyKbs,,
so far' 'A/ucrroTe'Aovy r" irp"rov
with the "^77. 'aYnov 5 Kal Kvpios ""rrlvovs, "fcc.,
4 Z.QG. cit. 188, a, sg.; 143, b. p. 114, a: TOVTO 5^ TO vorjro'v
In these definitions of Alexan- re rf) avrov tyvcrsiKO.I war' """"
der He the source from which ytiav vovs, afriov yiv6u.evovry
328 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. reason with the divine is here broken j on the one

XI.
side is man, and on the other the deityoperating
upon him. The human soul is therefore an lutely
abso-
finite essence ; the souls of the gods (i.e.no
doubt the heavenly bodies)could only be called l

souls in an improper sense In accor-
(opwvviMtosr). dance
with philosopherplaces the seat of

this our
reason, to which Aristotle had denied any corporeal
organ,2in the heart,3like the Stoics,and says, uni-

versally
and unconditionally of the human soul,

what Aristotle had said only of one part of it,that
it passes away with the body.4 The attempt which
$ TOV O"nfJ.CW"6fJiGv6v
/carcfc T^JV irpbsr"
"(TTt TOV VOV 6 "j/"p-
'6
TOLOVTOV "?8o$
ava"popkv x"apifciv yela vovs, ZffTiv 6 6
Ovpadej/,
T" Kal Kal voelv
fjiifj."Lff6ai Kal T""V "jraj/reAetos 6 Kv/Bepvuv Tb . . .
Traj/. Concerning his explana-

tion
voyrbv OtipaQev""TTI Ae
avTo, of the particular in the
fMevos vovs "5
iroL^TLKbs,OVK Aristotelian passages concerned,
Kal Svvatiis ns
/j,6piov TTJS ^/ic cf iMd. Q. 4, 5, 8 ; also Simpl. .
pas if/v^s,aAA' yivdfJLe De An. 64, #.

"|""0"j/
avro vo"^v .
1
D" An. 128, a.
Se kffriv T\\JM"Vrotovros 2 Cf .
Plitt. d. 0r. II. ii. 568, 3.
"v "tK6rcas. On account of this 8
De An. 141, a. Observe
assertion, Alexander was quentlyhere
fre- also the Stoic yye/AoviKov
attacked by later mentators,
com- and the Platonic XoytorTiK^vin-
stead
cf. Themist. De An,. of the Aristotelian vovs.
89, i though not

(where, 4 Loo. cit. 127, a, o : ovcra ^
named, he is evidentlyalluded 7) t//i"x^ eldos TOV crdjuiaTOs . . .
to) ; Simpl. Plvys.I a; 59, a ; T"" ax^p'-o'TOV ,

etvcu TOV crtiofjiaTOs
Philop. De An. F, 11 ; G-, r"i roiovTov elSos Kal crvjuL"j"6"ipoi
7 ; H, 8 ; Q, 2 3 (quotation
from Ammonius) ; 10, sg. TOV
Alexander's general view of Nat. ii. 10: 97 ^v%^ ofiv

vovs is thus summed up by "?5os "bv aSvvaTov avTb ttaO* a^rJ)
Philop. I. "?., 0, Q, 2 : irpuiroy elvai. % y"p 0A??s 5e?rat irpos rb
'
Ae'yeirov vov TarJr^s-ri

"?yat, "by (namely its
t vovv, ^crnv fal rfijv
ftswep form) aSiWroj/ aurb /ca0* avT^
elvai. Alexander here infers
fjLGVov rov 5vi/4aei[ley.
TOV vow] d that the soul cannot move
KaQ1 ej-tv vovs, 6 girl
ttsirep rfav itself,in and for jtself; but it
T"\ei(ov cwQod)ir"av . , . rpirov also follows that it cannot exist
GOD AND THE WORLD. 329
is seen in these definitions to refer phenomena to CHAP.

XI '
natural causes by rejecting everything superna-

tural may be also perceived in the doctrine of the
Aphrodisianon the relation of God and the world.

All that happens in the world he derives, like Relation
Aristotle, from the influence which diffuses itself "f "".^

7
ana the
from the Deity first into the heavens, and from
thence into the elementary bodies ;

1 but this whole
process is conceived entirelyas a process of nature ;
in each of the elements there is more or less
animate force, according as its higher or lower
position in the universe, and its coarser or finer
nature, places it nearer or further to the first bearer
without the
body. This denial Alexander again refers
of
An.
writers,
immortality, which Alexan-
in
also
his
tried
is often
David, cf,
der
commentary
to prove
mentioned
in
ingly
on
by later
Sclwl. in
De
totle,
Aris-
the
their
a
the
55
direction
fixed
Aristotelian) eêVei
ope"ei Tij/bs over/as (the spiritof
sphere)
contrary
heaven,
star
must
but,
of
at
be moved
to that
ical
in
Arist. 24, ", 41 ; 26, ", 13; the same time, must be carried
Philop. De An. A, 5, o ; B, 8, round by it " a double motion
Q, 4. which was necessary, because
1 The motion of the heavens otherwise there could not
itself, Alexander explained, be in the world beneath the

like by
Aristotle, supposing moon of a regular alternation
that the
(rwjuo KVKXofyQpyriKbv generation and passing away
bad a longing to become as (Qu. Nat. i. 25). Alexander
like as possible to the highest, also (herein differing from
eternal, and unmoved substance Aristotle) attributes a soul to
(which, however, according to the irp"TOs ovpavbs, in which the
Simpl. P/iys. 319, 6, he did not, longing, which Aristotle had

like Aristotle,conceive as side
out- ascribed to matter itself (PHI.
the heavens, but as herentd. 6V. II. ii.373 *#.)must
in- have its
in the outermost sphere seat ; his contradiction to Her-
as a whole) ; and since a long-

ing minus (vide s^t"pra,p. 318, 1) con-
sists
presupposes a soul, he says only in this that Herniinua

that the Q"uov cnSâ fyufwxovKOL\ derives from the soul what
/caret tyvxfyvKLVO^^VOV. larly
Simi- according to Alexander, is the
each of the seven tary
plane- effect of the first moving ciple.
prin-
spheres (to which accord-
330 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, of this force sky; and it is likewise divided

" the
XJ"
among the bodies compounded of these elements in
__
greateror lesser measure ; they have a more or less
perfectsoul,according as they consist of purer or

impurer substances and, particularly, according as
more or less of the noblest element, fire,is mixed
up in them.1 In this divine power the essence of
2
nature consists ; but Providence
destiny coin-
cides or
with nature.3 Therefore, though Alexander

does not admit destinyin the Stoical sense, he is as
little inclined to favour the ordinarybelief in Pro-
vidence.
This belief seems to him not only irrecon-
cileable with the freedom of the human will " for
free actions, as he points out, the Deity Himself

cannot foreknow,since His power does not extend to
4
the impossible but is also opposed to right con-
" ceptions
of God and the world. For it cannot sibly

pos-
be supposed that the mortal and meaner is the
end, and the activity of the higher"-of God "
is merely a means existingfor the sake of the
former;5 nor can we say of the world that it

1
Qu. Na"t, ii. 3. theory (w/tf #tf/wr" p. 327, 5 ;
2
Qu. Nut. I e. p. 90 ; J)e.An. 329, i). Bmndin, Mwl 475, # ,
159, # : TTJS Oelas SwdjuLetav

ryjs 45: ws ^TT! rotirovS. r. 0, :
Jy T$ 7"w?r$ crti)/a.ari
J-yytvo^vys l
HO far as the deityis combined
irpbsr" Oe'tov [sc.cTw/ua]with the jtjthcr,*
ct7r"" TTJS
yeirvidcrews,fyvKal tyvfftvKO,\QV- 3 J)tf Pfltf^C, 6 : AefTrercu 5^?

fM"v. According1 to JSimpl. l)t*" AOITT"J/ r^*/ "tfjt,apfji,4vr)v
" ro?s
(JcelO)
54,a, 23, Karston, Aloxan- tyi'icrei
yivo^vois elvat A^ycij/, "$
der even Identified the Deity eTwu raur^ ^lâip^vfiv
re Kal
with the aether,for it ishere "nid "/"^(rof,
which is then further
(ap.Arist. JDe 6M0, i.8 ; 270 //,
8) discunsod. J)"t An, 102,
he referred the ""dvarov to the XefTr^rat "pa rtyvâpiu.^'
Qelov crwâa, "$ rodrov ftvrosrov "\Ko fy rfyvotKetav ^"rty
060v. But only the reading of l/cc(WoiA iteo.
Brandis is compatible with the * Iki JPbto,c. 80,
context, and with Alexander's *
Qu. W"it" ii,21, p. 128
OPINIONS ON PROVIDEXOE. 331
requiresa providence for its constitution and main- CHAP.
tenance ; on the contrary, its existence and con-

'
dition is a consequence of its nature.1 If,therefore,

Alexander does not wholly deny Providence, he
confines it to the world beneath the moon, because
for this world alone care is taken by somethingout-
side
itself which is destined to maintain it in its
existence and order, throughthe world of planets; 2

and if he also opposes the notion that Providence
is only an accidental operation of the
Deity, he
considers it just as little an activityworking with
design,but only as a consequence of Nature, fore-
known
and fore-ordained by it.3 We cannot call
these opinions on Providence entirelyun-Aristo-
telian ; but as they follow the Aristotelian doctrine
only on the physical side, they give proof of the

naturalism of the philosopher, whose explanation
of the life of the soul approximates to the Stoic
Materialism,and his whole

theory of the universe
to the standpointof Strabo the physicist.
Alexander of Aphrodisiasis the last important

teacher of the Peripateticschool with whom we are
Peripote-
0". the quotationsfrom Adras- a more remote sense to the "^-
tus, stymi, p. 310, with whom, whole material world,
however, Alexander does not 3
Qu. J\rttt.ii. 21, p. 124
sg.,
wholly agree j for he supposes 131 sq. Alexander here ota-
tho planetsto have their double serves that the questionwhether
motion for the sake of the Providence proceeds /ca0' "M
earthly sphere, vide sujjra, p. or /car" has never
"rv/*0"j8ij""s
#29, 1. been closelyinvestigated
more
1
Loo. olt. ii. 10. by any of his
predecessors; he
2 fao. cU. and i. 25, p. 79 $$. himself givesthe above decision
According to the second passage only hypothetically, but it
the conception of Providence manifestly expresses his own
can only have been applied in opinion.
332 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. acquainted. Of the few who are mentioned after

XL
him in the firsthalf of the third century,1
all without
From the exception were From

insignificant.2 the second
second
half of the
half of the third century the Peripatetic school
third cen- graduallyto have lost itself in the school of
seems
-twry the
the Neo-Platonists,in which the knowledge of
Peripate-
tic School Aristotle's writings was also zealouslymaintained ;
is gra-
dually we still hear of Peripatetics;
3 and there were not
merged in who commented the Aristotelian
that of the
wanting men on
JVeo-Pla- writingsand followed their doctrines in particular

tonists.
branches,such as logic,physics,and psychology; 4
Longinus ap. Porph. V. Plot.

1 in the Peripateticphilo-
sophy
20, among
his
the philosophers of
time whom
mentions
Heliodorus
Ammonius
he
(accordingto
there
three
of
self
merates,
enu-
patetics:the
Peri-
andria,
Alex-
wished
to have
that
to make him
his
head
school in that place, seems
displayed his chief
strength in mathematics. A
of
native city
Philostr. V. Soph. ii. 27, 6, he fragment from his Ktx,K4v"sir"pl

was probably in Athens), and TO v ird"rxais quoted by Eusebius,
Ptolemasus. Of these only the 1. c.j 14 siffl.
; a fragment like-
wise,
first left philosophical
writings; ap. Fabric. Mbl. Gr. Hi.
of the other two, Longinus 462 sg.9 may, perhaps,belong to
remarks that they were indeed him ,* but the fragments ap.
full of knowledge, especially Iambi. Theol. Arithuwt. (ride
Ammonius (of whom Philostr. index) are from an earlier Ana-
tolius,
I. o. confirms this testimony), the teacher of lanabli-
but only wrote poems and chus.
clamatory
de-
orations, to which 8 Vide suflra^ p. 302, 2.
themselves 4
they would hardly
Thus, following Plotinus,
have attributed so much value came Porphyry, lamblichus,
as to wish to be known to pos-
terity Themistius, Dexippus, Byrianus,
by these productions. Ammonius, Sirnplicius, the two
Porphyry, ap. Bus. Pr. JSfo.x. 3, named Olympiodorus, and other
1, also mentions as his con-
temporary Neo-Platonists, to whom we
in Athens, Prosenes must add Philoponusj in the
the Peripatetic,perhaps head East, Boethus, and the philoso-
phers
of the school there. quoted by him, Victorinus
a Anatolius
Even of dria,
Alexan- and Vegetius Projtextatus. Of
who became bishop of these men, so far
they come as
Laodicea about 270 A.D., and, within the scope of the present
according to Eus. JFfist. JScoL exposition,we shall have to
via. 32, 6, so distinguishedhim- speak later on.
EXTINCTION OF THE PERIPATETIC SCHOOL. 333
but with regard to philosophers who adopted CHAP.

any
XL
the Peripatetic doctrine in their whole theory of
the world, there are only incidental allusions.1
1 We meet with such a

Peri- Vers. Xsid. 131, was converted
patetic even
at the end of the by Isidorus from the Aristo-
fifth century in Dorus the telian to the Platonic i.e. the

"
Arabian, who, according to Neo- Platonic "

system.
Damasc, Suid. ml vooe, cf
ap. .
334 ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTEE XII.
THE PLATONIC SCHOOL IN THE FIRST CENTURIES
AFTER THE CHRISTIAN ERA.
CHAP. OUR knowledge of the Academic school1 at the

XII.
point where we last left it becomes so fragmentary,
that for half a century not even the name of any of
D.
Platonuts its teachers is known to us.2 Only in the last
'-e"-rs
decades of the first century does some lightbreak
in upon this darkness, and from that time onward we
can follow the school through a continuous series of
Platonic to the times

philosophers of Neo-Platonism.3
1 Cf. Fabric. MU.iii.l 59 ,"?#"/.; during Nero's visit to Greece

Zumptr p. 59 sgq.) in the tise
trea- 63 A.D. is narrated, Def. Orac.
quoted supra, p. 112, 1. c. 4; 9; 20; 33; 38; 46; De
2
Seneca, whose testimony Athdat. 31, p. 70 ; TlieniistoU.
must be valid, at any rate for c. 32, end ; Eimap. V. Soph*
Rome, goes so far as to say : Protein. 5 ; 8). With him Plu-
tarch
JVa"t. Qu. vii. 32, 2 : Academiol is connected, of whom
et veteres et minores nullim we fcihallspeak more at length
later on. Aristpdemns, of
After the Platonists, men-
tioned JEgium, was a friend and co-
p. 100 sgg,, the next that disciple of Plutarch, whom

we know of is Aminonius of Plutarch calls, Adr. Col. 2,
Egypt, the teacher of Plutarch, ov vap-
who taught in Athens, probably
as head of the Platonic school, opytacrrfyvTlXdrowos, and to
and died there, after having whom in this place,and in the
repeatedly filled the office of treatise against Epicurus (JVr.
Strategus (Pint. Qu. S'ljtnp.
Hi. P. fhwv. v.)he has given a part
1; viii. 3; ix. 1, 2, 5, 1,5; De in the conversation. Under
Si. c. 1 sff.p. 385, where a sup-
posed Hadrian seem to have lived
conversation with him the Syrian Apollonius, men-
LATER PLATONISTS, 335
In its mode of thought it remained true,on the whole, CHAP.

XII.
to the eclectic tendency which it had struck out since
tioned as a Platonist by Spar- Peloplaton, and who taught

tian. JEfadr. 2, and Gains, in Antioch, Rome, Tarsus, and
Galen heard in "J""
whose pupil other places,and also stood in
Pergamum about 145 B.C. (Galen. favour with Marcus Aurelius *".ootat
tfm
Coffti.An. Morli. 8, vol. 5, 41 ; (Philostr. F. Soph. ii. 5; M.
vide m/m, p. 337, 3). In the Aurel. i. 12); /Ibinus, the
eighth year of Antoninus Pius pupil of Gains (the title of a
(145 A. D.) Jerome ( Chro-n. JEvs.) treatise spoken of inf.p. 337, 3,

places Oal visius Taurus, of describes him as such) whose structions
in-
Berytus (Eus. 1. c. ; Suid.TaSp.). Galen attended in
or Tyrus (Philostr.F. Soph, ii, Smyrna 151, 2 A.D. (Gal. De
1, 34) ; but as, according to Lilr. Propr. 2 vol. xix. 16 ; for
Gellius, JV. A. i. 26, 4, he had further details concerning Al-
Plutarch for his teacher, and, binus, vide inf.p. 338 #7.); D e-
according to Philostr. I. "?., metrius (M. Aurel. viii. 25);
Herodes Atticus, who was sul
con- Apuleius of Madaura, and
in 143 A.D., he must have Maxim us of Tyre. TJnder
come forward some time pre-
viously Hadrian lived T h e o of Smyrna
(Zumpt, p. 70). lius, (cf. Martin, Theon.
Gel- Astwn. 5
also his pupil, often men-
tions $##.),as we know from the fact
him. We see from .A7". A. that astronomical observations
20 ; ii. 2, 1 ; vii. 10, 1 ; 13, 1 of the 12th, 13th, 14th, and
tfg1.;xvii. 8, 1, that he was at 16th years of Hadrian are
the head of the school. cerning1quoted from
Con- him (cf Eossbach
.
his writing'sTide infra. and Westphal, Metrik. der 6ftr.

To the same period belong 2nd ed. 1,
76). He is described
Nigrinus, who is known to as a Platonist by Procl. in Tim.
us through Lucian (Nfyrin.')26, A, and in the title borne by his
as a Platonist residingin Rome principalwork in several manu-
scripts,
(as such he describes himself VOL /caret rb n.aQrifjia.rLKbv

Sextus, of Cha"~ els T^V HXdrcavos
in c. 18). Xfrfjo-Lfia TOV
ronea, a nephew of Plutarch's, avaryvoxnv the firstbook of this

teacher of Marcus Aurelius and work is the which
'Arithmetic,'
Verus (Capitol. Antottin. ; Bullialdus first edited ; the cond,
se-
Philos. 3; Vwm. 3; Suid. the 'Astronomy,' edited
MdpK. and 2e"r. ; by whom, by Martin; the three remaining
however, through his own take
mis- books are lost. Procl. (L 0.)
or his Sextus
transcriber's, seems to refer to
a commentary
of Chaeronea and Sextus Em- on a Platonic
work, perhaps the
piricusare confused ; M. Aurel. Kepublic (cf. Theo, Astro n. c.
i. ") ; Philostr. F. Sojph.ii. 9 ; 16, p. 203, and Martin, p. 22 ^.
Dio Cass. bod. 1 ; Butrop. viii. 79). Under the reign of cus
Mar-
12 ; Porph. Qu. Homer, 26, cf, Aurelius, besides Atticus
p. 276, 2) j Alexander of Se- (Jerome, Cfvron J"us.of the 16th
who
leucia,in Cicilia, was called year of Marcus; 176, A.D.
336 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. Philo and Antiocims. But, in the first

place,this
XII.
did not prevent individuals from protestingagainst
such overcloudingof pure Platonism; and, in the

second place,after the commencement of the first
century, there was united with this medley of
philosophicdoctrines in increasing measure that
mysticism,through
religious the stronger growth of
which the eclectic Platonism of an Antiochus and
Porph. V. Plot. U ; further tails

de- third century there lived in
infra), must be placed Athens, Theodotus and E u -
Daphnus (a physician of bulus, two SidSoxotof the Pla-

tonic
Ephesus, Athen. i. 1, "?);Har- school,of whom the latter
pocrationof Argos,a scholar was still alive after 263 A.T".
of Atticus (Procl. in Tim.
(Longinus ap. Porph, 93, V. Plot.
B s$. Suid. sub wce\ according 20; Porph. himself, I. c. 35,
to Suidas, "rwfij8t"T%$
Kalcrapos, where the few and -unimportant
perhaps the grammarian, name-
sake writings of Eubulus are also
and teacher of Verus, so mentioned). To them Longinus
described by Capitol. Ver. 2. adds as Platonists
(I. c.) who
Suidas mentions as written by had written
much, Eu elides
him els TLXdrtova in
vird^vrijua
a (cf.inf.337, 3), Democritus,
twenty-four books, and \"%*is and Proclinus, in Troas ; of
n\dra)vo$ in two books. In the Democritus, also mentioned by
first was contained no doubt-, Syrian in Metaph. Sdhol. in AT.
what Olympiodoms in Ph"don, 892, ", 31, we hear that he
p. 159, SofwL 38 ; F. in Alcib. p. wrote commentaries on the Al-
48 Cr. quotes from him. In cihictdes (Olympiodorua in, Al
the time of Marcus Aurelius, oil),p. 105, Cr.) and the Phatlv
also seem to have lived Nu m e- (ttid. in Pt"" p. 159, end,
nius, Cronius, and Celsus, 38, F), Of Ammonius, Sak-
to be spoken of later on ; at kas, Origen, and Longinns
the end of the second century we shall have to speak further
Oensorinus, attacked by his on. When 'A/cÂAas lived (quo-
ted
contemporary Alex. (Aphr. Qu. by Procl. in Tim. 319, F. in
Nat. i. 13) for a statement cerning
con- connection with a theory on
Epicurus' theory of Tim. 41, D), and
whether he
colour; perhaps also A polio -
was earlier later than Plo-
or
phanes, mentioned by Por-

phyry tinus, cannot be ascertained ;
(ap, Eus. Hist. jEecl. vi. nor are the dates of Maxim us
19, 8) as a philosophicalwriter, of Nicjea (ride inf. p. 337, 3)

with the Platonists Numenius, and of 8 ever us (iV-P- 339^.)
Cronius, and Longinus. In the exactly known.
first half and middle of the
COMMENTATORS. 337
his successors was developed into Neo-Platonism. CHAP.
The oppositionto the intermingling of other points _1 __

1"
of view with the Platonic doctrine,was chieflycalled

forth and nourished by the more accurate knowledge
of its most ancient records. As the Peripatetics of this
period turned their attention more and more to the
Aristotelian writings,
so do we see the Academics now
applying themselves to the writingsof Plato ; and if

of the school did not
the scientific activity throw itself
with the same zeal and exclusiveness into the works of
its founder as the Peripateticsdid, the study of those

works nevertheless prevailed to an important and
considerable extent. Among later writers Plutarch Comment-
stands in the closest connection with the earlier
expositors
r
of Platonic writings :
l
inasmuch as he not "$* "f
Plato and
.
r. TV
merely in numerous passages refers to sayings of Plato study

"^ m'
in generalmanner,
a but has also thoroughlydiscussed
certain pointsof his doctrine and certain sections of his
works.2 As commentators of Plato, Graius,Albinus,

Taurus, and Maximus are likewise mentioned 3
among
1 JE/U- Eu/cAc^s,
DeroyUid"$\T/iraSf/lllfS, Kal Hirlira"rivTlop"ptipLos.
dowis (ride..s?/j?;.
p. 610 .?#.). A Scholium, ap. Fabric, iii. 158,
2
Especially in the TlXarcaviK^. says : rbv (JL" HXdrcava virofj.vri-
{"TjTTJjUara and the treatise trepl fjLariôv(ft TrXeivroi. Xpfjari/j.^-
rv}s $v Ti/tiat(p
tywxvyovias, repoi 5e Tatosf,'AKfitvos,TLpia-Kiavbs
3 In the fragment of the (contemporaries of Simplicius),
commentary on the Republic Tavpos, Up6K\os, "c. Gaius also
ap. A. Mai,'Glass. Ant. I. xiv. names Porphyry V. Plot. 14
Proclus names as expounders of among those whose commen-
the mythus in "Rep,x. 614 xq. taries Plotinns had i-ead ; an
rS"v Kopvtycuot, exposition of the Timseus is no

H\arc")VLKcav ot
'AAjSTvos (as,accord-
Novfji'fivt.os, doubt referred to in Procl. in
ing to Freudenthal, ifaUenist. Tim. 104, A ; from. Taurus,

St-ud. 3 H. p. 300, the MSS. give ; Gellius (JV.A. vii. 14, 5) quotes
Mai substitutes 'AXKIVOS^ td'ios,the first book of a commentary
6 "NiKasbs, ÂpTroKparicav, on the Gorgias and also (xvii.
338 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. others. Of Albinus we possess, in a later revision,

XII.
an introduction to the Platonic dialogues,1and an
2 hitherto
epitome of the Platonic doctrines falsely
drav
(by the moderns
20) his oral exposition of the for
Symposium ; and from the first the mostpart) ehaywy^. It
book of an exposition of the has now been placed beyond
Timseus, extracts are given in question by Freudenthal's rough
tho-
the Beltker Scholia 011 Plato, p. examination (I. c. 275
43 G sq. and by Philop. De JEtern,. s##.) that its author is no other
Mundi, vi. 21. From the same than Albinus, with whose troduction
'in-
'
source comes, no doubt what is it entirely sponds

corre-
quoted by Iambi, ap. Stob. both in form and tent,

con-
Eel. ],906. and to whom many of the

1 This treatise, included by doctrines brought forward by
Hermann in the sixth, and by the supposed Alcinous, and
Diibner in the third volume of among them some that are very
his edition of Plato, has now remarkable, are expressly attri-
buted.
been subjected to a thorough The alteration of binus
Al-
investigation,and newly edited into Alcinous was (as Fr.
on the basis of more perfect p. 300, 320
shows) so much the
manuscripts by Freudenthal more possible as all our scripts
manu-
(the Platonic Albinus and the are derived from the

false Alcinous, Stud.
"f-Tellen, 3 H. same ancient copy ; and in this
241-327). Its title runs thus an 'AXKivov may have been
pp.
in the best MSS. : eisay"y)) found, or an 'AXfilvov read
"IS T-^V TOW HXdrCdVQS fttfiXOV 'AX/cIyov, and may have been
sAXj8"i/ov irp6Xoyos. Its text, changed, when the book was
however, in its present form, transcribed, into 'AA/cfvoou. But

as Freudenthal has shown, p. even this treatise of Albinus we
247 sqq. is only a badly exe-
cuted possess according to all the evi-
dence
and mutilated extract. only in a later revision,
The same writer proves, p. 257 which considerably shortened
the original work and
sq., that c. 1-4 of the prologue, duced
repro-
and Diog. Laert. iii. 48-62 have it not without some rections
cor-
emanated from one source, ; a Paris Codex (Z. 6*.
which was earlier than Thrasyl- p. 244, now imperfect), names
lus (concerning whom ride in its index Albinus' third book

sup.
p. 1 02, 2). As to its contents vide, TrepI T"JV Tixdrcavt. hpeffK^vrc^y.
Alberti, HJiein. Must. N". F. xiii. But that Albinus in his treatise
7"sqq. Some further details will made plentiful use of more
be found Phil, d Gr. II. i. 427, 3. ancient works we see from the
2 This work is called in the for the
agreement" moat part
MSS., almost without exception, word for word" of his twelfth
*A.XKw6ov fiifiao'KaXtKbs (or X6yos chapter with the passage from
Arius Didymus (ap. Bus. JPr.
in the
transcripts of some of J"v. xi. 28 ; Stob. JPel i. 330),
them also elsaycayêls r^v "piXo~ which Diels proved has now
troQtavUX. or iirirojud)
rwv
,
U\dr. more minutely (JDoxogr.76,447).
ALBINUS-SEVER US. 839
put forth under the name of Alcinous. He also posed

com- CHAP.
XII.
commentaries, but we know nothing of them.1
The commentary of Severus on the Timceus we know
through Proclus.2 The writings of Theo and Har-
pocration in explanationof Plato have been already

mentioned ;
3
commentaries on the Timceus and
are also quoted from Atticus;4 from
1
Among the more celebrated these citations have amply suf-
ficient
commentators of the Platonic parallelsin the supposed
writings, Albinus is reckoned Alcinous, and less exact lels
paral-
in the passages quoted siip. p. in Procl. in Tim. 104 A and
337, 3. What writings he ex-
pounded, Tertull. De An, 28 (cf. Freu-
denthal,
and how his taries
commen- 299 s$.\ and though
were made, tradition does it does not follow tionally
uncondi-
not tell us ; perhaps he merely from this that they
explained a number of Platonic refer to that particulartreatise,
passages in one dogmatic work, it is not unlikely that Albinus
probably that mentioned in the may have repeated and copied
index of the Paris Codex what he wrote there, as other
named in the previous note writers in those later centuries
(Freudenthal, p. 244), nine or are accustomed to do, and as
ten books of a summary of the he himself transcribes from his

Platonic doctrines according to predecessors. Moreover, though
the discourses of G-aius ('AA.- the circumstance that three of
$LVQV [add.UK] rSiv Tcilov crôX^v the utterances of Albinus relate
virorvTrdxrecav Tr\asr"aviK(av Soy/J.d- passages
to of the Ti waits and
rcav " this same work is alluded are quoted in a corarnentary on
to by Priscian, Solitt. p. 553, 7;, that dialogue, might serve to
32, as Lamni ex ffaii scliolis corroborate the theory that
Platowieorum
exemfilaribits stood
doff- they originally in a similar
mat'itm, for the translator read commentary, yet I must cede
con-
instead of AABINOT, "AAB.' to Freudenthal (p.243 *#.)
Freud. 246. According to its that this is not thereby rendered
contents, that which Prod, iti more probable.
; 70, A : 78,
63, A
2 In
Tim. 104, A; 67, C; 311 A, Tim.
quotes may have been part of B; 88, D; 168,
D; 186, B;
a commentary on the Timseus ; 187, B ; 192, B D ; 198, B E sq ;
the passage we find ap. Tertull. 304, B. I shall recur to this
JDfi An. 28 s@. may have been philosopherlater on.
taken from, an exposition on
8 Vide ^"2?ra,pp. 337, 3 j 335,
the Pliwd'O ; and that in Iambi, 336.
ap. Stob. JEJoL i. 896, may have 4
Concerning the first,cf the .
come from an expositionof the Index to Procl. in Tim,, \ the

Republic. Meantime most of other is mentioned I, c. 15, A.
z 2
340 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. Numenius and Longinus, besides other treatises

XII.
devoted to the Platonic writings,commentaries on
1
the Timceiis ; and from Longinus' contemporaries,
Democritus and Eubulus, explanations and cussions
dis-
of several dialogues.2The oral instruction
also in the Platonic school consisted,doubtless,to a
considerable extent, in the reading and interpreta-

tion
of the Platonic works.3 Through this thorough
examination of the sources of the Academic doctrine
the conviction must certainlyhave arisen that much
which had in later times claimed to be Platonic was
far removed from the real opinions .of Plato, and
thus we hear of several individuals who protested

against the prevailingconfusion of the various
Opposi- systems. Taurus wrote upon the difference of the

tiontheto
introduc-
Platonic "
and Aristotelian philosophy,and against
tion of the Stoics;4 but as to his own conception of the
alien doe-
Platonic system, little has been handed down: to us,
trines in
the writ- noticeable or characteristics5
and no peculiarities are
Syrian (Solwl.in Ar. 892, b, 31) multitude of commentaries and

seems to refer to the tary
commen- expository writings, and also
on the and
TimcBi(s, indeed, from statements like those
to the
passage discussed by quoted supra, p. 337, 3 ; 331),1,
Procl. in, Tim. 87 B. on the lectures of Taurus and
1
Vide the Index to Prod, in Gaius, and Porph. V. Plot. 14.
Tim. He seems to have taken Taurus also read Aristotelian
his quotations from jSTumenius, writingswith his scholars (ap.
out of a commentary, and not GeH. xix. 6, 2 j xx. 4, the Pro-
from the other writingsof this blems).
Platonist. Whether Oronius 4 The former, according- to
had written commentaries can- Suid.
according raup, the latter
not be decided from Porph. V.
toGellius,JO.xii.5,5. He also,
"^0** 14- according to Suidas,composed a
2
Concerning- Kal "cro"-
Democritus, treatise ir"pla-afjidrajv
vide 8uj).p, 336, n, ; concerning /mdrtw and many other works.
Eubulus, mde Longinus, ap. 5 We learn from his disciple,
Porph. V. Plot. 20. Gellius, who frequently men-
8
This we infer from the tions him, that he required a
TA UR US"ATTICTIS. 341
exhibited in it. Atticus like Taurus,

also, set himself CHAP.
XII.
againstthe tendency to amalgamate the Platonic
and Peripatetictheories. In the fragments of a $nffsOf
treatise which he devoted to this purpose1 he
appears as an enthusiastic admirer of Plato, who is
anxious about the purity of the Academic doctrines ;

attacks the Peripateticsystem with passionatepre-
judice,
and
especiallyreproachesit with the lowness
of its moral standpoint, and its denial of Providence
and immortality.2 Of the remaining doctrines of

Aristotle,it is the theory of a fifth element and the
eternityof the world which particularly
move him
to opposition,the latter so much the more, as
thorough training for philoso-

phy, apportioned the five senses to
and could not endure a the four elements, putting that
merely rhetorical treatment of of smell midway between water
it (JV. A. i. 9, 8; x. 19: xvii. and air : and that in
opposition
; that
20, 4 syr.) he did not spise to
de- Aristotle's aether, he made
subtle dialectic sions,
discus- the heavens to consist of earth
and specialphysical vestigations
in- and fire. From Iambi, ap.
(vii. IB; xvii. 8; Stob. Eel. i. 906, we learn that
xix. 6) ; that he did not wish his scholars were not agreed
to eradicate the emotions, but to as to whether souls were sent
moderate them, and therefore upon the earth for the tion
comple-
condemned passionatedisturb-
ances of the universe or for the
of the feelings,such as manifestation of the divine
anger (i.26, 10) ; that he abhor-
red life.
Epicurus' doctrine of sure
plea- 1 Ens. Pr. Ev. xi. 1, 2 ; xv.
and denial of Providence 4-9, c. 13, and probably also in

(ix.5, 8),to pass over points of c. 12. In the first of these
less importance (ii.2 ; vii. 10, passages the subject of the
14, 5 ; viii. 6 ; xii. 5; xviii. 10; treatise is indicated in the
xx. 4). It further appears from words : irpbsrovs Stct,r"v 'Apicr-
the fragment ap. Philop. IJv ToreXovs rk HXdrcovos inricrxvov-
JKtwnl M. vi. 21 that he, with /JLGVOVS. What we find in the
the majority of contemporary superscriptionof many ters
chap-
Unionists, denied a beginning and in xv, 5, 1 ; 6, 1, as to
of the worldin time; and from Plato and Moses belongs, of
the fragments in Bekker's lia
Scho- course to Etiscbius and his
ad Plfit. p. 430 sq. and ap. transcribers.
Philop. I. c, xiii. 15, that he a
xv. 4, 5, 9.
U2 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, he has here to contend with a portion of his own
XIIt
school.1 Together with the Aristotelian doctrines
on immortalityhe also contests the statement that
the soul as such is unmoved, in order to uphold in
its stead the Platonic conception of the Self-
moving ;
2
but he herein limits existence after death
to the rational part of the soul,and represents this

as uniting itself at each entrance into earthlylife
with the irrational soul dwellingin the body, which
is now first brought into order,3so that he conceived
the originof the individual in a similar manner to
that of the doubt, also opposed

universe. He, no
the Aristotelian conception of Grocl,but of this

tradition tells us nothing ; as to his own theory,we
are told that he made the Creator of the world
identical with the (rood,but discriminated the other
ideas as particularthings from Him.4
creators of
Some other quotationsfrom his commentary on the
Timceus 5
are of no importance ; from his tions
objec-
to the Aristotelian definitions concerning
1
Against tlie aither of Aris- whole, and its soul,were formed
totle and the views connected at a definite epoch (Prod, in
therewith concerning the stars, Tim. 84 F; 87, A; 110, B F;
he appeals to Bus. xv. 7, 8; 119, B; of. 00, 0; 170, A; 250,
against the eternity of the B ; Iambi, ap "Stob. JfoL i. 804:) ;
world, to L G. c. 6. But he but they may nevertheless be
nevertheless would not admit imperishable (of, Tim. 41, A)
any end to the world, as we through the will of the Creator
shall presently find. He had (Procl.I. "-t. 304, B).
brought forward the same - Eus, xv. 0, 4 ,sv/(/.
views in his commentary on
a
Procl. HI 1,A; Iambi, /U'. 910.
the TiHiwiix. The unordered "'
Procl. I. o. OB, 0 ; 111, G j
matter (he ways, here follow- 111) B; of. 181, 0.
ing Plutarch) and the im- ft
Ap. Procl.
87, B; 315, A;
perfect soul that moves it 7, C HO, D ; 63, 0, I) ; 129, D j
:
are certainlyindeed uncreated, 187, B; 234, I) j Syrian

but the world as an ordered in Ar. 802, b, 31.
ATTICUS, 343
Homonyms l we see that lie extended his polemic to CHAP-

XI*-
logic also. But no important results are to be
expected from this,because he himself stood nearer
to the eclecticism which he combated than he was
aware. He is angry at the admixture of the Platonic
doctrines with the but

Peripatetic, he himself mingles
inter-
them with those of the Stoics when he
to the Aristotelian doctrine of goods an

opposes
avrdpxscaof virtue,which only differs in words from
that of the Stoics.2 Still more clearly,however,
does he betray the standpoint of the later popular
philosophyin the propositionthat the happinessof

man is unanimously recognisedby the philosophers
as the ultimate end of philosophy.3It was precisely

this onesided practicalstandpointwhich, together
with the indifference to a stricter scientific method,
had called forth the eclectic amalgamation of contra-
dictory
doctrines. Atticus,however, does not seem,
to have proceededvery scientifically. His objections
to Aristotle chieflyconsist,as we have seen, in com-

plaints
about the moral and religious corruptionof his

doctrines; to Aristotle's deepestand most thoughtful
discussions he opposes arguments like that by which
he tries to reconcile the temporal originof the world
with its eternal existence ; namely, that God by
reason of his Omnipotence could preserve even
what has come into existence from destruction,4
Sirnpl.Cateff.
1 7, 5. 8, a, and on the Categories.
Porph. "^T. 9, a, SoJiol, 42, ft,9 a Bus. xv. 4, 1 ; 7 "s^.
; of. 5, 1.
8 Loc.
(Prantl,(xcsch. d. Loci, i. 618, 2 "rit.xv. 4, 1
to have been Loo. ait. C, 5 sqc[.; of. Frocl.
4
$q. These soom
taken from a separate treatise in Tim. 304 B.

14 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. The philosopherwho treated argument lightly

so
^ '
and derived his ultimate decision so recklessly

from necessity,had
practical indeed no rightto raise
objectionsto the fusion of the several systems, of
which that very necessityhad been the determining
cause.
This eclecticism,then, constantlymaintained its
"wtolx
ascenc:ieilcy the majority of the Academics.
Men like
Plutarch, Maximus, Apuleius,Numenius,
are, indeed, Platonists, but their Platonism has
absorbed so many foreignelements that they appear
merely as the promoters of the tendency introduced
by Antiochus. As these however, will

philosophers,
again engage our attention among the forerunners
of Neo- Platonism,other details respecting
them may
be omitted for the present. In respect to Theo of
Smyrna also it will suffice to remember that,as we

have alreadynoticed,1he found the free use of a Peri-
patetic
treatise not incompatible with his Platonism,
while, at the same time, in the first book of his
work, he prefersto follow the tradition of the old and
new Pythagoreans.2 ConcerningNigrinus,there is,

in spiteof the Nigrinusof Lucian, little to say ; the
of
description him shows us a man of excellent dispo-
sition,
who took refugein philosophyfrom the luxury
1
Sup. p. 309, 4. Adrastus is writcris and ireplJLLOVCTLK^S
is no
also made use of in De MM. doubt chiefly Pythagorean, as
c. 6 j c. 13, p. 94, 97; c. 19, c. lie indicates in De Mm. c. I,c.
22, p. 117 ; c. 40, p. 169. 12, etpamni. In regard to his

2
What Theo says in his first philosophy, the Nco-Pythago-
book, on numbers and the rcla- rean element is especiallypro-
tions of tones, generally quoted minent in De AritL c, 4j De
under the two titles,irepl
"pie~ Mm, c. 88 sqq*
NIGRINUS"SE VER ITS. 345
and immorality of his time, and found in it inner CHAP.
satisfaction and freedom ; but the discourses which I
Lucian assignsto him might just as well have been
put into the mouths of Musonius or Epictetus. We

have still to speak of Severus and Albinus. Sever us,
whom, indeed, we can only place conjecturallyin

the second half of the second century,1is described
as having explained Plato in the sense of the totelian
Aris-
doctrines.2 From a treatise of his on the

soul Eusebius 3 has preserved a fragment in which
the Platonic doctrine that the human soul is pounded

com-
of two substances, one capable of suffering,

and the other incapable,4is attacked with the vation
obser-
that this theory would annul the imperish-

ableness of the soul, because two such different
constituents must necessarilyagain dissolve their

unnatural combination. According to this,he does
not seem to have recognisedthis doctrine as Plato's
real opinion. Severus himself described the soul,
1
The first to mention Mm 38 ; Aristotle, M"tapJi. xiii. 2)
are lamblichus and Eusebius. opposes the doctrine that the
But there are as yet no traces mathematical element accorcl-
of the Noo-Platonio period in ing to Plato, was in material
the quotations from him. Pro- bodies; but this is irrelevant,
clus, Tim. 304 B., observes in since such was not Plato's
respect to the
opinion quoted opinion êftrjpos$)"\Xos : e! S"
in/,p. 346, 8, of Beverus, Atticus, TIS ruv ârrepov^yTjffajnevcavra
and Plutarch, that many ob- n\drcavos "K rrjs wap' avr$ ?$
jections to it were raised by ÂpicrroreAet /car??;^ crews rots
the Peripatetics; which also juadûxtn Karaxp^vrat irphs rh$
points to the fact that Severus ot7ro5ei|eis ru"v fyvcrtK"v alrtuv,
was older than Alexander of ouSei/ rovro irpbsrovs ctpxalovs.
Aphrodisias, the last author 8
Prop. JSv. xiii, 17.
known to us of the Peripatetic 4
Tim. 41 sgg. ; G9, C ,^. ; of.
school, P7ril. d. Gr. II. i. 690 5^7.
3
Syrian (Solwl.in AT. 880, ft,
.346 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, and primarily the world-soul, as an incorporeal

'' '
mathematical figure,the constituents of which he
representedto be the point and the line,while of the
two elements from which Plato compounds the world-
soul,1he connected the indivisible with the point,
and the divisible with the line.2 A beginning of the

world in its proper sense he did not admit, even if
the present world thought with

had been begun ; he
changed
the Stoics that the world, eternal in itself,
its condition in certain periods,and he appealsfor
this doctrine to the mythus in the Platonic dialogue
of the Statesman.3 There is a reminiscence of the
Stoics also in this,that he declared the Something

(rt)to be the highestgeneric-conception,below which
stand Being and Becoming.4 However isolated
these statements may be, they nevertheless prove

that Severus departed in many respects from strict
Platonism. But we have much more numerous and
strikingproofs,especiallyin his abstract of the
Platonic doctrines,5of the eclecticism of Albinus.
Quite at the beginning of this treatise we find the

Stoic definition of wisdom things as the science of
human and divine (c.1),and the Peripateticdivision
of philosophyinto the theoretical and the practical
(c. 2),preceded by Dialectic as a third division
1 Tim. 35, A ; ride Part ii. a, through the will of God (I.e.
C46, 3. 3Oi B) was doubtless only a
^
ap. Stob. Ed,

^
2 Iambi, i, 802 ; concession to the expressions
Procl. in Tim. 186, Ej 187, A of Plato.
* Procl. 70, A ; of. Phil. d.
*""
8 Procl. L c. 88, D "0. ; 168, 6V. III. i. p. 1)2,2.
D. That the world not with- s Vide sity.p. 338, 2.
standingmight be imperishable
ALBINUS. 347
(c. 3). Albinus then, like Aristotle,divides theo- CHAP.
retic philosophyinto Theology,Physics, and Mathe- "

~: "
maticp, without, however, himself keeping to this

arrangement (c.3, 7) ; 1 and practical
philosophyalso,
like the Peripatetics,
into Ethics, (Economies, and
Politics (c.3).2Under Dialectic he first gives a theory
of knowledge which combines Stoic and Aristotelian
definitions with Platonic, and unites the "j"vcrLtc7)
swoia of the Stoics with the reminiscence of ideas.
In regard to the facultyof knowledge, he distin-
guishes
in man (correspondingwith the Aristotelian
doctrine of the active and the passive vovs] a double
reason, that which is directed to the sensible,and

that which is directed to the super-sensible.3 Sub-
sequently
the whole Aristotelian logic with the
syllogismsand the ten

categorieswith various later
additions of the Peripateticsand Stoics,is foisted
Plato 4
upon ; and the Aristotelian and Stoic minology
ter-
is unscrupulously employed.5 In the

section on theoretical philosophythree primary causes
are enumerated : Matter, the primary forms, and the
1 Instead of an expositionof not very clear, concerning v6-n"

the mathematics we find at c. "ris and aMya-Ls, \6yos
7 only an extract from the fwwK"s, and So"ffriKbs.
utterances of Plato's JRepullio * C. 5 sg. ; vide Prantl,
on mathematics and their di- d. Log. i. 610 #g. ; Freudenthal,
vision of mathematics. 280 xq.
-
Similarly the '

Introduc- fi Of. Freudenthal, L o. 279,
tion,' c. 6, spoken of sujp. p. 338, 281. So also in c. 25 ; of. Ter-
J ; concerning the Peripatetic tull. De A"n. 29 ; a Platonic ar-
classification vide Phil. "l.Or. II. gument for immortality(Phe#do9
ii. 170 ${"({. Albinus makes use 71, C $##.)is defended with an
of no Platonic divisions. Aristotelian definition conceni-
8 0. 4. I
pass over some ing the ^vavrla (cf.PliiL d. G'j\
further observations which are II. ii. 215, noieX
348 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, creative principle,

or the Deity ; the Deity is de-
xn'
scribed in the manner of Aristotle as active Reason
(c.10)?which,unmoved, thinks only itself. A three-

fold
way is assumed to the knowledge of Grod : the

l
way ofemancipation,analogy,and elevation ; ideas
are explained as eternal thoughts of God, but, at
the same time, as substances ; their sphere,with
the exceptionof artificialthings,or things contrary
to nature, is restricted to natural classes,and side
by side with the ideas, as their copies,the Aristo-

telian
forms inherent in matter find a place.2 In
regard to matter, Albinus says, making use of an
Aristotelian definition familiar to him, it is that
which is neither
corporeal, nor incorporeal, but is in
the body potentially (c. 8, end). The eternity of

the world, he also thinks, he can maintain as a
Platonic doctrine, since, like some other philoso-

phers,
he describes the world as having had a beginning
onlybecause it is involved in constant Becoming,
and thereby proves itself the work of a higher
cause ;
3
and he rightly concludes from this that the
world-soul also has not been created by Grod,but is
similarly eternal. It does not, however, agree very

well with this,that the world-soul should be adorned
by God and awakened as it were from a deep sleep,in
1 In the second the author forms imitated from them clftij.

has in view the from 3 To this passage similar
passage or a
Plato's ItejwMic,vi. 508 B ; in one, of a commentary on the

the third, another from the Twiains or the Jlyyotypoms
jSyinposluM;208, 3 sgq. ,
Proclus refers in Tim.. 67 0.
'"*0. 9, c. 10, Albinus, like Precursors of Albinus in the
some others (md"PML,d. "9r.ll. theory mentioned above are
i.552, 2),calls the ideas tSccu ; the named in Phil d. Q*r, II. i. 6CC, a.
ALBINUS. 349,
order by turningto Grod,to receive the ideal forms CHAP,
from Mm;1 and that Albinus cannot altogether free

himself from the notion of a Divine formation of the
universe having once taken place.2 That he assumes
the existence of inferior gods or demons, to whom
the guidance of the world beneath the moon is fided,

con-
and that he regardsthese beingsin the Stoic
manner, as cannot
elementary spirits, surpriseus in a
Platonist of that period(c.15). It is also in accord-

ance
with the eclecticism of his age that he should
introduce into the Platonic ethics the Aristotelian
definition of virtue as fjisaor^s (c.30) ; that he should
place among the four fundamental virtues the Stoic-
Peripatetic prudence in place of the Platonic

wisdom,3 and appropriatethe Stoic doctrine that
virtue is capable of no increase or diminution,4 and
with certain modifications also the Stoic theoryof
the passions.5Some other instances might be
C. 14, Albinus here follows
1
tutecl)and defined quite in the
Plutarch, who, however, was Stoic manner as lioerrûâ-yaWS?
more logicalin disputing the Kal KO.K"V KO.\odHcrtpuv; inc. 30
eternity of the world (cf.PMl the relation of Qpfoycristo the
d. Gr. III. i. 168 #7.); for before virtues of the lower parts of the
the world-soul had awaked out soul is spoken of in a way that
of sleep, the world as such reminds us altogetherof Aris-
could not possiblyhave existed, totle's Eth. N. vi. (vide Phil, d.
2
Besides what has already "h\ II. ii. 502 *##.).
been stated,we find these words 4 Cf. c. 30, and concerning
in L c. p. 3, Herm.
170, : TTJS the corresponding- Stoic doe-
VTJS T"x0e""n7S^/crow /ueVou trine, lUd. III. i. 246, 2.
rb "rfy*arod riffpov 5
C. 32, where
...
Albinus re-
Xtycu and : 7) ^v yhp "o peats Zeno's definition of vdOos

rby "(rx"rrosfyetvtv,rj Se ^by (IbicLIII. i. 225, 2), while he
ds iTTrctK^K\OVS "?7"d}07?. opposes the reduction of the
3 In c 29 the "J"p"^"nsis emotions to Kptffeis
(wide I. c.
called the rttedrys rov \oyur- 226 5^.) but enumerates the
Ti/coO (for which subsequently same four chief emotions as
the Stoic JiywovtKbv is substi- the Stoics held (I c. 230).

350 ECLECT1 CISM.
CHAP, adduced,1 but the previous quotations will suffice to
*
show how inclined Albinus was to combine alien
elements with the old Academic doctrine, which,
however, he followed in the main, a,nd how deficient
he was in a
clear consciousness of the peculiar
character of the Platonic system. We are

told that
Albinus was one

of the most important tives
representa-
of his school,2 and if we

infer anything
may
in respect to him from what we

know of his master
Grains, with whom he 3

in one
of his tions
exposi-
agrees
of the Platonic philosophy, it becomes the
more
evident that the mode of thought he exhibits
was
still prevalent in the Platonic school about
very
the middle of the second century of our era.
Cf. 8
1
Frettdentbal, 278 sg$. JSitjj. p. 339, 1.
2 Cf 337, 3 and
.
sup. p. ;
Freudentlial, p.
243.
351
CHAPTEE XIII.
ECLECTICS WHO BELONG TO NO DEFINITE SCHOOL "
DIO, LUCIAN, GALEN.
ALL the philosopherswe have hitherto discussed

reckoned themselves under one of the existing CHAP.
schools,though they allowed themselves many de-
partures from their

originaldoctrines. The number
F
is much smaller of those who belong to no particularEclectics
school,but, assuming a more independent attitude,particular

borrowed from each and all that which seemed to scllo"l-
them true. For
though the internal unity of the
schools and the logicalconsistencyof the systems
were greatly relaxed, yet the necessity for some

standard of authoritywas much too strong in that
periodof scientific exhaustion to allow many to ven-

ture
on freeingthemselves from the custom which
required every teacher of philosophyto be connected
with some one of the ancient schools and its
tradition. The
philosopherseven sought to shield
themselves with the authorityof antiquity, where
they were conscious of divergence from all contem-

porary
schools,as we see in the case of the Neo-
JPythagoreans, when they claimed to be a continua-

tion
of the ancient Pythagoreans,and in that of

the Scepticswhen they professedto continue the
52 ECLECTICISM:.
CHAP, school of Pyrrho. There are, therefore, but few

XIIL of that time who stand side
out-
among the philosophers
the traditional pale of the schools,and these are
invariablymen who had not made philosophythe sole
task of their life,but had occupiedthemselves with
it merely in connection with some other art or science.
An opportunityfor such incidental occupation

with philosophy
was afforded at that period partly
by the natural sciences, partly and especiallyby
rhetoric l which was constantlyand zealouslyculti-
vated,
and was included in the public education.

When a man had learned from the rhetoricians the
ornate form of expositionand discourse,he could
adequate content for it,as the different

only find an
branches of instruction were then divided, with

the philosophers.It was, hardly possible
therefore,
to advance beyond the merest outworks of rhetoric
without in some way taking a glance at philosophy,

and though this,no doubt, was done in most cases
hastilyand enough,2yet
superficially it could not
but happen that some individuals should occupy

themselves more seriouslyand permanently with
1 How numerous the schools Further details are to be found

of rhetoric and teachers of rhe- in the writings quoted svj". p.
toric were in the times of the 189, 1.
Emperors ; how lively the in- 2 To students of rhetoric who

terest in the achievements and only studied something of phi-
rivalry of celebrated rhetori- losophy by the way, the cen-
and
cians (now called ffofurral) sures of Calvisius
Taurus, for
how pupils streamed to them example, refer (ap. (ML N. A.
from all sides, we see from i. 9, 10 ; xvii. 20, 4 ; x. 19, 1 ;
Philostratus' Vitas Soplmtarwn,. the last passage, compared with
The appointment of public i. 9, 8, proves how common this?
teachers of rhetoric has been al- was.
ready noticed {sup.p. 190, sqq").

DIO CHEYSOSTOM. 353
the claims of philosophy. In this way, towards the CHAP,

XTII.
end of the first century, Dio, and, about the middle
of the second, Lucian, went over from rhetoric to
philosophy. But neither of these important men is
enough as a philosopherto detain very long. Dio,

surnamed Chrysostom,1after his banishment, de-
sired
indeed to be no longer merely a rhetorician,
but before all things
philosopher;
2
he also a Dio
assumed the Cynic garb ;3 but his philosophyis very

simple,and confines itself exclusivelyto such moral
considerations as were at that time not only to be
1
The sources for our ledge
know- countries, as far- as the Getse,
of Dio'slife are, besides returned after the murder of
his own writings, Philostr. F. Domitian to Rome and (accord-
ing
Soph. i. 7 (the statements are to Themist. Or. v. 63) stood
quite untrustworthy in his F. high in the favour of Trajan.
Apol.v. 27 sgi.; V. Soj)k.
i.7,4, also 2
Dio often repeats that his
seems not to be historical) ; hearers are not to seek rical
rheto-
Synes. Dio; Phot. Cod. 209; graces from him like
;
Suid. sul) ; Plin. Mp. x.
voce 81 every true philosopher he sires
de-
sq. (85 sq.y,Lucian. Peregr. 18; to aim at their moral provement
im-
Paras. 2; Schol.inLuc. p. 117; to be a physician
"
248 Jac. ; Eunap. F. SopJi. of souls

(Or. 33 ; Or. 34, p. 34,
Procem. p. 2, and some later R. ; Or. 35) : he comes forward,
biographical notices in Kay- generally speaking, as a man
ser's PMlostr. V. Soph. p. 168 to whom God has given the
sqq. and in Dindorf's edition of vocation of declaring to all,
Dio, ii. 361 $qq. The results the doctrines of philosophy
have been summed
up after (Or. 13, p. 431; Or. 32, 657
Fabric. Bi"bl.
122 sqq. by F. S4$- Gt passim). He himself
Kayser (Z.0.). In this place it dates this vocation from his
will suffice to say that he was exile
(Or. 13, 422^.) ; likewise
born at Prusa in Bithynia,
Synesius (IMo, 13 sqq.) shows
and under Domitian (according how his destiny led him from
to Emper. De JUxil. Dion. Sophisticism (i.e.Rhetoric) to
Braunschw. 1840, p. 5 *##. philosophy, which he had
"
viously
pre-
in Dindorf's edition, Dio, I. attacked in a vigorous
xxxviii, sqq. the
" date is 82 manner in some of his courses
dis-
A,D.) was banished or escaped (Kara r"v "piXQcr6"pa)v "
from Rome where he bad and TcpbsMov(r"""viov^.

taught rhetoric, wandered for 9
Or. 72 ; Or, 34, p. 33 ; cf .
many years through distant Or. 1, p. 60.
A A
354
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, found alike in all the schools,but

philosophical even
XIIL With theoretical enquiries he did

outside them.
not concern himself; Ms whole endeavour is rather
the hearts of his hearers and readers

to impress upon
the principleslong acknowledged by the best, and
His notion to apply them to given cases.1 Philosophy has, he
*" *"
"* """
-i . -,
P ,
2 the task of curing men ol tneir moral firmities

in-
says
it consists in the endeavour to be a

;
Righteous
righteous man. His ideal is Socrates, as
philosophic
man. conceived by the later popular philosophy namely, "
as an excellent teacher of morals, but with whom
scientific thoughts and purposes are not

specifically
in question; 3 after him Diogenes, whose emancipa-
tion
from needs he admires so unconditionallythat he
no attention to what was unsound and distorted
pays
in his character,and finds even the revolting
most
that told of him praiseworthy.4 He

things are
demonstrates that with virtue and wisdom happiness

is also given ; 6 he describes the virtuous man in his
with the Cynics, PMl,d."r. II. i.

Synes., p. 14 s#., says very
1
truly : d 5* olv Aicav "u/ce flew- 285, 3 ; Philo, "ttp. p. 77 $qq. ;

pej" T^viKols
p'ti/jLacri "v tyiXotfotyiq Musonius and Epictetxia, tWp. p.
u?h irpoffraXaiiruipvia'ai/xi?5" irpo"f- 250-272.
avwxtiv Qvffutots Sityaaow, "r" Cf. Or. 13, 423*tf#. ; Or. 12
8
o4/e TOW jU"rar606ijU,"Vos 374 sytj. : Or. 54, 55, 60, p. 312
Kaipov
(sc. cwrb crocîffriK^s irpbs"^"tAo(ro- and elsewhere,
ovaffdai 5e rr)S ffroas %"ra * Cf. Or. 6, 8, 9, 10, and the
"f"ia,v)'
els %Qo$ reivei Kal %pp"vS}"r6atcoarse description of his sup-
irap' "VTIVOVV r"v ^ "iawov, posed conversation with Alex-
"n0e"r0ai 8^ r$ vovQertw "vQp"!"- ander, Or. 4. In Or. 6, p. 203,
TTOVS
eist" xphffa.Q'Qai
irpwiro- Diogenes is admired even for
. . .
K"ifj.4vyj r^s yX"rrys. the excesses mentioned in PJiil.

vapaffKevy
Or. 13, p. 431 ; cf. Or. 70,
2 d Or. II. i. 274, 3.
5
71, and sup, 353, 2. The same Or. 23, especiallyp. 515^.;
definition of the problem of Or. 69, 868 *q. where the ^/jrf-
already and the tiuppoves dis-
philosophy has come viôi are
under our notice in connection cussed in the Stoical sense.

T)IO CHRYSOSTOM. 355
his working for others ; l he

moral greatness and
with the Stoics,that true freedom coin-
points out,
cides with reasonableness, and slavery with reason
un-
;
2 inappetites,passions, and
regard to the
vices of men, luxury, avarice,love of glory,and of

"c.,he makes reflec-
pleasure,anxiety, faithlessness, tions
such as were usual in the schools ; 3 he recalls his
readers from the mode of life prevailing

in society,
with its its moral
follies, corruption,its artificial
4
of the state
wants, to the simplicity of nature ; he
discourses in earnest and rational words againstthe

immorality of his also,with
time,5 occasionally the
punctiliouszeal of the Stoics, against things so

indifferent as the cutting of the beard ; 6 he exalts
the advantages 8 gives useful
of civil institutions,7
advice to discusses
states,8 in the Aristotelian manner
9
the distinctions and relative forms of government \
in short,he expatiateson all possiblequestions of

morality and practicallife. But in these well-
intentioned, verbose, and for the most part very

sensible discussions,there is little real and indepen-
1 Or, 78, 428 s#. had commended the Jewish

2
Or. H, 15, 80. Bssenes (Synes.p. 16).
6
8
E.g. Or. 5, 192 ; Or. 16, 17, So in Or. 7, 268 sgq,, where
32, 66-68, 74, 79. the degradation and danger
4 Of. on this point, besides of the public immorality so
the passages already quoted universally tolerated, is very
concerning Socrates and Dio- well exposed,
6 Or. 36, 81 sq, 33.
genes, the happy description
of an innocent natural life in 7
Or. 36, 83 *#.
the (Or. 7) that
Ei"j8oi/cbs *
Greek 8
Or. 33 $q. 38, 40, et passim.
9
village history,'as Jahn calls Or. 3, 115 $$. On the
it ; the purpose of which Synes. monarchy as distinguishedfrom
correctly estimates (Dio, p 15 the tyranny (cf.Of. 1" i, 62).
##.), In the same respect Dio
A A 2
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, dent philosophy to be found ; as soon as Dio goes

beyond actual and particular cases he falls into monplaces
com-
which are treated in the

spiritof a modi-
fied
Stoicism or of the ethics of Xenophon.1 Plato

was indeed, next to Demosthenes, his pattern of
style; 2 and in Dio's moral disquisitionsthe influence
of philosophyand
his writings are unmistakable ;
but of the speculativedeterminations of Plato's
system we find only a few scattered echoes,3and in

regardto the Platonic Republic,Dio is of opinion
that it contains too much that is irrelevant to its
proper theme "

the
question of justice,4We more
commonly meet with Stoic doctrines in his writings:
what he says about the kinship of (rod to the
human spirit,on the knowledge of God that is
innate in us, on the natural interdependence of all
men,5 next to the Socrates of Xenophon reminds us

most of the Stoics ; this is still more definitely the
case with the proposition that the world is a com-

mon
house for gods and men, a divine state,a nature
governedby one soul,6and with the tracingof the

dsemon to man's own internal nature.7 Even the
Stoic doctrine of the conflagration
and formation
of the world is at least tentatively
broughtforward.8
But for Dio it is manifest that nothingis of real
1 He expresses Ms adrnira- 5
Or. 12; of. especiallyp,
tion for Xenophon in Or. 18, 384 *#, ; 891 sg. ; 397 ; Or. 7, 270.
481. s
Or. 30, 557 ; Or. 36, p. 83,
" Of. Philostr. Fto %A. i. 88 ; of, Or. 74, p. 405 ; 12,
7, 3. 390, "o.
3 Such as Or. 30, 550; cf. 7 Or. 4, 165; of. Or. 23, 25.
PJusdo, 62 B, and elsewhere, 8 Or. 36, 97 s$.
* Or. 7, 267.
LUC IAN. 357
value except that Universal, which he claims for all CHAP.

"XTTT
their inborn conviction,and with the denial '
men as
of which severelyreproachesthe Epicureans ]

he so "
the belief in the gods and their care for mankind.
His standpoint is throughout that of the popular

philosopher,which turns to account in a practical
manner scientificresults which have become common
property, without enriching them by new and
enquiries.
original
A similar philosophyis assumed by
attitude to
Lucian,2 though for the rest his literary character
is widelydifferent from that of Dio, and in mind and
taste he is far above him. Moreover, it was only

1
Or. 12, 390 sq. older man he filled the tant
impor-
2
All that we know of Lu- and lucrative office of
cian's life and personality we secretary at the court of the
owe almost entirelyto his own deputy (Apol. 12. ; cf. c. 1, 15).
writings. From them ing
(confin- We afterwards find him resum-
ing
myself here to what is of his long interrupted dis-

courses
most importance) we find that (Here. 7). Nothing
he was born in Samosata {Hist, farther is known concerning
Soril. 24; Piscat. 19),'and was his life. Suidas' story that he,
first destined for a but
sculptor, in well merited punishment for
subsequently devoted himself his abuse of Christianity,was

to learned studies (Sonm. 1 sgg. torn to pieces by mad dogs,
14) and had traversed part of is doubtless no more worthy
trust-
the Boman dominions with than most of the similar
gloryand profit rhetorician, accounts

as a of the mortes persecu-
when at about forty years of tonvni. It is possiblethat this
age, and by his own account, story (as Bern ays conjectures,
through Nigrinus(,s-?/y;.
p, 334,3), Iwoimi nnd die Kyrdker, p. 52)
was won over to philosophy, may have directly arisen from
and began to write philosophic his conflict with the philosophic
dialogues (Bis Acmts. 27 sq. KiVes, of whom he says himself
30 sgg.'j Apol. 15; Nign"n". sq. (JPeregr.2)
4 : bxiyov "5eTv tf-rrb
85 s$"j. Hermot. -,
13). The time rwv KVVIKUV lytcjffoi
of his birth cannot be correctly 6 'AtcTaitav fab
o"tTTrep T"V KVVUV.
stated, nor that of his death. Among Lucian's writings there

From Ale". 48, we see that he are several which are spurious,
composed this work after Mar-
cus or at any rate doubtful.
Aurclius' death. As an
"8 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, in his more mature years that he went over from

XIIL he
rhetoric philosophy,and
to appropriated from
philosophyonly so much as might prove advan-
tageous
to him either for his personalconduct or for
the new form of his writings which chieflyhar-

monised with his individual character. True philo-
sophy consists,accordingto his theory,in practical
Ms of wisdom, in a temper of mind and bent of will which
is attached to no philosophical
system ; on the other
and is tied the distinctive doctrines and other
hÂ
*
peculiar!-
io no ays-
tem. ties of the appeared to him unimportant,
schools
and, so far as men pride themselves upon them and
quarrelabout them, ridiculous. Thus he assures us
that it is philosophythat has made him disloyalto
rhetoric,that he has always admired and praised

philosophyand nourished himself upon the writings
of its teachers,that he has fled from the noise of
the courts of justice to the Academy and the
Lyceum ; l yet he has exempted no school and no
philosopher from his mockery,2 and chooses espe-
cially
for the target of his wit those that through
their remarkable customs and obtrusive character
excite the most attention and offer the most ing
tempt-
material for satire.3 But as he confines himself
almost entirelyto the satirical exposition of the
errors of others and very seldom bringsforward his
own views, his standpoint may indeed be generally
t, 5 sq. 29 ; JBis ACGUS. the fyaWrcu,the "Tv/u,Trd"rtov,
the
32, and elsewhere ; cf. the pre- 'Ep/^rt/xos-,
îKapo/j.^ynnros,
Eu-
vious note. w")%osr *AA.i6t)s,
and several
2 References are superfluous, funeral orations.
chief 8
Among his writings of Above all the Cynics,SK^.
this kind are the $l(av irpa"n$, p, 290, 1 ; 344.
LUCIAN. 369
determined, but cannot be explainedby any more CHAP,
preciseaccount of his convictions. If the treatise on L_
Nigrinusbe authentic,1 he was at firstmuch impressed

with the independenceof the external,and insight
into the hollowness of the ordinarylife of the world,
which characterised Stoicising the discourses of this
Platonist,but we cannot suppose the impressionto

have been very lasting, since in his descriptionthe
rhetorical phraseologyis patent enough. Even the
Cynics,whom in the sequel he opposed with sach
passionatebitterness,he treats for a time not with-

out
kindliness,and puts his satires and especially

his attacks upon the gods of the popularbelief into
their mouths.2 In his later years

high he bestows
praiseupon Epicurus for his freedom from religious

prejudiceand his relentless war againstsuperstition.3
But he gives utterance to his own opinion doubtless
only where he maintains that he honours philosophy
indeed as the true art of life, but that among the
multitude of philosophical schools philosophyitself
cannot possiblybe found, since there is no token of

it which does not requireto be proved by a further
1 I see no sufficient reason in genuine, as has been already

its contents for denying this ; mentioned sup. p. 297, 1.
8
even such, a superficial
man as Alese. c. 17, c. 25 : sE7Ti/coiJp^,
Lucian may have had transient avtiplr^v (j"{icriv
r"v irpay^drav
fits of disgustwith the world. KadewpaKfin teal jj.6v(p
rfyv "
2 So in
many of the funeral avro?s aXÔeiav eiS^n. C. 61 ;
discourses (No. 1-3, 10, 11, 17, *EirLKotpq" "s
avfipl aKyQus tep$
18, 20-22, 24-28), in the MenijJ- ical eearvea-ltp
r^v 4"tW Kal i*.6vy
jtwa, Zevs Âe7%"J/x.; Cat"pl. C. /XST' aXyQelas TCL /caX" eyj/eo/cdn
7 ; cf. Bernays, Liwian und di" Kal
ical ircLpaSetiaKtri
^Xeuflepom?
46
JSjyniTtw* $g. On the other rtav dfjt.LXrio'dvrtav
avrtp 761/0-
hand, the discourse on Demo- p"tp,
nax is not to be considered
360 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, token ; that they all strive for visionarytreasures,

and waste their time with useless things; the best
philosopheris he who, conscious of his

ignorance,
abandons any claim to a wisdom, and, in-
specific stead
of keeps
speculativecogitations, to the moral
advantagesof philosophy.1
The limitation of philosophy to a system of
ethics,in which there is no question of any deeper
scientific foundation,is here based upon a sceptical
view of the human
faculty of knowledge.We shall find
element
this sceptical still more stronglydeveloped
in Favorinus, who must, therefore, be discussed
among the adherents of the sceptic school. The
from
semi-philosophers the rhetorical schools were
none of them distinguishedby any independent

but
investigations, the tendencies of the period
are nevertheless shown in them "
namely, the duction
re-
of philosophyto the useful and generally

comprehensible, and the connection of this popular
philosophy with the mistrust of all philosophic

systems which was spread abroad by scepticism.
Far greater is the scientific importance of Clau-
dius
and though it is primarilythe art of
Gralenus,2
1
Piscat. 11 ,29, and the whole Liter aria OaUni,
which first
of the Sermotvnvus ; especially appeared Fabric. JBW.
in Gr.
c. 15, 25 S"L"[.52 s$. 70 *##. 84 ; v. 377 sgg. HarL, revised in the
cf. Ms Aoous. 24. Of. also the first volume of Kiihn's edition
characteristics of Lucian as of Galen, s. xvii-cclxv. To
given by Bernays, I o. 42 *#0. this history I will also refer,
2 All the information that even in respect of Galen's
can be gathered concerning writings,passing over the rest
Galen's life, almost entirely of the voluminous literature
from his own writings,is to be concerning him. Born at Per-
found in Ackermann's Hist, gamum in the year 181 A.D.,
GALEN. 361
healing to which he owes his extraordinaryfame CHAP.
and influence,yet he also knows how to acknow- L_

ledge to the full the worth of philosophy,1and His fame
a
occupiedhimself with it deeply enough,2to take his "\ . .
place among the philosophersof his century.3 He

himself indeed stands nearest to the Peripatetic
Galen, whose father was self

him- lived to the age of 87 ; Suidas,
a great architect and however,
thematician,
ma- says 70 years ; so that
had received a he probably died in 200 or 201
careful education, and had A.D.
already been introduced to losophy;

phi- 1
In Protract.I. vol. i. 3, he
when in his teenth
seven- calls philosophy rb peyiffTov
year he began the study ra"v Qeitov ayadccv,
and in another
of medicine. After his father's treatise (vol. i. $#.) he de-
53 sires
death, he pursued both studies his fellow physicians to
in Smyrna, and medicine in remember on. larpbsKal
ftpivros
several other places,especially
in Alexandria (151 $##") and 2
Galen had learned in his
returned from thence in the home, while still very young,
year 158 to practise his art in the chief forms of philosophy

his native city. In the year as it then existed ; from pupils
164 he betook himself Rome,
to of Philopator the Stoic, of
where he won great fame by Gaius the Platonist,and of As-
Ms success as a physician,and pasius the
Peripatetic, and
in 168 again returned to Per- from Epicurean philosopher
an
gamum, but was soon after called

re- {Cog%. an. Mori), vol. v. 41 $#.),
afresh to Italy by Marcus At a later period he heard
Aurelius and Yerus. When he Albinus in Smyrna (ride supra,,
left Italy for the second time 337): of Budemus the patetic,
Peri-
is not known; and from this who perhaps was also
point there is no connected his teacher (SiScfo-waAe,
however,
record of his life whatever. may be a mere title of respect,
A discourse delivered in the De Prtenot. ad Ej)iff. c. 4, vol.
reign of Pertinax is mentioned xiv. 624), he says that he had
by him (De Propr. c. 13 ;
Libr. gained more from him in regard
vol. xix. 46 K); he wrote De to philosophy than to medicine
Antidotis (i. 13 ; vol. xiv. 16) (I c. c. 2, p. 608). Galen's
in the reign of Severus(2%0n#0. philosophical writings were
ad Pis. c. 2, vol. xiv. 217, proves very numerous ;*butthe greater
nothing against the genuine-
ness part of them is lost.
of this treatise),Accord-
ing 8
Concerning Galen's philo-
sophic
to one account (that of the opinionscf K. Sprengel,
.
anonymous person mentioned JSeitr. z, Gesoh. d. Medicin^ i.

by Ackermann, Z. c. xl. ##.)he 117-195.
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. school,but he has also taken so much from others

XITT.
that we can only designate his standpoint on the
Character
whole as that of eclecticism on a Peripatetic
of foundation. Galen is at once placed among the
JZrlecii- eclectics by the fact that he compiled an entire

d#m, on a
series of continuous expositionsand excerpts from
Peripate-
tic
"basi-s. Platonic and Aristotelian writings,1and also from
those of Theophrastus,Eudemus, and Chrysippus,

while at the same time he declares that none of
all these satisfy

schools him.2 To Epicurus alone he
is thoroughly antipathetic (as were the eclectics of

that time almost without exception), and expressly
opposes him.3 The scepticismalso of the New

Academy appears to him an error, which he combats
with great decision.4 He for his part finds man, in
Xlis theory
of kncnv- spiteof the limitation of his knowledge,sufficiently
ledge. of truth ;
endowed with means for the attainment
sensible phenomena we discern through the senses,
1
Galen, D" L%br. Pro}"r.c. seldom, and almost always in
11; 14-16; vol. xix. 41 *0. 46 connection with subordinate

great number of points; the other hand, he
sg.t where a on
such works are named. names (De Lilr. Projir.c. 17,

2
Zoo. "it. c. 11, p. B9 *#., vol. xix. 48) no fewer than six
with immediate reference to against Epicurus and his
works
the doctrine of proof. He doctrine of pleasure.
sought counsel on the subject 4 In the treatise irepl

from the philosophers, but 8L$a(rKa\la$ (vol. i. 40
found here as in other divisions against Favorinus, Gagm. an.
of logic so much strife among Peoo. c, 6, vol. v, OB s$$. He
them and even within the also wrote upon Clitomachus,
several schools, tjiathe would D" Libr. Propr, c. 12, p. 44.
have fallen back upon ism
Pyrrhon- His chief complaint against the
if the certainty of the scepticsis that they could not
mathematical sciences had not establish their standpoint with-
out
kept him from it. appealing to the judgment
3
Galen, thoseinof his of others, and in presupposing
writingswhich have been served,
pre- them the capabilityof deciding
mentions Epicurus but between true and false.
GALEN. 363
the deceptions of which, may well be avoided with CHAP.

XIII
the necessary circumspection; the super- sensible is L_
discerned by the understanding;and as the sensible

perception carries with it an immediate power of
conviction (svdpyeia), so also the understandingis
in possession of certain truths which are established
immediately and prior to all proof; of certain

natural principles which verify themselves by univer-
sal
agreement ; through all this,which is self-evi-

dent,
the hidden' is known by logicalinference.
The criterion of truth,therefore, for all that is clear
through itself, is the immediate certainty,partly

that of the senses, partlythat of the understanding;
and the criterion of truth for what is hidden, is
agreement with the immediate certainty, which is
clear.1 This appeal to the directly certain,to the

senses and the unanimous opinion of men, this
empiricismof the inner and outer sense, corresponds
entirely with the standpoint of Cicero and of the
later eclectic popularphilosophy.
Among the three principaldivisions of philo-

sophy, Galen ascribes a high value to logic,2as
the indispensable instrument3 of all philosophical
1 De Opt. Disc. c. 4, vol. i. either assent to, or deny every-

48 sq. ;
be
Opt. Secta, 2 ; i. thing,"c.
2
108 s$. ; Coffn.an. Pecc. 1. c.] Concerning Q-alen's logic
De Hiypocr. et Plat. ix. 7 ; vol. "Me Prantl, Gesch. der Logik.i,
v. 777 sq. As principlesthat 559 sgq.
3 De Elem.
areimmediately certain, Galen Jffip^cr.i. 6,
ex
(Tlierap.Metl^. i. 4; vol. x. 38) vol. i. 460, Quod 0#t. Mad. Sit

names that
"px"^ hoyiKat,
the Qn. Pltilos. i; 59 $g. ; Constit.
magnitudes equal to a third Art. Hed. c. 8 ; end, i. 253 "q. ;
magnitude are equal to one H'ipjyocr,
et Plat. ix. 7 j end,
another, that nothing happens 1 j vol. v. 782, "
without a cause, that we must

364 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP. enquiry. He himself has composed a great number

XIII.
of logical but what remains
treatises,1 of them 2 does
not cause us to deplorevery deeply the loss of the
remainder. In the doctrine of the which

categories,
he with others declares to be the beginningand
foundation he appears
of all logic,3 to have attempted
a reconciliation between Aristotle and the Stoics ; 4
otherwise the categorieshave for him only a logical

and not a real importance.5 In the syllogisticand
apodeicticpart of logic,which are to him of most

importance,he tries to attain the certaintyof the
geometricmethod ; 6 in regard to matter, he places
1
For the catalogue of these 15. Prantl (560, 79) is of a
of. Gal. De Zibr.Propr. c. 11 different opinion.
4
xix- 41 47 David (Seftol.in AT. 49, a,
*#""' 15 *""" sq. ;
"^. ; cf .
Prantl, p. 559 sq. 29) ascribes to him five gories
Cate-
2 The short treatise ir. r"v : ovcrla, irocrbv,
iroibv,
irp6s
KO.TO, T^V \i\ivffCKpi"fj."rwv
(vol. n, wpdsri TTWS %xoj/"
which does
xiv. 582 $##.),which is quoted not indeed altogether agree
by Alex. Sophist.M. 8, ", 45, a with the division mentioned
(Sclwl 298, b, 14 ; 312, ", 29). elsewhere (Therap. Mcih. ii. 7 ;
But nowhere else are G-alen's 129 "0. ; 146 ; 156) of the oMu
logicalwritings and taries
commen- and the cri/ê^/c^ra ; and of
mentioned by the Greek the latter division into tvfyyeiaL,
commentators (with the excep- TrdQij,and 8 tad fasts ; but it can
tion
of the passage quoted infra, hardly be a mere invention;of.
365, 1). Pufo. Di/f.ii. 10; viii. 682.
8
Therap, Metlt, ii. 7; x. 5 He discriminates very de-cidedly
145; 148; PuZ*. Dlff. ii, 9; between the y"o$ and
viii. 622, 624. Whether Galen the category; that which
had himself written on the falls under the same category
Categoriesis not quite may belong to separate genera
clear
from his own expressions (Zibr. (Puts. JDljf.ii. 9 $q. ; 622 M, ;
Propr. 11, p. 42). The meaning 632. What Prantl, p. 665%,
seems to me to be that he did quotes concerningthe differen-
tiating
not actually write commen-
taries of genera into species
on them, but only some belongs to the older tetics.
Peripa-
observations on the difficult
6 Mir.
questionsthey contained. This Propr, 11, p. 89 sa. ;
would of. Met.
explain the i"iroju.vfi/j.ara Worm, c. 6 ; iv, 696 ;
on the Categoriesmentioned c. 702,
GALEN. 365
himself on the side of Aristotle and Theophrastusl CHAP.
and against Chrysippus; but that he himself out _1_L

of the five syllogisticforms which Theophrastushad
added to the Aristotelian first figure,2

formed a
fourth figureof his own,3 is very doubtful. What has
otherwise been imparted to us from the logic of

Galen, or is to be found in his writings,is in part
so unimportant, and in part so fragmentary,
that it
may suffice to refer the reader for further details to
Prantl's careful digest,

-5S*
Also physics and metaphysicsGalen even
in his
t
as a physicianand naturalist chieflyfollows Aristotle andmetc
without however being" entirely fettered J

by
J
him, 4%*^*
based on
He repeats the Aristotelian doctrine of the four time of
causes, but increases their number to five by the

addition of the middle cause (the St? ou).4 Like
Plato and he regardsthe final
Aristotle, cause as the
most important: 5 the knowledge of them forms, he

says, the groundwork of true theology, that science
which far surpasses the art of healing.6 In follow-

ing
the traces of the creative wisdom, which has
formed all things,he prefersto dwell on the sideration

con-
of living creatures ; 7 but he is at the
same time convinced that if here in the meanest
1
Hipj)oor.et. Plat. ii. 2 ; B. footAc/m/c^p. v*
ay., vide the
v, 213. exhaustive investigation of
'
2 Vide PML d. 6fr. II. ii. Prantl, p. 570 s$$.

4
Concerning
8 this fourth De um Part. Corp.Hum.
of Galen's, which was vi. 13 ; vol. iii.465.
figure
formerly only known on the 5
Loo. oit.
authority of Averroes, but is 6 Zoo. cit. xvii. 1; vol. iv.
now confirmed explainedand 360.
by Greek fragment of Minas

a
7
LOG. cit. p, 358 8$g. et
in his edition of the Elcrayayti passim.
333 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, portionof the universe, and in these base and un-

*
clean substances,so wonderful a reason is at work,

this must also be in overflowingmeasure in the
heaven and its stars, which are so much more
gloriousand admirable.1 In what manner it is

inherent in the world he does not enquire more
closely; but his expressionsindicate a tendency to
the Stoic conception,accordingto which the sub-

stance
of the world is permeated by the divine
mind.2 He is opposed, however, to the Stoic mate-
rialism
; for he shows that the qualitiesof things

bodies 3 he likewise
are not ; contradicts the Stoic
views on the originalconstitution of matter when
he defends the doctrine of Plato and Aristotle,
of
the four elements, against the Atomists and the
ancient and
physiologists, among these, especially,
againstthe Stoic-Heracleitean
primi-
tive theoryof one
matter.4 What we are told of his objections
againstthe Aristotelian discussions concerningspace,

time, and motion, is unimportant.6 Galen's devia-
1 LOG, cit, ^KrerdcrQat 50/ceT vovs, for how
ri$
2 P. 358 : vis 5' OVK 5fo"ev6vs
it otherwise be could
heated
^veOv^difj vovv TWO. 86vajj.ivand illuminated by the sun ?
cxovra eavfiaa-r^v1-irtfrdvTa,ry$
a
Quod Qualities Sint In*
yris ^KrerdcrQai Kara Trdvra ra corporew. B. xlx. 468 sqq.
rfpia;this vovs comes to the 4 De Const/It. Artis Med. c. 7
earth from the heavenly bodies: ,"?#.; B. i. 245 Ue Me-
sqq, "
" %(rq"irep Icrn Kal ^

ots "tK^"y, mentis, 1.
sqq. Though a. 413
rov ovcrta /caâpcorcpa,the views
ff""/j.aro$ the Stoics are not of
Kal rbv vovv "oiKeiv named those combated
cp among
nark fft"fjuvra
ov
j" ypiva here,the Heracleitean doctrine
ica re Kal
aKpi""(rr"pov.And of primitivematter which Galen
even here, before all thing's, opposes is also theirs (De M, i.
in the human body, J*/"opj8rf/"y4, p. 444) ; cf. also Bftppoor'
et
roa-ovry, thereisavovs1 irepirr"s',
Plat, viii, 2 sq. 6S5 sqg, v.
how much more, then, in the " In respect to
space, he de-
stars 1 through the air ofa o\iyos fends (ap. Simpl.Phys. 183 " "
GALEN. 367
tion from Aristotle in respect to the soul and its CHAP.

-\TTPT
activityseems of more consequence, but even here

his utterances sound so hesitatingthat we clearly
see how completely he has failed to attain a fixed
standpoint in the
opinions. As to what
strife of
the soul is in its essence, whether corporealor in-
corporeal,
transitoryor imperishable,he not only

ventures to propound no definite statement, but
not even a conjecture which lays claim to probability;
and he omits every sound argument on the subject.1
The theory of Plato,that the soul is an immaterial
essence, and can live without

body, seems to the
him questionable; 'for how,' he asks, could incorporeal c
substances be distinguishedfrom each

other ? how can an incorporealnature be spread
over the body ? how can such a nature be affected
by the body, as is the case with the soul in madness,

drunkenness, and similar circumstances.' 2 So far
defi- l
Themist. Pliys. 38, J) the D" Feet. Form. c. 6 ; iv.
nition controverted by Aristotle 701 sgr.; De Hipp. et. Plat. vii.
that it is the interval between 7 ; v. 653 : the soul, accord-
the limits of bodies ; a miscon- ing to its ovcrla,is either rb o!W
ception of Aristotle's observa- afryoetSesre Kal cu0"pw8e*"rai,ua
tion that time is not without mo- or, aM)v JJLCVao-ârov virdpxew
tion; and the objectionthat Aris- ou"rfco",
tfx7?/"*^ [5^] r" irpurov
totle's definition of time con- efj/curovri rb "r"jfta,5i o5
afrrTjs '
tains a circle,are mentioned by /ucVou rfyv vp^s r"xxa, o-^/Aara

Simplicius,Phys. a]167 Z";169 Kowwtav Xappavei. On the other
Themist. Pkys, 45, #; 46, a hand, the Pneuma is neither its
(SckoL 388, ft, 20 ; 26) ; and an substance nor its seat, but only
objection against Arist. Phys. its vp"rov tipyavov
(I.c. c. 3 ; p.
vii. 1 ; 242, a, 5 ; in Simpl. Phys. 606 ^.)-
*
242, ". Simpliciushere (p. 167, Quod Animi Mores Corp.
a} refers to the eighth book of Temy. Se$. c. 3 ; 5 ; iv. 775
Galen's Ajpodewtic, and it is sq. ; 785 9$. ; De LOG. A ff.ii. 5 ;
probable, therefore, that all viii. 127 $g.
these remarks were to be found
in this work.
308 ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, we might be inclined to endorse the Peripatetic

L_ doctrine,accordingto which the soul is the form of
the body ; but this would certainly lead to the view
maintained by the Stoics and shared by many of

the Peripatetics, that the soul is nothing else than
the mixture of corporealsubstances,and as to its
immortality there could then be no question.1

Gralen does not venture to decide on this point,and
as little does he purpose to affirm or to deny im-

mortality
It is the same with the question as to

the origin of living creatures. He candidly ac-
knowledges
that he has not made up his mind upon

this subject. On the one hand he finds in the
formation of the human body a wisdom and a
power which he cannot attribute to the irrational
vegetablesoul of the embryo ; on the other hand

the likeness of children to their parents obligeshim
to derive the children from that soul ; if we further
assume that the rational soul builds up its own
body, we are confronted with the fact that we are
most imperfectlyacquainted with its natural constitution
; the only remaining alternative, to assume

with many Platonists,that the world-soul forms the
bodies of living creatures,seems to him almost im- pious,
since we ought not to involve that divine
soul in such base occupations.3 Gralen declares
himself more decidedlyfor the Platonic doctrine of
1
Qu. An. Afore*. "c. c. 3 ; 4; rb Xoyta-riKM o"e''
"$ OVK l"mj/
p. 773 tq. ; 780. fXo"twnbwrtat.
2 Vidfi ytpra and Z. o. c. 3 : * De Jfct. fbrm. c. 6 Iv
*y" 5* otie* "s %"rrtv [Mdvarov 683 *"".
GALEN. 369
the parts of the soul and their abodes,1which he CHAP.
also no doubt combines

corresponding with the
______
doctrine of Aristotle ; 2 his uncertaintyin regardto

the nature of the soul necessarily, however, casts
doubt also upon this theory. Nor will our sopher
philo-
decide, he says, whether plantshave souls,3
but in other places he declares himself decidedlyHis con-
for the Stoic distinction between the f"i"^ and the t^ôr
"bvori$*^ tlieoretlcctJ,
We shall be all the less surprisedat the vacilla-

tion and and out "f
fragmentarinessof these definitions when
we hear what value Galen attributes to theoretical
enquiriesin general. The question concerningthe
unity of the world, whether or not it had a begin-
ning,
and the like, he thinks are worthless for the
practicalphilosophers
; of the existence of the Gods
and the guidance of a Providence we must indeed
try to convince ourselves,but the nature of the

Gods we do not requireto know : whether they have
a body or not can have no influence on our conduct;
in a moral and politicalpoint of view it is also in-
different
whether the world was formed by a deity
or by a blindlyworking cause, if only it be acknow-
ledged
that it is disposed according to purpose and
1
Of. besides the treatise De by Galen, De Hijjp.et Plat. vi.
et Ptatonis
"K$)jr"0cra,tis Placitis, 2, and 1. c,
which discusses this subjectin 2 In Hypgoor. de Alim. iii.
no fewer than nine books with 10 ; xv. 293 ; In JSippoor.de
wearisome diffusiveness, Qu. ECumor. i. 0 ; xvi. 93.
That 3 De Substaait. Faoult. Nat. c.
Animi Mores, "c., c. 3.
the three divisions of the soul 1 ; B. iv. 757 s$. ; cf in SZppo- .
are not merely three faculties cratis de JEJpidem. Lilr. vi. ;

of one substance, but three Sect. v. 5 ; xviil ", 250.
distinct substances, is asserted 4 De Natur, Facult. i. ljii. 1 .
B B
3tt) ECLECTICISM.
CHAP, design. Even the question which he has so fully

discussed,concerning the seat of the soul,is only of
interest to the physician,and not to the philoso-
pher
l while
; conversely a definite opinion regarding
the nature of the soul is only necessary to theoretic
philosophy, and neither to medicine nor ethics.2

We certainlyrequire no further evidence that a
philosopher who measures the value of scientific
enquiries so entirely according to their direct and

demonstrated utility,could not advance beyond an
uncertain eclecticism. But we shall greatly deceive

ourselves if we therefore expect from him dent
indepen-
ethical enquiries. Galen's numerous writings
on this subject3 are all lost, with the exception of
4
Ms ethical two ; but what we learn from occasional utterances
in one P*ace or anotner? concerning his ethical
"but two opinions,contains merely echoes of older doctrines.
not
Thus we sometimes find the Peripateticdivision of
very
important, goods into spiritual,bodily, and external 5 and in
;
lut prove
,
-r%
himto have another connection the Platonic doctrine of the four
lôtio fundamental virtues,6 and again the Aristotelian

also in propositionthat all virtue consists in the mean.7
^Q question whether virtue is a science or some-
1 De Hippoer. et Plat. ix. 6 ; 7 In Hippoor. do $fo(m,0r. i.

B. v. 779 $q. 13, end; xvi. 104: "o"irepykp
2
De Sitfost. Famlt. Nat. B. ro â-ov icrrlv atperbvfr 7rS"r"/,
iv. 764. tirepBdKXovf) otfroj/colrb
"?A\"nr^
3
De Propr. Zibr. QevKrfo, bperal ^
13 ; 17. iracrat $v
4
De cognoscendisourandisgrtie^crcp (rwiffravrcu at 8k Katctat
animi morMs. De awimi pecca- $"a) rov ^crov. These words
torum digvatwiie atqwe tnodela,. refer indeed directly to cor-
5
Protrept. 11 ; i. 26 s$. poreal conditions, but tlioyhave-
8
De Ilippocr. ct Plat. vii. 1 a universal application.
sg. : v. 594.
GALEN. S7i
thing else,Gralen decides thus: in the rational parts CHAP.

KTTTT
of the soul it is a science,in the irrational merely 1_
a facultyand a qualityor disposition.1The eclectic
tendency of the man thus shows itself in this portion

also of his doctrine.
1
De Hippoer. "t Plat. v. 5 ; vii. 1 ; v. 468 ; 595.
B B 2
INDEX.
A CADEMICS of the first cen- Alexander of Aphrodisias, a patetic,

Peri-
jOL tury B.C., 75 sQq. 306, n., 318 ; called the
"
of the first centuries A.D., 344 Commentator and Second stotle,
Ari-
319; commentaries of,

s"M-
Academy, the New and the Old, 321 ; various theories and trines
doc-
80 Philo, and the New, 81 of, 323 Aristotle's trine

doc-
; ;
"
in Imperial times increasingly of the Universal and
tends tolbelief in revelation, 194 ; Particular, how treated "by, 324 ;
eclecticism of the, 34, 355 his doctrine of the soul and

sg.
Achaicus, his commentary on the body, 326 ;
the soul and vovs,
categories, 313 327; relation of G-ocl and the
Adrastus of Aphrodisias, a patetic,

Peri- world, 329 ; Providence, 331
305, n. ;
his taries
commen- "
tne last important Peripatetic,
on Aristotle, 308 sq. ; 331
views on the universe, 310 Alexander of Damascus, a patetic,

Peri-
JSlius Stilo, L,, Boman disciple of 306, ??..
Pansetius, 11 Alexander of Seleucia, a Platonist,

JEmilius Paulus, gave his sons called Peloplaton, 335, ?".
Greek instructors, 8 Ammonius, of the New Academy,

JEnesiclenms, 22 teacher of Plutarch, 102, 2
;
jEschines, a disciple of Oarneades, 5 334, 3

; 336, n.
JEther, theories concerning- the, Anatolius of Alexandria, Bishop

124 133 341, 5 342, 1 of Laodicea about 270, A.B., tinguished
dis-
; ; ;
Agathobulus, Cynic, 294, n.

himself in the patetic
Peri-
a
Albinus, a Platonist, 335 ;

his ec- philosophy, 332, 2
clecticism, 346 his ries

commenta- Andronicus of Rhodes, head of
;
on Plato, 337 ; his division the Peripatetic school in Athens,

347 his trines,
doc- 113 Aristotle's work edited by,
of philosophy, ; ;
347 concerning- Matter, 115 ; diverged from Aristotle,
;
the world, the world- 116 but the whole
the Deity, ; was on a
soul, demons, the virtues, 347- genuine Peripatetic, 117
349 his importance among the Animal food, to be avoided, cording

ac-
;
later Platonists, 350 to Musonius, 225 ; gument
ar-
Alexander, Peripatetic of the of Sextius against, 186

a
first century B.C., 124, 1 Annseus Serenus, a Stoic, 196, n.
Alexander of Peripatetic, Anthropology, Oicero's, 169 neca's,

Se-
-"32gse, a ;
instructor of Nero, 304, 2 219

374: INDEX.
ANT ATH
Antibius, 200, n. Archaicus, a Peripatetic,307, n.

Antidotus, instructor of Antipater Aristo,a discipleof Antiochus, who
of Sidon, 54, n. went over from the Academy to
Antiochus of Ascalon, disciple of the Peripatetics,105, 2 ; 121
Philo, called the founder of the Aristocles of Messene, a tetic,
Peripa-
fifth Academy, 87 ; his doctrines : 314; fragments of his
virtue and knowledge, 87 ; cri-
terion great historical work preserved
of truth, 88 ; dicta of the by Busebius, 315 ; his admiration
senses not to he discarded, 89 ; for Plato, 315 ; his conception
scepticism self -contradictory, of Reason, human and divine,
90 ; maintains that all the 317 ; was a precursor of Neo-
schools of philosophy are tually
vir- Platonism, 318
in agreement, 9t ,* called Aristocles of Pcrganms, a tetic,
Peripa-
by Cicero a pure Stoic, 92; 305, n.
divides philosophy into three Aristodemus, a Platonist, 334, 3
parts, 92 ; his theory of ledge,
know- Aristodemus, teacher of Strabo,
93 ; his ethics, 95 ; doc-
trines 75, 7i.
of life according to Aristotle, commentaries on, 112,
nature, 96 ; the highest good, 304 sqg. ; assertion of his agree-
ment
96 ; virtue and happiness,97; his with Plato, by Antiochus,
positionin regard to the Stoics 91 by Cicero, 163 ; by Severus
;
and Peripatetics, 98: school and Albinus, 346, 347
of, 99 ; other disciplesof, 1 00 Aristus, brother and successor of
Antiochus the Cilician, a Cynic, Antiochus in the Hew Academy
294, n. at Athens, 100, 1
Antipater of Sidon, poet and Arius Didymus of Alexandria, the
philosopher,54, n. Academic, 106
Antipater of Tyre, 71, n, Arrian, author of a Meteorology,
Apollas of Sardis,of the school of 258, 1
Antiochus, 100, n. Arrian, the Stoic, 258
Apollodorus of Athens, leader of Artemon, a Peripatetic, 307, n.
the Stoic school in the first Asclepiadcs of Bithynia, relation
century B.C., 53, n. to Epicureanism, 29 ; atomistic
Apollodorus "5
Kîror^pavvos, com-
pared theory of, 81
with Epicurus, 27, 28 Asclepiades, two Cynics of that
Apollonides, friend of Cato, 72, n. name, 294, n. ; 301, 3
Apollonius, a freedman of Cassius, Asclepiodotus,a Stoic,71, n.
72, n. Asclepiodotus of Nicaea, a disci-
ple
Apollonins, a Peripatetic,304, 2 of Paniotius,53, n.
Apollonius, a Platonist,334, 3 Aspaaius, a Peripatetic, 305, n. ;
Apollonius of Mysa, a Stoic, 53, n. his commentaries on Aristotle,
Apollonius of Ptolemais, 72, n. 308
Apollonius of Tyre, 71, n. Athenodoraa, son of Saudon, 72, n.
Apollonius, Stoic instructor of Athenodorus, surnamed Cordylio,
Marcus Aurelius,198, n. 71, n.
Apuleius, on the Cosmos, 3 29 ; not Athenodoraa the Bhodian, 124, 1
the author of the treatise irepl Athens visited by Eomans, 13 ;
vt 131 proposal by Gellius to the philo-
INDEX. 375
ATH CBA
his writings Greek losophy,

phi-
sophers in, 16 ; public teachers | Cicero, on
of the four principalschools of 14 ; on the Epicureans,

25 ; his philosophicstudies, 147 ;
philosophy established in, by
his philosophicalworks, 148 ;
Marcus Aurelius, 193
Attalus, teacher of Seneca, 195 his scepticism,149, 151 ; Cicero
and Carneades, 152, 157; his
Atticus, his zeal for the purity of
the Academic doctrines, 341 ; objection to dialectic, 153 ; Ms
opposition to Aristotle's defi-

nition theologicalopinions,154 s%. 167 ;
concerning Homonyms, his view of philosophy, 156 ; his
342, 343 theory of knowledge, 158 ; doc-

trine
Atomistic theory of Asclepiades,31 of innate knowledge, 159 ;

moral disposition innate, 160;
his doctrineof a moral sense,
"pALBTJS, L. Lucilius, 55, n. 160 his criterion of truth, 161 ;
;
Jj Balbus, Q. Lucilius,55, n. ; 74,n. the immortality of the soul,
on
Basilides, 54, n.
161,170; dialectics and physics,
Basilides of Scythopolis,198, n.
162 ; his criticism of ism,
Epicurean-
Boethus, Flavins, 306, n.
162 ; his ethics, 163 ; criti-
cism
Boethus of Sidon, the Peripatetic, of the Stoics, 164; his
discipleof Andronicus, 11.7 ; his of
uncertainty and want ality,
origin-
commentaries on Aristotle, and nature of G-od
166; cording
ac-
divergences from him, 119 ; on to, 167; human nature

the immortality of the soul, 120 belief in Providence,
in, 162 ;
Boethus, the Stoic, 35 ; his deviation 168 anthropology, 169 ; on
;
from pure Stoicism, 35 ; attitude freewill, 171 ; sentative
repre- Cicero a
to the Stoic theology, 36 ; to the of eclecticism, 157, 171

doctrine of the conflagrationof
Cinna, Catulus, a Stoic, instructor
the world, 37, and prophecy, 38
of Marcus Aurelius, 198, n.
Brutus, M., a discipleof Antiochus, Claranus, a Stoic, 196, n.
100, n. Claudius Agathinus, of Sparta,
discipleof Cornutus, 196, n.
nALLIOLBS, 75, 4 Claudius Maximus, Stoic,instruc-

tor
\J Carneades, his predilection of Marcus Aurelius, 198, n.

for ethics, 5 his influence at Claudius Severus, teacher of Mar-
cus
;
Aurelius, 306, n.
Borne, 9
Carneades, the Cynic, 291, 2 end Clitomachus, 5.
Commentators Aristotle of Cri-
Cato, Seneca's opinion of, 230
"
tolaus, Diodorus, Andronicus of

Cato the Elder, 15, 1
Cato the Younger, 74, n. Khodes, 113, 306
of of Plato, 337 $$.
Celsus, a Platonist in the time "
Cornutus, L. Annasus, a Stoic,

Marcus Aurelius, 336, n.
banished by Nero, 196, n. sg. ; 198
Censorinus, 336, n.
teacher of Nero, 195, 1 Gotta, 0., consul in 76 B.C., ciple
dis-
Chseremon,
of public, by and adherent of Hiilo,
Chairs, institution
Hadrian, 189 100, n.
the treatise Crassitius, Lucius, of Tarentum,

Chrysippus, on
of the
member of the school
127
K(J"rjuou,
Cynic, 301, 3 Sextii, 181
Chytron, a
376 INDJEX.
OBA ECL
Crassus, Cornelius, a prolificwriter 61 ; in the treatise TreplKdcrjuov,

of the school of the Sextii, 181 132 ; all things are full of gods
Cratippus, a Peripatetic of the and (Epictetus), 265 ; Albinus
first century B.O., 122 on, 349
Crescens, a Cynic, accuser of Justin Dercyllides,the grammarian ber
mem-
the
Martyr, 294, n. of the New Academy, 102, 2
Crispus Passienus, a Stoic, 196, n. Destiny, submission to, man's duty,
Critolaus, the most presentative 271
important re- (Epictetus); 284 (Marcus
of the Peripatetic Aurelius)
School in the second century Dio, 100, ??,; 121, 2
B.C., 113 Dio Chrysostom, 353 ; Ms notion

Cronins, a Platonist, 336, n. of philosophy the endeavour to
Cynicism, revival of, soon after be a righteous man, 354; ap-
proximatio
the beginning of the Christian of Stoicism, 355 ;
era, 289 Plato next to Demosthenes his-
Cynics, the, of the Imperial era, pattern of style,356 ; Ms general
288, 290 standpoint, 357
"
,
mentioned by Julian, 301, 3 ; Diodorus, a Peripatetic tator,
commen-
last traces of the, 302 113
Diodotus, instructor and friend of
the divine in Cicero, n,
DAEMON",
266 (Epictetus); 278 (Marcus
man,
Diogenes, a Cynic, in the reign of
Aurelius) Vespasian, 294, n.
Damocles of Messene, 53, n. Diogenes of Seleucia, his opinion
"Daphnus, a Platonist, 336, n. as to the conflagration of the
Dardanus, disciple and successor world, 35
of Pangetius, 53, n. Diogenes of Tarsus, an Epicurean,
Demetrius, a Cynic, friend of 28,2
Seneca, 291 ; Ms moral ciples, Diogenianus, a Peripatetic,307, n.
prin-
293 ; Ms contempt for Diognetus, 198, n.
knowledge, 293 Dionysius of Cyrcne, a geometri-
cian,
Demetrius, an Epicurean, 28 53, n,
Demetrius, a Platonist, 335, n. Dionysius, Stoic of the first century
Demetrius Chytras, a Cynic, A.B., 196, n.
301, 3 Dionysius, Stoic philosopherof the
Demetrius of Byzantium, a patetic,
Peri- first century B.C., 71, w.
307, n. Diotimus, of the school of Pansc-
Demetrius the Bithynian, a Stoic, tius, 54, n.
53, n. Diphilus, a Stoic, 53, n.
Democritus, a Platonist,336, n. Divine assistance to man, how
Demonax, a Cynic, 294, n. ; his understood by Seneca, 243
eclecticism, 297 ; his efforts to
liberate men from things nal,
exter- "E1CLECTICISM,origmandgrowfcli
297 ; abstained from riage,
mar- JD of, in Greek philosophy ; cha-
racter
sacrifices,and the mys-
teries, of, 17; presupposes an
298 ; his ready wit and individual criterion of truth,
practicalinfluence, 299 18; eclecticism and the philo-
sophy
Demons, Posidonius in regard to, of revelation, 20; scop-
INDEX. 377
ECL GAL
ticism, 21 ; contained germs of 108 ; of Cicero, 163; of Yarro,.

lêo-Platonism,23 ; eclecticism 173; of the Sextii, 185; of
among the Epicureans, 24 sg. ; Seneca, 226 ; of Musonius, 251 ;
the Stoics, 31
"#., $#., 246 of Epictetus, 268 sg. ; of Marcus
189 ; the Academics,
$g., 335 75 Aurelius, 286 ; of Galen, 370
s#. ; the Peripatetics, 112 sq., Eubulus, a Platonist, 336, n.
304 ; in Cicero, 146 ; in Seneca, Euclides, a Platonist, 336, n.
224, 225 ; of Galen, 362 ; Eclec-
tics Eudemus, a Peripatetic,306, n,
belonging to no particular Eudorus of Alexandria, his Pla-
school, 351 tonism, 103 ; his digest of the
Eclectic School, the, 111 Categories, 104; his pedia,
Encyclo-
Egnatius, Celer P., a Stoic, 197 104
Ennius, his acquaintance with Euphrates, teacher of the younger
Greek
philosophy, 7 Pliny, 197, n.
Epictetus, 197, n. ; date sonal
per- and Evil external, Seneca's view of,
history of, ; his con-257
ception 229 ; Epictetus on, 270 ; Demo-
of philosophy, 258 ; trines,
doc- nax on, 297 ; Marcus Aurelius
259 sg. ; men are to be on, 284
made philosophers in behaviour
rather than opinions, 260 ; his PAPIEIUS, 181
opinion logic and dialectic,
of
FABIANUS
Faith, attitude of Pansetius to
261 ; natural philosophy, 262 ; the popular,50 ; of Cicero,169 ; of
religiousview of the world, 263 ; Seneca, ; of
244 Epictetus,264,
belief in the perfection of the 265 ; of Marcus Aurelius, 282
world, 263 ; opinion of the lar
popu- Fannius, C., a Roman disciple of
religion,264 ; soothsaying, Pansetius, 55, n.
265 ; daemons, 266 ; immortality Fatalism of the

opposed by Stoics
of the soul, 266 ; freewill, 267 ; Diogenianus, 307 ; by Alexander
innate moral conceptions and of Aphroclisias,322
principles,268 ; man's indepen-
dence Forgiveness of injuries, Seneca,
of things external, 269 ; 241 ; Epictetus, 274 ; Marcus
duty of absolute submission to Aurelius, 286
destiny, 271 ; inclination of Freewill, Cicero's treatise on, 171 ;.
Epictetus to cynicism, 272 ; his Seneca on, 231; Epictetus on,
cynicism modified by Ms mild 267
disposition, 274; his love of Friendship, Seneca on, 240; opinion
mankind, 275 of some Epicureans on, quoted
Epicureanism, the later,at Borne, by Cicero, 25
12
Epicureans, in the first two turies
cen- r\ AITJS, a Platonist, 335, n. ; his
B.C., relation of the later UT commentaries on Plato, 337
to Epicurus, 26 ; Cicero on the, Galen of Smyrna; his personal
25, 162 history, 360, 2; his fame as a.
" the, averse to science, 194 physician, 368 philosophy ; his

Equality of men (Seneca), 242 is eclecticism Peripatetic
on a
Ethics PansQtius, 47; of Posi-

of basis,362 ; theory of knowledge,
donius, 67 ; of Antiochus, 95 ; of 363 ; high opinion of logic,363
Eudorus,104; of Anus Didymus, s%. ; his physics and metaphysics,,,
-378 INDEX.
GAL LAM
365 $#.; doctrine of matter, 366; Herminus, a Peripatetic,306, n.\

soul and "body,367 ; contempt his commentaries on Aristotle,
for theoretical enquiries,369; 312
eclecticism of his ethics, 370 j Herminus, a Stoic,200, n.
his ethical writings,most of Hermodorus the
Bphesian, 6, 2
them lost,370 Herophilus,a Cynic. 294, n.
'Gellius theproconsul,his proposal Homonyms, Aristotle's definition
to thephilosophersin Athens, 16 concerning, objected to by Atti-
Oeorgius of Lacedsemon, 53, n. cus, 342, 343
God, nature of,according to Boe- Honoratus, a Cynic, 294, n.
thus, 36; Cicero, 160, 167; Human nature, how treated by
263 ;
Seneca, 213 8$. Epictetus, ,
Cicero,169 ; by Seneca, 239 ; by
Marcus Aurelius, 280-282 ; Alex-
ander Epictetus,260 ; by Marcus Au-
of Aphrodisias, 330, 342 j relius,286
Galen, 369
Gods, see Faith TDEAS, doctrine of, accordingto
-Good, the highest,according to JL Albinus, 348
Antiochus, 96 ; Cicero, 164 s#. J Images, worship of (Varro),178
Varro, 172 Immediate certainty, its nature
*Greek philosophy,decline of origi-
nality accordingto the Eclectics,19
in, j
3 effect of scepticism Immortality,Cicero on, 161, 170 ;
on, 4 ; among the Romans, 610; Seneca's
view of, 223 ; Epictetus
Roman students of, 11 ; effect on, 266 ; Marcus Aurelius on, 283
of Roman character on, 14 ; last o f
Iphicles, Epirus,a Cynic, 301, 3
epoch of, 23
TASON, a Stoic,71, n.
sought in
to be
HAPPINESS,
ourselves (Seneca), 236 ;
v Julianus,of Tralles, 307, n.
(Epictetus)270; (Marcus Au-

relius)282, 284 77"INSHIP of mankind, Seneca,
Harpocrationof Argos, a Platonist, A 239
336, n. ; his commentaries on " of man to God
(Epictetus),266 ;
Plato,339 (Marcus Aurelius) 283 ; (Dio
Hecato, of Rhodes, member of the Chrysostom) 350
school of Pansetius,53, ?*.,65 Knowledge of God, innate in man
Hegesianax,a Cynic, 295, n. 160, 161 ; (Dio Ghryso-
(Cicero),
Heliodorus, a Peripatetic, 322, 1 stom), 356
Heliodorus of Prusa, 115, 5 Knowledge, theory of,311 ; Philo's,
Helvidius Priscus, a Stoic, put to 79, 83; Cicero's, 158; Cicero's
death by Vespasian,197, n. doctrine of innate, 159; Anti-
ochus'
Heraclides, the Stoic, 52 ; con-
temporary theory of, 97 : proper
of
Pansetius,52 object of, the universal, Alex-
ander
Heraclitus,a Stoic,195, 1 of Aphrodisias, 324; Al-
binus
Heraclitus,of Tyre,member of the on the theory and faculty
New Academy, 99, n. of,347; Galen's theory of, 362
Heraclius,a Cynic, 301, 8
Heras, a Cynic in the reign of T AMPEIAS, a Peripatetic, bro-
Vespasian, 294, n JU ther of Plutarch,305, n.
INDEX. 379
LEO NEK
Leonides, a Stoic of Bhodes, 71, n. Menephylus, a Peripatetic,304, 2

Logic, how by Seneca, 208 ;
treated Menesarchus, disciple and succes-
sor
by Epictetus,261 ; by Alexander of Pansetius, 53

321 by Galen, Menippus, a Cynic of the third
of Aphrodisias, ;
323 century B.C., 291, 1
the Lycian, mentioned by
JLonginus, 336, n. "
Love of mankind (Seneca), 239, Philostratus, 291, n.

240 ; (Epictetus)
275 ; Marcus Meteorology, Seneca's, 211
Metrodorus, philosopher and
Aurelius), 286
of painter,8, 1 ; accompanied jEmi-
Lucanus M. Annseus, nephew
Stoic, 197, n. lius Paulus on his warlike peditions,
ex-
Seneca, a
Lucian, his personal history, 357 ; 8

considers philosophy as tied to Metronax, a Stoic, 196
no system, but satirises each in Mnasagoras, disciple of Pansatius,
turn, 358, 359 : conception of 53, n.
the true art Mnaseas of Tyre, of the school of

true philosophy as
of life,360 Antiochus, 100, n.
Mnesarchus, the Stoic, 86
Lucilius, 12, 3 ; 196, n.
Monachism adopted by the tian
Chris-
Lucretius, Epicureanism of, 26
Church from Cynicism, 303
Lyco, a Bithynian, 53, n.
Mucius Scasvola, discipleof Panse-
tius,
49
]\/fAKCUS AURELIUS, Mummius, Sp., Eoman, discipleof

settled
1YJL public teachers of the four Panastius, 55, n.
chief schools of philosophy in Museum, the Alexandrian, 191
Athens, 193; references to him Musonius, a Cynic, 766, 2 end

and his instructors, 199, n. ; Musonius, a Stoic of the third century
his personal history, 276; semblances

re- A.D., 200, n.
Musonius Rufus, instructor of

to Epictetus, 278 ;
life and of Epictetus, 197, n. personal tory,
his-
conception of human ;
the problem of philosophy,279 ; 246, 3 ; devoted to prac-
tical
ethics, 248; asserted
his doctrines, 279 s$. ; belief in
the Divine order of the universe, philosophy to way be the only
to virtue, 251 his personal fluence,
in-
281; in dreams and auguries, ;
his 253 ; Stoicism gerated
exag-
282; future existence, 283;
ethics, 284 ; resignation to the by Musonius, 253 ; inner
will of God, 285 ; love to man, freedom of man his leading
of his thought, 254 ; reasons for avoid-
ing
286 j nobility and purity
life,287 animal food, 255 ; views on
marriage and the of

Marriage, Seneca's view of, 240 ; exposure
Musonius on, 256 ; Epictetus on, children, 256; disapproval of
256
public prosecutions,
273
Maximxts of Nicssa, a Platonist, Musonius the Tyrian, 1 99, n.
336, n
Platonist, 335, "VTEO-PLATONISM, forerunners
Maximns of Tyre, a
1M of, among the Platonists, 344
n., 337
Menecrates of Methyma, of the Nero, influence of the time of, on
school of Antiochus, 100, n. philosophy, 236

380 INDEX.
NES PHI
Nestor of Tarsus, the Academic, K.6"rju.ov,

the treatise,its origin,
54, n. ; distinct from Nestor the 125 ; Ohrysippus on, 127 ; Posi-
Stoic, 102, 2 donius not the author of, 128 ;
Nicander the
Bithynian, 53, n. nature of the treatise, 132 ;
"
a Peripatetic,307, n. affinity with Stoicism, 135 ;
Nicolaus of Damascus, 122 Peripateticand Stoic ideas bined
com-
Nigrirms, a Platonist, 335, n ; his in it, 137; its

probable
eclecticism,344 date of composition, 138 ; later
Nurna, the books of, 7 than Posidonius, 141 ; about the
Numenius, 336, n. first century B.C., 143
Peripatetics,the later, 112 ; clusively
ex-
devoted to taries
commen-
nriNOMATJS of G-adara, a Cynic
vJU
on Aristotle, 194
of the 'reign of Hadrian,
" of the firstcenturies after Christ,
295 j his treatise against the
"
304 s$.
Jugglers,'295
PeripateticSchool from the second
Origen, 336, n. half of the third century A.D.
Originality,decline of, in Greek
in that of the
gradually merged
philosophy, 3
Neo-Platonists, 332
Orion, 282
Persius, Flaccus A., a Stoic,
197, iw.
30 ; at of Rhodes, Petronius, Arislocrates, of Mag-

nesia,
JL Rome, 9 ; friend of Scipio and a Stoic, 196, n.
Lsalius,40 ; head of the Stoic Phanias, a Stoic, 71, w.

school in Athens, 40; learning Philo,of Larissa,at Eomc, 88 B.C.,
and reputation, 41 ; character 12 ; personal history, 75 ; in-
structor
of his Stoicism, 42 ; denial of the of Cicero, 76 ; practical
soul's existence after death, 45; basis, 77 ; his revival of Platon-
ethics,47 ; work on duty, 48 ; ism, 82 ; theory of knowledge,
theology,49 : his allegoricalin- 83 ; was the founder of the
"
terpretationof myths, 50; rejec-
tion 'Fourth Academy,' 84; pupils
of soothsaying,58 ; relation Of, 100, 'M.
to the Stoics,5 1 ; contemporaries Philopator,a Stoic under Hadrian,
and disciplesof, 52 ; school of, 398, n.
53 st{.; and Seneca, 245 Philosophers banished from Rome,
Pancratius, a Cynic, 294, n. 7
Papirius,Fabianus, member of the " sects of, enumerated by Varro,
school of the Sextii,181 173
Paramonus of Tarsus, discipleof Philosophy, schools of, tend to
Pansetius,53, 2 amalgamation, 1 ; Koman esti-
mates
Paulus, the Prefect, a Peripatetic, of, 15
306, %. " of revelation,allied with eclec-
ticism,
Pausanias of Pontus, discipleof 20 ; schools of,are all in
Panastius,53, n. agreement, according to Antio-
Peregrinus, a Cynic, 294, n. ; elms, 91 ; general character of,
Lucian's description
of him, in Imperialtimes, 189
299, 3 ; his voluntary death by "
regarded with political mis-
trust
fire,
299; praisedby Gellius,300 in the first century B.C.,
INDEX. 381
PHI SBL
190 ; chairs of, established by Rhetoric, an important part of

Hadrian, 191 ; theoretical and public instruction in the Imperial
practical, 205 ; relation of, to period, 352 ; numerous schools
rhetoric, 352 of, 352 ; appointment of public
Physics, Seneca's high estimation teachers of, 352
of, 210 Boman character, effect of, on
"v"ns distinguished from ^vx$j by Greek philosophy, 14
Pansetius, 47 ; by Galen, 369 Roman disciples of Panêtius,

Piso, 55, n. 55, n.
Piso, M., a disciple of Antiochus, Roman estimate of philosophy, 15
101, n. Roman students of Greek sophy,

philo-
Plato, commentators of, 337 11
Plato of Ehodes, 53, n. Rome, Greek philosophy at, 6;
Platonism, revival by Philo, 82 philosophers banished from, 7 ;
Platonists of the first centuries Carneades at, 9; Greek sophy
philo-
A.D., 334 at, 10 ; Epicureanism at,
Plutarch, his commentary on Plato, 12 ; Panaetius at, 9 ; Stoicism
337 at, 9 ; Philodemus and Syro, the
Polyzelus, a Cynic, 295, n. Epicureans at, in the first tury
cen-
Polyzehis, a Peripatetic, 295 n. B.C., 13 ; Philo the Platonist

Posidonius at Rome at the ning
begin- at, in 88 B.C., 12
of the first century B.C., 12 Rubellius Plautus, a Stoic put to
" a Syrian of Apamea, disciple of death by Nero, 197, n.
Panaatius, 56 ; his doctrines and Rusticus Junius, Stoic instructor
relation to Stoicism, 59 sq, ; of Marcus Aurelius, 198, n.
love of rhetoric and erudition, Rutilius Rufus, Q., Roman disciple
62 ; natural science, 62 ; anthro-
pology, of Panratius, 55, n.
64 ; doctrine of the soul,
64 sg. ; ethics, 65 ; psychology, Platonist, 336,
68 ; not the author of ire pi
8AKKAS,
Sallustius, Cynic
a
a ascetic
n.
of
K^fffJiOV,
128 Athens in the sixth century A.D.,
Potamo of Alexandria, Ms ticism,
eclec- 302, 3
109 s$. ; criterion of Sandon, 72, n.
truth, 111 SciBvola, Q. Mucius, Roman ciple
dis-
Premigenes of Mytilene, a tetic,

Peripa- of Panaetius, 55, n.
306, n. Scepticism, its effect on Greek
Proclinus, a Platonist, 336, n. philosophy, 4 ; relation of, to

Protagoras, a Stoic, 74, n. eclecticism, 12 ; self -contradic-
tory
Providence, Cicero's belief in, 168"; according to Antiochus, 90 ;

Marcus Aurelius on, 285 of Seneca, 225
Ptolemy, a Peripatetic,317, n. Schools of Philosophy, the, tend
Ptolemy, two Epicureans of that toapproximate, 193

name, 28, 2 Scylax of Halicarnassus, friend of
Publius, a disciple of Philo, 100, n. Pansetius, 54, n.
Self - examination, necessity of

(Seneca), 238
"DBLIG-ION, Seneca's conception Selius, Caius, disciple of Philo,
Jtl of, 244 100, n.
382 INDEX.
SEN STO
Seneca, 196, n. ; his reputation and Serapio, a Stoic, 196 n.
influence, 203 ; practicalnature Sereniaxms, a Cynic, 301, 3

of his ethics, 204 ; his tion
concep- Severus, a Platonist, 336, n. ; his
philosophy, theoretical
of commentary on the Timceus, 339 ;
and practical 205 s#. ; contempt his eclecticism, 345 ; treatise on
for merely theoretical inquiries, the soul, 345 sq. ; deviations

his view of logic,208 ; his high from Platonism, 348
estimation of physics, 210 ; his Sextii, school of the, advocated
meteorology, 211 ; physical and daily self -
examination, nounced
re-
theologicaldoci rines, 212 ;nature animal

food, 186 ; its
of G-od,according to, 213 ; Stoic-
ism character and doctrines, 183 s^. ;
in, 215 theories of the was a branch of Stoicism, 187

;
world, 217 ; his anthropology, Sextius, Q., his school, 180 ; ques-
tion
219 of the soul, accord-
ing to his authorship of the
; nature as
to, 219 ; theory of passions book of Sentences, 182, 2 ; rela-

tion
and affections, 221 ; frailty of to the Stoics, 186 ; succeeded
human nature, 221 ; contempt as head of the school by his son,
for hody,
the 222 ; body and 181
spiritopposed, 222 ; his view of Sextus of Chgeronea, a Platonist,
immortality, 223 ; Seneca's chology
psy- 335, n.
compared with that of Sextus, the supposed Pythagorean,

Chrysippus, 224 ; scepticism of, 182,2
225 ; Stoicism of, 226, 242 Socrates, a Peripatetic,307, n.
"
on external evil, 229 ; ethics Sosigenes,the Peripatetic, 306, n. ;
of, 226 ; Peripateticism of, 229 ; 313
his opinion about Cato, 230 Sosigenes, the Stoic,contemporary
" on the wise man, 231 ; his of Pansetius, 52
deviation from Stoicism, 231 ; Soson of Ascalon, 53, n.
vacillation in his character, 232 ; Sotas of Paphos, a Stoic, 54, n.
rhetoric of, 234 Sotion, a Peripatetic,805, "..

" influence of his time, 235 Sotion of Alexandria, member of
" bids us find happiness in selves,
our- the school of the
Sextii, 181;
236 ; necessity of self- instructor of Seneca, 181
examination, 238 ; natural ship
kin- Soul, nature of the, according to
of mankind, 239 ; view of Asclepiades, SO ; Antiochus, 95 ;
politicallife,239 ; love of kind,
man- Alexander of Aphrodisias, 326 ;
239, 240 ; view of marriage, Cicero, 170 ; Posidonius, 64 ;
240 Seneca, 219 ; Marcus Aurelius,
" on the forgiveness of ries,
inju- 283 ; the, an emanation from the
241 j view of suicide, 243 ; Deity, 176 ; the, immortality of,
of the assistance given by the defended by Cicero, 170 j is air
Deity to man, 243 ; on the (Varro),176; opinions of Atticus,
equality of men, 242 ; his ception
con- 342 ; Galen, 367
of religion,244 j pared
com- Sphodrias, a Cynic, 295, n.
with Pantetius, 245 Staseas, of Naples,called by Oicero
Senses, the, their dicta not to bo nolMs Peripatfftioua,
122, 1
discarded ; doctrine of Antio- Stoicism at Borne, 9
chus, 89 ; o" Cicero, 158 Stoics, the later, 34 ; of the first
INDEX. 383
STO ZEN
century B.C., 71 $$. ; the, and Tubero, Q. JElius, Roman disciple

Sextius, 186 ; the, in the first of Pansetius, 55, n.
centuries A.D., 189 ; criticism of
the, by Cicero, 164 ; their striction
re- TTARRO, a discipleof Antiochus,
to ethics, 194 ; under
V 100, n. ; a Roman eclectic and
Domitian, Trajan, and Hadrian, friend of Cicero, 171 : his view
] 98, n, ; inclination of the later of philosophy, 172 ; and the
to Platonism, 42 $#., 62 sq. sects of philosophers,173; his
Strabo the geographer, a Stoic, ethics and doctrine of the
73, n. highest good, 174; virtue a con-
dition
Stratocles of Rhodes, a Stoic, of happiness, 174; his-
54, %. psychology and theology, 176 ;"
Strato, the Alexandrian tetic,
Peripa- his opinion of image worship,.
"07, n. 178 ; of State religionand theo-
logy,
Suicide, Seneca's view of,243 ; de-
fended 178
by Cynics, 298, 300
the Yespasian, his measures against
Sulpicius Gallus, astronomer and philosophers,190, 1 ; payments-
philosopher,8 to rhetoricians, 191, 3
Vigellms, M., Roman discipleof
Pangetius, 55, n.
CALVISIUS BERY- Virginias Rufus, a Peripatetic,,
TUS, a Platonist, 335, n.; 307, n.
commentaries on Plato, 340 Virtue and knowledge, according

Tetrilius Rogus, 100, n. to Antiochus the Academic, 88,
Theagenes, a Cynic, 294, n\ ciple
dis- 96
of Peregrinus, 301 Virtue, a condition
happiness,. of
Theodotus, a Platonist, 336, n. 174 (Varro) ; 238(Seneca) ; rela-
Theomnestus, a Cynic, 295, n. * tion of,;tophilosophy,according
Theomnestus, of the New demy,
Aca- to Musonius Rufus, 251
102, 2
the, of the
Theo
Theo
of Alexandria,
of Smyrna,
73,
Platonist,335,
a
n.
WISEand MAN,
Seneca, 231
Stoics,,
n. ; his commentaries on Plato, World, theories of the (Treatise

339 irepl 134
/c"fff"iou),; (Seneca),217 ;;
Theopompus, of the school of An- (Marcus Aurelius), 281 ; (Atti-
tiochus, 100, n. cus), 342 ; final conflagrationof
iThrasea Psetus, a Stoic, 1 97, n, the, 34, 35, 44
friend of Seneca, 291, 2
Thrasyllus,the grammarian, mem-
ber ,
a Cynic, 295
of the New Academy, .A. Xenarchns, controverted totle's
Aris-
102,2 Physics, 124
Ximocles of Cnidus, 54, n.
Truth, criterion of, according to F7ENOof SIdon,27
Antiochus, 88; according to IJ Zeno of
Tarsus, successor of
Potamo, 111 ; Cicero, 153, 156, Chrysippus, 34; opinion as to
161 ^ according to Galen, 363 the destruction of the world, 34
SpQttiswoode" Co. Printers, New-street Square, London.

TJBJ" AUTHORISED ENGLISH TRANSLATION
OF DR. ZJELLJER'S WORK ON THE
PHILOSOPHY OF TJfJS GRJ"JSJKS.
The PBE-SOCRAT1C SCHOOLS. Being a History of
Greek Philosophy from, the Earliest Period to the Time of

SOCBATES, Translated by SARAH 3?. ALMSYNB. 2 vols.
crown 8vo, 80s.
HISTOBY of ECLECTICISM in G-BEEK SOPHY.

PHILO-
Translated by SARAH F. AL"EIYNKJ. Crown 8vo.
price 10*. 6d.
SOCBATES and the SOCBATIO SCHOOLS. lated

Trans-
by O. J. BEICHEI,, M.A. B.C.B. sometime' Scholar of

Queen's Oollecre, Oxford. Second Edition^ enlarged from
materials supplied by the Author. Crown 8vo. 10*. Qd.
PLATO and tlie OLBEB ACADEMY. Translated by

.SASUH F. AI^BYNB, and AI-VBKII^'O-OODWIIN-, B.A. Follow and
Lecturer, Balliol College, Oxford. Crown Bvo. 18*.
The STOICS, EPICUREANS, and SCEPTICS. lated

Trans-
by O. J. K.BICHCBL, M.A. B.O.Xi. sometime Scholar of
Queen's College, Oxford. Second Edition, thoroughly revised.
Gr^wn 8vo. 15*.
ABISTOTI.E and the ELDEB PEBIPATETICS.

Translated by B. F. C. COSTBLLOE, Balliol College, Oxford.
Crown 8vo. tXnjK"r"ptx,ra,tion,
*** The volume announced above will complete the English lation
Trans-
of Dr. ZEiLiiBR's Work on the FhiloBOphy of tlio Greeks.
London, LOJSTG-MAKS " CO*

A History of Eclecticism in Greek Philosophy PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

A History of Eclecticism in Greek Philosophy PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

THIS is translation of the second section of Dr.

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.

CLIFTON : Seirfeniber 14 1883.

Page 83, line 15 for belonged read belongs

95, 26 for fundamental impulse read impulse

116, 2 for their read its

162, 19 for I read

205, 31 for effects read affect

206, 6 for enquires read asks

207, 2 substitute semicolon for after 'doctrine,'

210, 13 substitute note of interrogation for after

294, 3 for under read in

their inborn conviction read that universal

which he claims for all innate

ORIGIN AND CHAKACTEK OF ECLECTICISM 1

Gradual blending of the schools of philosophy: Internal

causes of this, 1 sg. External causes : diffusion of Greek

philosophy the Romans, 6. Reaction of that

of eclectic philosophy, 17. Contained the of the

ECLECTICISM INT THE SECOND AND FIRST CENTURIES

BEFORE CHRIST THE EPICUREANS ASCLEPIADES 24

Relation of the later Epicureans to Epicurus, 24. Aeclepi-

THE STOICS : BOETHUS, PAN^ETIUS, POSIDONIUS 34:

Successors of Ohrysippus, 34. Boethus, 35. Pansetius, 39.

Character of his philosophy, 42. Deviations from ism,

43 sff. Ethics, 47. Contemporaries and disciples of

Panaetius, 52. Posidonius, 56. H^s philosophic dencies,

50. His anthropology, 64. Other Stoics of the

first century before Chrisfe, 7O

THE ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS IN THE FIRST

CENTURY BEFORE CHRIST .

Pbilo of Larissa, 75. His practical bias, 77. Modification

of the scepticism of theHis theory of

knowledge, 81. Antiochus of Ascalon, 85. Polemic

against scepticism, 87. Eclecticism : essential ment

Antiochus, 99. Eudoras, 103. Arms Didymus, 106.

THE PERIPATETIC SCHOOL IN THE FIRST CENTURY

The Commentators: Andronicus of Rhodes, 113. Boethus

of Siclon, 117. Aristo, Staseas, Cratippus, Nicolaus,

various theories as to its origin, 125. Nature of the

treatise, 132. Origin and date of composition, 138.

Cicero, 146. His

THE SCHOOL OF THE SEXT1I .

History of the school, 80. Its philosophic character and

THE FIRST CENTURIES AFTER CHRIST " THE

SCHOOL OF THE STOICS "

Philosophy in the Imperial period : study of the ancient

philosophy, 190. The school of the Stoics from the first

theological views, 212. The world and nature, 217.

THE STOICS CONTINUED : MTTSONIUS, EPICTETUS,

Musonius, 246. His -practical standpoint, 248. His ethics,

philosophy, 258. Inferior value of knowledge, 260.

to Cynicism, 272. Gentleness and love of

opinions ; flux of all things, 279 ; the Deity, Providence,

Ethics, 284. Withdrawal into self, 284. Eesignation

THE CYNICS OF THE IMPERIAL ERA .

Revival of Cynicism, 289. Its adherents, 290 sq. metrius,

291. (Enomaus, 294. Bemonax, 296. Pere-