A History of Eclecticism in Greek Philosophy - Zeller (1883)

A
HISTORY
OF
ECLECTICISM
IN
GREEK PHILOSOPHY
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF
DR
ruoFKsson
ix
E.
ZELLER
THE UNIVERSITY OF BKUT.IN
foitb the
guiibor s smrttiau
RY
S. F.
ALLEYNE
LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND

1883
CO.
FP.D
BY
SPOTTISWOOD
KW-STliKF/
I
AM
STHKKT
TEANSLATOE S PREFACE.
THIS
is
a translation of the second section of Dr.

*
Zellers
Philosophic der Griechen, Dritter Theil,
Erste Abtheilung.
The
first
section of the volume,
concerning the Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, has

already been translated by Dr. Keichel.
translation has been
The present
and
latest
made from the
third
edition of the
German work.
S.
F.
ALLEYNE.
CLIFTON: September
1,
1883.
Errata.
Page
83, line 15
<J5,
26
2
11G,
1G2,
10
21
205,
,,
206,
207, 210, 294,
.,
effects read affect enquires read asks 2: substitute a semicolon for a comma after doctrine. 13 substitute a note of interrogation for a comma, after
:
for for for for for for
belonged mid belongs fundamental impulse read impulse

their read
L
its
read
we
ourselves.
3
1
357 lines
for under read in and 2 for that universal, which he claims for
:
:
all
men
as
their inborn conviction viction which he claims for
/,/</
all
that universal con men as innate
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER
I.
TAG
K
1
ORIGIN AND CHARACTER OP ECLECTICISM
Gradual blending of the schools of philosophy: internal causes of this, 1 sq. External causes diffusion of Greek
:
philosophy
diffusion
among
the Eomans,
14.
5.
Reaction of that
upon philosophy,
;
Principle
and character
of eclectic philosophy, 17.

later scepticism, 21
Contained the germs of the and of Neo-Platonism, 22
CHAPTER
ECLECTICISM IN THE SECOND AND
II.
FIRST CENTURIES
BEFORE CHRIST
THE EPICUREANS
ASCLEPIADES
Asclepi-
24
Relation of the later Epicureans to Epicurus, 24. ades of Bithynia, 29 sq.
CHAPTER
THE STOICS
:
III.
.
BOETHUS, PAN^TIUS, POSIDONIUS
34
Successors of Chrysippus, 34. Boethus, 35. Pansetius, 39. Character of his philosophy, 42. Deviations from Stoic
ism, 43 sq.
Panaetius,
Ethics, 47.
52.
Posidonius,
Contemporaries and disciples of 5(5. His philosophic ten
dencies, 59.
first
His anthropology, 64. century before Christ, 70
Other Stoics of the
vi
CONTEXTS.
CHAPTKR
Till:
IV.
IN
ACADK.MIC
ll
LOS( triIKKS
T11K
.
F1HST
.
7f>
CENTl HY P.KFOHE CHRIST

I
liilo
Modification His practical bias, 77. His theory of of the scepticism of the Academy, 70. Antiochus of Ascalon, 85. Polemic knowledge, 81.
of Larissa, 75.
Eclecticism: essential agreeagainst scepticism, 87. luent of the various systems, 01 theory of knowledge, 03. and metaphysics, 04. Ethics, 05. School of I hvsies
;
Antiochus, 90. 1 otiimo, 100
Eudorus, 103.
Arms Didymus,
10G.
CHAPTER
THE PERIPATETIC SCHOOL
The Commentators
of
fSidon,
V.
IN THE FIRST CENTURY .112 BEFORE CHRIST

. .
Andronicus of Rhodes, 113.

Aristo,
Boethus
117.
Staseas,
q.
Cratippus, Nicolaus,
treatise
Trtpl KOV/J-OV
:
Xenarchus, and others, 121

various theories as to
treatise,
its
The
origin,
125.
Nature of the
138.
132.
Treatise on virtues
Origin and date of composition, and vices, 145
CHAPTER
CICERO
VI.
.
VARRO
.140
Cicero, scepticism, Mi*. Its limits, 151. Practical view of philosophy, 150. Eclecticism doctrine of innate
:
MG. His
knowledge,
150.
Ethics, 102.
Theology, 107.
Anthro
Yarro, 171. pology, 100. tin; various schools. 172.
His view of philosophy and Ethics, 173. Anthropology
and philosophy, 170
CHAPTER V1L
THE SCHOOL OF
History of
tin-
T1IK SKXTil
IS"
school, SO.
!*:>
Us philosophic character and
standpoint,
CONTENTS.
vii
CHAPTER
VIII.
PAOE
THE FIRST CENTURIES AFTER CHRIST SCHOOL OF THE STOICS SENECA

Hiilosophy in the Imperial period
philosophers,
189.
:
THE
.
.189
study of the ancient
of public chairs of philosophy, 190. The school of the Stoics from the first to the third century, 194 sq. Cornutus, 199. Seneca, His conception of the problem of philosophy, 205. 202.
Endowment
Uselessness of merely theoretic inquiries, 206.

of dialectic,
207.
Opinion
Physics, 209. Metaphysical and The world and nature, 217. theological views, 212. Man, 21 9. Uncertainty of Seneca s speculative theories,
His ethics essentially Stoic in principle, 226. Application of par ticular moral doctrines, 235. Independence of things Love of mankind, 239. Religious tem external, 236. perament, 242
225.
Modification of Stoic dogmas, 227.
CHAPTER
I
IX.
THE STOICS CONTINUED MUSONIUS, EPICTETUS, MARCUS AURELIUS 246

.
. .
Musonius, 246.
255.
His practical standpoint, 248. His ethics, Practical end of Epictetus and Arrian, 256. Inferior value of knowledge, 260. philosophy, 258.
268.
Religious view of the world, 263. Man, 266. Ethics, Independence of things external resignation to
;
destiny and the course of the universe, 270 sq. In clination 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 sq. Kinship of man to God, 283.
;
Ethics, 284. Withdrawal into self, 284. Resignation to the will of God, 285. Love of mankind, 286
viii
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER
Kevival of Cynicism, 289.
metrius,
21) 1.
X.
PACJK
.
THE CYNICS OF THE IMPERIAL ERA

Its
*28S
adherents,
L HO
w/.
1
De
ere-
grinus, 299.
(Knoinaus, 294. Later Cynics, 301
Demonax,
2 JG.
CHAPTER
THE
PERIPATETICS
XI.
FIRST
.
OF
THE
CENTURIES
.
.
AFTER CHRIST
304
The Peripatetic school of the first and second century, 304. Commentators of Aristotle s works Aspasius, Adrastus,
:
Aristocles of Herminus, Achaicus, Sosigenes, 30G. 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
CHAPTER
XII.
THE PLATONIC SCHOOL IN THE FIRST CENTURIES 334 AFTER THE CHRISTIAN ERA
.
.
Commentator? of Platonic; Platonists of this period, 334. Introduction of alien doctrines opposed writings, 337.
by Taurus and
Eclecticism exemplified in Atticus, 340. Theo, Nigrinus, Severus, Albinus, 344
CHAPTER
ECLECTICS
XIII.
WHO BELONG
TO NO DEFINITE SCHOOL 351

Galen, 3GO.
Dio Chrysostom, 353.
Lucian, 357.
Character
of his philosophy, 3G2. Theory of knowledge, 3G2 sq. Physics and metaphysics, 3G5. Contempt Logic, 3G3. for theoretic enquiry, 3G9. Ethics, 370
INDEX
373
ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTEE
I.
ORIGIN AND CHARACTER OF ECLECTICISM.
THAT form
of philosophy which appeared about the
CHAP
L beginning of the post-Aristotelian period had, in the course of the third and second centuries, per- A fected itself in its three These dual principal branches. three schools had hitherto existed side by side, oft three each striving to maintain itself in its purity, and
merely adopting towards the others, and towards the previous philosophy, an aggressive or defensive p attitude. But it lies in the nature of things that *ophy mental tendencies, which have sprung from a kin dred soil, cannot very continue in this mutu long The first founders of a ally exclusive position.
school and their immediate successors, in the fervour 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
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP,
the
same
rigidity
and one-sidedness, more
easily
tliat which is perceive, even in adverse statements, and are more ready to sacrifice common and akin, subordinate peculiarities of their own standpoint
the
strife
of schools will itself oblige
them
to repel
condem exaggerated accusations and unqualified the stronger enforcement of that in nations, by
which they coincide with others, to give up or put
aside untenable assertions, to soften offensive propo
sitions,
and to break
;
off
from their systems the
sharpest angles many an objection of the adversary maintains its ground, and in seeking to elude it by another interpretation, it is found that the presup con positions of the objection have been partially
It is, ceded, together with the objection itself. a natural and universal experience that therefore,
in the conflict of parties
and schools their opposi
tions gradually
I
become blunted, that the common more principle which underlies them all is in time recognised, and a mediation and fusion is clearly
attempted.
is still
Now,
living and active in a people, the case

or
is
so long as philosophic productivity will
either never arise

its
whole
science
arise only temporarily, that infected by this eclecticism,
youthful course, new direc tions are attempted before those immediately pre
because already in
its
ceding them have decidedly begun to grow soon, on the contrary, as the scientific
creations,
is
old.
As
is
spirit
exhausted, and a long space of time, devoid of new
merely
filled
with discussions
result
among
the existing schools,
the natural
of these
ITS ORIGIN.
discussions,
parties,
will
the
partial blending of the hostile appear to a greater extent, and the

will
CHAP.
whole philosophy
assume that
eclectic character
which, in its universal diffusion, is always the pre monitory sign either of a deeply seated revolution,
or of scientific decay. This was precisely the posi tion in which Greek philosophy found itself in the
last centuries before Christ.
All the causes
which
led, generally speaking, to
the dissolution of classi
cal culture,
had also had a paralysing influence on

the
philosophic spirit ; for centuries after transformation of philosophy, which marks
the
the
end of the fourth and the beginning of the third and if the postcentury no new system arose Aristotelian systems in and for themselves had
;
already lost
to the life
the purely theoretic interest in the
contemplation of things, and by their restriction and aims of men, had announced the discontinuance of scientific endeavour, the long cessation of philosophic production could only serve
to dull the scientific sense
still
more, and to
call in
question the possibility of scientific knowledge in This state of things found its proper ex general. in scepticism, which opposed the pression dogmatic
systems with more and more signal success. The eclecticism which since the beginning of the first
century before Christ had repressed scepticism and united together the previously separate ten
dencies of thought, was, however, merely the re
verse
side
of
scepticism
B 2
itself.
Scepticism
had
ECLECTICISM.
CHAT,
placed all dogmatic theories on an equality in such a manner as to deny scientific truth to all alike.
This
neither one nor another
WederîocJi) became
in eclecticism
One
as well as the other
(Smvohl-
als-auch)
rest
but
for that
;
had paved the way

in
very transition scepticism for it had not been able to
pure negation, and had therefore, in its doctrine of probability, set up once more a positive
conviction as a practical postulate. This conviction was not indeed to come forward with a claim to full
certainty
;
but we cannot
fail
to perceive in the de
sceptical theory, from Pyrrho to and from Arcesilaus to Carneades, a grow Arcesilaus,
velopment of the
ing estimation of the value of the knowledge of prob

ability
:
it
was only necessary
to
advance one step
further, to bring forward practical necessity more decidedly as against the sceptical theory, and the probable would receive the significance of the true
scepticism would be transformed into a dogmatic In this dog acceptance of truth (^FwriuaJtrhalteii).
matism, however, doubt would inevitably continue to exercise such an influence that no individual system as such would be recognised as true, but
the true out of
all
systems would be
separated
according to the
and
cedure of
opinion. the
;
measure of subjective necessity This had been exactly the pro

sceptics
in
the
ascertainment of
the probable
as
they develop their doubt in the
criticism of existing theories, so do they seek the
probable primarily in the existing systems, among which they have reserved to themselves the right to
ITS ORIGIN,
decide. Carneades, as we know, had so treated the ethical questions to which, we are told, aban hostile doning his former predilection for
1
CHAP.
combating
opinions, he
more and more

2
restricted himself with
Similarly Clitomachus, while with the dogmatic schools, seems to contending have sought a positive relation to them 3 and we
advancing
years.
learn that Êschines, another disciple of Carneades, adhered to that side only of his master s teach
ing.
Thus scepticism forms the bridge from the one-sided dogmatism of the Stoic and Epicurean philosophy to eclecticism ; and in this respect we cannot regard it as a mere accident that from the
mode of thought chiefly emanated, and that in them it was immediately connected with the point on which the Stoics and
followers of Carneades this
Epicureans had sustained their dogmatism, and even the Platonists, in the last resort, their doctrine
of probability, viz. the necessity of definite theories
was, however, generally speak ing, the condition of philosophy at that time, and the strife of the philosophic schools, which first caused the rise and spread of scepticism, and in the
sequel, the eclectic tendency in philosophy.
for practical life.
It
The most important

1
external impulse
juaflrjT^r
to
this
ii.
Exter
nal cuusi K.
Zeller, Pldlosopltie der Griee Theil, l Abtheilung,
3"
aAAa rore 76,
fTvey, e
cJtcn,
P-
517
2
sq.
Plut.
An
791
:
13, 1. p.
/xai /cos
seni g.^gcr. resp. 6 /iev ovv A/caSyj-
ore Si-rjKovov T KapvedSov paxtav Ka\ rbv \l/6(pov aQeiicws \6yos avrov Sia rb yijpas els
ov O-VVTJKTO ical KO wavin Phil, der Gricchen, III. p. 524, note 2.
xP
h<
ri /J
AiVxtVr?s, aotyiffTwv rivuv 6ri Trpoo-jroif iTai yeyo\eyoi>Tu>v,
vevat
KapvedSov,
fify
yeyovus,
Vide note
2.
ECLECTICISM.
.hange was given by the relation in which Greek stood to the Roman world.
science and culture
The first knowledge of Greek philosophy doubtless came to the Romans from Lower Italy the founder
:
of the Italian School (Pythagoras)
is
the
first
philo
sopher whose name
is
mentioned
in
Rome. 2
But
the doctrines of the Greek philosophers can only have been heard of there in an entirely superficial
and fragmentary manner before the beginning of the

Diffusion
lilnUtsopny
tlt
second century before Christ.

c
This state of things must have changed, however, when, after the second Punic War, the Roman policy and Roman arms pressed
forward farther and farther towards the east
;
when
the wars with Macedonia and Syria brought dis

tinguished
Romans
in
great
numbers
to Greece,
while, on the other hand, Greek ambassadors and 3 state prisoners, and soon also slaves, ap[>eared more
and more commonly in
Rome
when men
of the
importance of the elder Scipio Africanus, T. Quinctius Flamimnus, and JEmilius Paulus, applied themselves
For what follows,
iv.
2
cf.
Hitter,
70
.*>
</.
The arguments
for this are
given in Pkil.der
I.
;
(jriccTi.
;
Part
cf. ibid, pp. 287, 3; 450, 1 and Part. 111. ii. p. 77 313, 2 A still earlier date (if this ,wy.
statement
is historical) must be fixed for the presence in Home of Hermodorus the Ephesian, who assisted the decemviri in
supposition that he discoursed to the Romans on the physics of that philosopher, 3 Such as the thousand Achieans who, 168 K.C., were carried away into Italy, and kept there for seventeen years, all of them men of repute and culture
the drawing tables (Part
np
I.
of the twelve but 566, 2)

:
he were indeed the celebrated friend of Heracleitus, we have no ground for the
even
if
was whose long residence in the country could not have been without influence on Home if even the least considerable of them had their actual abode
Polybius),
(among them we know
in that city.
GREEK PHILOSOPHY IN ROME.

with delight to Greek literature when, from the of the second century, Greek poetry was beginning transplanted to Koman soil in the more or less free
;
CHAP.
imitations of Ennius, Pacuvius, Statius, Plautus, and their successors ; and Koman history was related
in the
Greek language by Fabius Pictor and other
The philosophic literature of Greece stood in far too close a connection with the other
annalists.
philosophy occupied far too important a place in the whole Hellenic sphere of culture, as a
branches
means
to
of instruction
it
make
it
and object of universal interest possible for such as had once found
life
pleasure in Greek intellectual
to shut themselves
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
up from
and various traces of the commencement of a know ledge of Greek philosophy among the Eomans. 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,
to introduce
dogmas of Greek philosophy

2
into the
Twenty-six years later (according to others only eight) the activity of the Epicurean philosophers in teaching caused their
religion.
Roman
banishment from Koine. 3

of the senate, residence in
In 161
4
;
B.C.,
by a decree
this always
Kome was
4
forbidden to
the philosophers and rhetoricians

1
and
Cf
Phil. der.
I.
Griech. III.
ii. p. 83.
~
Cf.
c.
III.
ii.
i.
Cf. I.e. III.
p. 85. p. 372, 1.
This decree of the senate is to be found in Suetonius, DC Cl. Rhetor. 1 Gell. N.A. xv. 11 (of. also Clinton, Fasti Hellen.
;
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP,
.
proves that tliere was reason for anxiety in regarcx to their influence upon the education of youth. Êrnilius Paulas, the conqueror of Macedonia, gav. his sons Greek instructors, and for that purpose took with him on his expeditions the philosopher Metrodorus. His companion in the Macedonian cam
1
paign, Sulpicius
Gallus,
besides
the astronomical
knowledge for which he was distinguished, may, per haps, have also adopted certain philosophic theories of
the Greeks. 2
of the
But
all
movement which from
these are merely isolated signs the middle of the
second century manifested itself to a much greater Hitherto comparatively few had occupied themselves with Greek philosophy; now the interest
extent.
in
that philosophy was
more universally
to
cf.
diffused.
Greek philosophers come

These authors tell another similar enactan edict of the censor Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus and
B.C.).
Koine in order to try

Pint,
161
as
^m.
P.
6.
The
latter
of inent
I..
Lieinius Crassus, in winch
mentions among the Greeks with whom JKinili us surrounded his sons, grammarians, sophists, and rhetoricians. Pliny gives
the more definite information, that after the victory over Perseus (1G8 B.C.) he requested from the Athenians a good painter and an able philosopher. They sent him Metrodorus,
they express their serious displeasure with the teachers and frequenters of the newly-arisen Latin schools of rhetoricians on account of this departure from I\\Q consuetndo tixijo/ inn. Pmt, riot to mention that the rh ft ores /.a ft HI, who were alone affected
decree, according also by to Cicero, lh- Orut. iii. 2 L !i:5 *,/.,
tliis
who was both

-
in
one person.
i.
Cf. Phil. d. (if. III.
p. 525.
were only indirectly connected

with (Jreek philosophy, the decree was not promulgated until the year 1)5 15. C., as we see from a comparison of Cicero, dt. with i. 7, 24. C linton, Fasti lltllt ii., dates it in J2 B.C. i lin. Hist. Xat. xxxv. 135:
U>c.
Cicero praises his knowledge of astronomy, Cic. Off. i.

(i,
1
\M
53,
According to Livy, xliv. iin. Hist. \nt\ ii. 1 2, he foretold an eclipse of the
..
and
sun before the battle of Pydna. A more detailed account o f the authorities in regard to this event is given by .Martin, Itt-ctic Archeolog. 1864, No. \\.

by distinguished desirous of playing a part in the state, or of gaining distinction in cultivated society, think that they cannot do without the
their fortune, or are sent for thither
CHAP.
men.
Young Romans,
instruction of a philosopher, and it soon usual to seek this not only in Eome, but in
itself,
became Athens
the chief school of Greek science. Already the famous deputation of philosophers in the year 156 B.C. showed, by the extraordinary influence
1
which Carneades especially obtained, how favourably Greek philosophy was regarded in Rome; 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 capital of the Roman empire, he being a man peculiarly fitted by the character of his
philosophy to effect an entrance for Stoicism among his Roman auditors. 2 Soon after him Caius Blossius
of Cumoe, a disciple of Antipater the Stoic, was in Rome, the friend and counsellor of Tiberius
Gracchus,
1
who through him must

for this are
II. ii. p.
likewise
have
The authorities
cf, p.
cited Phil. d. Gr.

1
;
928,
i.
of Gracchus (133 B.C.) Blossius was also in danger. He left
498,
cf.
Part
III.
p. 498, 1.
2
Further details infra, chapiii.
ter
3
Pint. Tib. Gracch. 8, 17, 20; Val. Max. iv. 7, 1 Cicero, L&L 11, 37. After the-murder
;
went into Asia Andronicus, after fall (130 B.C.) he killed A thorough examinahimself. tion of him is to be found in
Eome, Minor whose
to
Pei/<ep^
and
irtpl
BXocffiov Kal
Aio<pd-
vovs
(Leipzig,
1873).
Mean-
10
ECLECTICISM.
CHAT
I
And now that become acquainted with Stoicism. of Greek learned men begins, which, immigration 2 in time, assumed greater and greater proportions.
1
Among
their
the
Romans
and
themselves,
position
men who by
so
intellect
were
decidedly
pre-eminent as the younger Scipio Africanus, his friend the wise Lselius, L. Furius Phil us and
Tiberius Gracchus, took philosophic
their protection. 3
studies under
With them
a
nephew Tubero,
while
^pvvai
lie
are connected Scipio s disciple of Pan;etius, who,

(truditissimos homines
e,f (! ra
Kal fiKacriai,
himself calls his work and the hit
rla
!)<
ter so decidedly preponderate, that our historical knowledge
pal am semper habucrunt. Hep. iii. :5, 5 Quid P. Scipio/te,

:
of the
1
man
quid
. .
Ltclio,
quid
/,.
Pliilo
is
scarcely extended
by the treatise. That Gracchus, through the care of his mother, had distin guished Greeks for his instruc
tors
J
(Cic,
Jirut.
27,
Jt.
104
is
cf.
perfect ins cof/itari potent ? qui ad domesticum DHijoruinque wore in etiam luinc a Socrutt- adrenticiain doctrinam adldbuemnt. Cicero there puts the sub stance of Carneades discourse
.
lut. Tib.
2
(rrac t
20)
well
known.
Polybius (xxxii. 10), however,
relates that
much
earlier,
when
Seipio
B.C.),
was only eighteen (166 he said to him and his

:
brot her irfpl p.ev ya.p ra fjLa9-f]fj.ara (TirouSdôrTas vp,tis Trepl & vvv Kal (plKOTl/jLOVfjLfVOVS, OVK O.1V p-f) (T T
t
opoi>
against justice, which he him self had heard, into the mouth of Furius Philus, while he makes him at the same time follow the Academic philoso pher in the conttuctmlo eontrariaa in pai tcs disserendi lor. 8 sq cit. c. Lact. Inxt. v. 14. Concerning the connection
;
;"),
TUIV crvvfpyrio oi Twv V^JLLV erot/xwy, Kal (Tol KOLKfLVW- 1TO\V JO,p ST/ Tl
(pv\ov airb TT)S
E\\d8os
(irippfov
and Lielius with Scipio Pametius we shall have to Lielius, ac speak later on.
of
rb Ttapoi TUV TOLOVTCCV ai Opwirwv, which agrees with
upw
KO.TO.
what
note
3
-1.
is
quoted
xujj/
t/,
p.
7,
Et
ti
Cicero, l)e Orat. n. 37, lol cciif -non tulit -ulhis h C

:
cording to Cic. Fin. ii. 8, 24, had also attended the lectures of Diogenes, which we must, no doubt, connect with his presence in Home in the year
].><!
]u:.
ririttis
mil ijlorid clarion-a, nciorUiitf (ji ddorcn, Jinmanitatn politiort S P. Africans, ( Lcelio, Z. Purio, yui sccuni
<ntt
<u<t
Q.
.Klius
Tiil)i-ro,
his
mother
through grandson of
/Kmilius 1 aulus, was a very zealous Stoic, who carried out

with the sons-in-law of Laelius, Quintus Mucius 2 3 Scsevola, and Caius Fannius, P. Kutilius Eufus, 4 5 Lucius Êlius Stilo, and others, open the long
1
11
CHAP.
his principles in his life, not
without exaggeration. Cf. con cerning him Cic. Brut. 31, 117 DC Or at. iii. 23, 87 Pro Mur. Acad. ii. 44, 135 36, 75 sq.
; ; ; ;
Tusc.
iv. 2,
;
Sen.jKj). 95,
72
;
sq.
Plut. 98, 13 104, 21 ; 120, 19 Liicull. 39 ; Pompon. De Orig. Jans, i. 40; Gell. N. A. i. 22, 7 xiv. 2, 20 Val. Max. vii.
; ;
(Val. Max. ii. 3, 2 Sallust, but princi Jug. 54, 56 pally for the purity of his character. On account of the impartiality with which, as proconsul, he defended the in habitants of Asia Minor against the extortions of the Roman equites, one of the most shame less sentences of banishment
;
sq."),
war
Cic. Off. iii. 15, 63, men tions a treatise of Hecato ad

5, 1.
was passed upon him, which he bore with the cheerfulness of a
dressed to him, and another of

Panaetius, ibid. Acad. ii. 44, 135 Tuso. iv. 2, 4 against
;
;
which the pseudo-Plutarch, DC Nob lilt. 18, 3, is not any his

torical
1
He went to Smyrna, where he died, having refused to return, which was offered him by Sulla. Cf. on this subject Cic. Unit. 30, 115; N. D. iii.
sage.
testimony
cf.
Bernays,
Dial. d. Arnt. 140. One of the most celebrated of the ancient jurists and founders of scientific jurispru dence among the Romans (Bern-
in Pison. 39, 95 ; 32, 80 Itablr. Post. 10, 27 Pro Balbo, 11, 28 (cf. Tacit. Ann. iv. 43); 4 ; 79, 14 ; 82, 11 ; Sen.-.>. 24,
; ;
hardy,
676,
(Cic.
Grundr.
d.
Rom.
Lit.
c.),
De
son-in-law of Laslius Orat. i. 9, 35). Accord
ing
to Cicero, he had heard Panaetius lecture, and (I. o. 10, 43) he calls the Stoics Stoioi
nostri.
-
&c. Val. &c. Cicero (Brut. 30, 114) calls him doctus vlr et Gratis llteris eruditus, Pancctli auditor, prop?, pcrfcctus In Stoicls. Concerning his admiration of his teacher Panaetius and his acquain
Benaf.
vi.
37,
2,
Max.
ii.
10,
5,
tance with Posidonius,
cf. Cic.
C. Fannius, son of
Marcus,
Off.
iii. 2,
10.
He
left
behind
son-in-law
brought
by
of Laelius, Laalius to
was
hear
him memorials and

works
3, 7.
4
:
historical
Pansetius (Cic. Brut. 26, 101), and is designated by Cicero (Brut. 31, 18) as a Stoic. Cicero often mentions an his
torical
vide Bernbardy, Loc. tit. 203, 606 ; also Cicero, Fin. i.
Vide concerning this phi
work composed by him.
Similarly Plut. Tib. Grac.cli. 4. With regard to his consulate,

cf. id.
3
C. Graccli. 8, 11, 12.

is
This
the Rutilius
who
was famous
for his services in
losopher, the predecessor and teacher of Varro, Cic. Brut. 56, 205 nq. also Acad. i. 2, 8 ; I/erenn. iv. 12 ; Bernhardy, loo. tit. 857. 5 Such as Marcus Vigellius (Cic. Orat. iii. 21, 78) and Sp.
;
Ad
ECLECTICISM.
Epicureanism, at the wider diffusion, having, through books written in Latin, gained entrance at an earlier period than the other systems, even
Stoics.
series
CHAP.
of
Roman
same time, obtained a
still
among
cation.
1
those
who had not received a Greek edu Somewhat later the Academic and Peri
patetic schools, whose principles could not have remained unknown to the hearers of Pametius, were
represented by celebrated teachers in Rome. Among the Platonists Philo is the first whose presence in
Rome is know n to us (irrespective of the deputation of philosophers) ; of the Peripatetics, Staseas. 2 JSut already, at a much earlier period, Clitomachus had dedicated works to two Romans ; 3 and Carneades
r
himself,
we
Roman
the
first
travellers. 4
are told, was sought out in Athens by Soon after the beginning of century before Christ, Posidonius (vide
;
infra) visited the metropolis of the world before the middle of the same century we encounter there
Mummius, brother
of the con3
queror of Corinth, who, to judge by the date (Cic. Jirut. 25, 94), must also have owed his Stoicism
to Panretius.
1
102
To the poet Lucilius (1 B.C), and previously

;
18
to
L. Censorinus, who was consul in Hi) B.C. Cie, Acad. ii.

102.
;>2,
Vide
Cic.
TUM.
rercc
iv.
3,
So
much
truth
may
un-
elegantisque philoxophla- (tlie Stoic, Peripaand Academic) nulla tetic,

.
.
Itaque
illiux
dcrlie ilie statement of Cicero
fere
ant paaea admixhimI.til nni inonumenta cum ina/tt/t

.
td
C. tinius cu titit dicens, &c,

i/iL
illix
silentibus
Amainfra.
J?.C.
Further
details,
Philo
came
to
Staseas, as l)e Orat. i. 22, there in 1)2 B.C.
Homo in 88 we find from

104,
Cic.
appeared
Orat. iii. 18, (J8) even (l)c supposing- the statement itself to be untrue that Q. Metellus (Numidicus) as a younir man listened to the aged Carneades for several days in Athens. Respecting Cat uhis relation to Carneades, cf. the last pages of the chapter on Cnrneades, Phil. d. (ir. Part III. i.

the
13
Epicureans
it
Philodemus
at this
and
Syro.
Meanfor
CHAP.
while,
was already
time very
common
its
Koman
youths to seek Greek science at
fountain-
head, and for the sake of their studies to betake themselves to the principal seats of that science, and especially to Athens. 2 At the commencement
of the imperial era, at any rate, Eome swarmed with Greek savants of every kind, 3 and among these were many who were not merely turning to account
a superficial knowledge in a mechanical
manner
4
;
while contemporaneously in various places of the west the philosophy of Greece became naturalised together with other sciences, and from these centres spread
itself still further. 5
With the knowledge
of
Greek
philosophy, that of Greek literature went naturally hand in hand, and from the time of Lucretius and 6 Cicero a Koman literature at its
sprang up
side,
Phil. d. Gr. Part III.
i.
374.
The best known examples are those of Cicero and Atticus, but we shall meet with many others later on. For the gene2
of the time of Augustus and Tiberius, residing in Rome, will come before us further on. * The most important of
ral practice, cf.
Cic.
Fin.
v. 1,
where Cicero describes his own life in Athens with companions in study (77 B.C.) and in regard to a somewhat later time, Acad. i. 2, 8, where he says to Varro Scd meos amicos, in
;
:
these was the ancient Greek city Massilia, of which Strabo (iv. 1, 5, p. 181) âys: irdvres yap ol x^piffres irpbs rb \4yeiv
rpfirovrai
Kal
QiXoaofyeiv.
An
qnibus est studium, in Gracciam witto, ut ea a fontibvs potius

nan/riant^ tcntur.
3
quam
is cf.
rivulos consec-
early colony of Greek culture in Gaul, this city had now made such advances that noble Romans pursued their studies here instead of in Athens. 6 That these two were the
first
The fact
noteworthy
;
writers
on
notorious
for
examples
p.
(>7o.
^Strabo,
xiv. 5, 15,
Tapa-twvyap Kal A\eai>v fj.fffT-n ten [VPfyM?]. Several Greek philosophers
philosophy in the Latin tongue & is certain the few earlier attempts (cf. IIL i. 372, 2) seem to have been very unsatisfactory. Both, moreover, expressly
14
ECLECTICISM.
which was scarcely inferior to the contemporary Greek, though not to be compared with the earlier,
either in scientific
CHAP,
acumen
or creative individuality.
At the beginning of this movement, the Romans were related to the Greeks merely as disciples who adopted and imitated the science of their teachers
;
and, to
certain
its
throughout
tific
degree, this relation continued whole course ; for in Rome the scien
spirit
genius and
force
never attained even to so

as in
much
Iiicriinitlf
and self-dependence
Greece
it
had
still
of that
îs
But in the end preserved in the latter period. influence of Greek philosophy could not remain
itself.
d ((fusion
philoso-
Though Romans by and Lucretius, might rehabilitate Greek science for their countrymen and Greek philosophers, like Pan net us and Antiochus, might
without a reaction on
birth, like Cicero
;
i
lecture to the
Romans,
in
both cases
it
was unavoid
able that the character of their presentations should

less determined by regard to the spirit and requirements of their Roman hearers and readers. Even the purely Greek schools of philosophy in Athens, Rhodes, and other places, could not free them selves from this determining influence, on account
be more or
of the great who visited

claim
(the
nitnc
number
them;
of
young Romans
it
of position
for
was naturally from these

Itabuit
linnet)
.
for themselves this JIanc liononr, cf. Lucr. v. iWO

:
literannu
L<t1
i-
Kpicurean doctrine) prijtriniis

ij>se
narum nobh est
nuts emit
cfjo
repertus
sum
in,
putrias qui
Cic. THSC.
quo eo wayls lalorandum, qiiod Mulfi jam eaxc libri Ldiini dicnntur scripti inconsiderate ah
.
.
if)
jwssim
i. !i,
rcrti-rc voces.
PMl-osophia jaciiit usque

(ttateni
optimis illis quidcm non satis erudltis.
rh
it;,
<l
ad hanc
nee
nil it in

scholars that
honour and
profit
mostly accrued to
CHAP.
the teachers.
Of still higher importance, however, than these considerations must be rated the uncon
scious influence of the
Roman
spirit
not merely
upon the Romans who pursued philosophy, but also upon the Greek philosophers in the Roman empire ; for, however great the superiority of Greek culture
over
Roman, 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 Roman spirit, however, to
estimate the worth of philosophy, as of all other things, primarily according to 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
source
life
was perceptible in
them.
sprang those prejudices against philosophy, which at first led even to magis terial interposition. The same point of view was
this
1
1
From
Cf.
on this subject what
Plutarch (Cato Maj. 22) relates of Cato s behaviour to the embassy of philosophers as to whom he feared from the outset
ft^j
contents of their lectures, he advised should be sent away as quickly as possible. Also id.
ap. Gell. xviii. 7, 3 ; Nepos ap. Lactant. iii. 15, 10; and the
TO
of
(f)L\oTi/j.ov
res
vfoi
T^V
fvravQa rptyavttrl r$ \tyeiv
edict of
the
censors quoted
:
86av
rS>v
aya-rrrjcrwa-i /JLU\\OV rrjs OTTO
epywv Kal ruv ffrpaTfiuv, and whom, after he had heard the
supra, p 7, note 4, which censures the rhetorical schools ibi homines adolescent ulos totos dies de-aider e. To the Roman states-
JU
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP.
however, maintained even in the pursuit and study of philosophy. So far as philosophy was con cerned merely with scientific questions, it could
also,
scarcely be regarded as anything more than a re spectable recreation ; it only attained to more
serious value in the eyes of the
Roman, inasmuch
us
it
tion.
an instrument of practical educa proved The strengthening of moral principles and

itself
the training for the calling of orator and statesman, these are the aspects which primarily and principally
recommended philosophic studies 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
that logical development of a philosophic system which alone, or almost alone, concerned him was its the strife of schools, he thought, practical utility turned mostly on non-essential things, and he him self could not therefore hesitate to select from the
; ;
various systems, careless of the deeper interconnec

tion of particular definitions, that which
serviceable.
The proconsul
Grellius,
seemed to him who made the
well-meaning proposal to the philosophers in Athens that they should amicably settle their points of difference, and offered himself as mediator, expressed
1
the truly
Roman
somewhat
too candidly.
conception of philosophy, though Though the influence of
this standpoint
111:111
would doubtless have affected Greek

C ic.
and soldier philosophy must naturally have appeared even trreater waste of time Jhan riietoric.
/,/////.
i.
20, 53. Gcllius

(582
A.U.C. = 72 Clinton, Fasti Jlcllcn. for that year.
was consul
I
"idc
in
H.C.
ITS PRINCIPLE
philosophy very
earlier period, it
little
AND CHARACTER.
J7
sophy had
itself
had it been exerted at an was quite otherwise when philo taken the direction which especi
CHAP.
ally corresponded with the
Koman
nature.
When
the internal condition of the philosophic schools, and especially the last important phenomenon in this
sphere
the doctrine of Carneades

it
already led to
itself
eclecticism,
must
necessarily have developed
only the more speedily and successfully through the concurrence of internal motives with external in
fluences.
But although this eclecticism primarily appears merely as the product of historical relations, which rather conduced to the external connection than to
,
p,.
pr in-
cl
P le and
character
of eclectic
is
the internal harmonising of different standpoints, not wholly without a characteristic

till
it
which
then had
principle, not existed in this form. If we
enquire according to what point of view the doctrines of the different systems were chosen, we find it was not sufficient to maintain those doctrines in which
were agreed for the eclectics would then have been limited to a very few propositions of indefinite But even the practical of universality.
all
;
utility
theories could not be considered as the final of their truth ; for the practical of
mark
problem
and the way of

of the strife
its
solution was itself a
mankind, main object
the question was therefore, ; by what standard practical aims and relations should them selves be determined? This standard could only be ultimately sought in immediate consciousness. If it be required that the individual shall choose
]S
ECLECTICISM.
;
FAP.
out of the various systems that which is true for his own use, this presupposes that each man carries in
himself the standard for decision between true and

false,
and that truth

;
is
directly given to
it
is
man
in his
self-consciousness
and
preeisely in this pre
supposition, that the individuality and importance of the eclectic philosophy seem chiefly to lie.
Plato had indeed assumed that the soul brought with it from a previous life into its present existence
the consciousness of ideas; and similarly the 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 know
;
for the re of the term ledge in the strict sense miniscence 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 he regards as preliminary stages of philosophy and the natural conceptions of the Stoics are not, as has already been shown, innate ideas but, like scien
;
thoughts, are derived merely in a natural manner from experience. Knowledge here also has to de
tific
and is attained and velop itself from experience, This attain conditioned by intercourse with things. of knowledge was first denied by scepticism, ment
which declared the relation of our conceptions to the things conceived to be unknowable, and made
all
jective
our convictions exclusively dependent upon sub But if in this way, not a knowledge bases.
of the truth, but only belief in probability can be established, this belief takes the place of knowh dge
ITS PRINCIPLE
in
AND CHARACTER.
of knowledge
:
1i>
him who has despaired
and
so
CHAP.
there results, as the natural product of scepticism, reliance on that which is given to man directly in his
self- consciousness,
and
is
certain before all scientific

shall find in Cicero
enquiry
others,
and
this, as
we
and
is
the last foot-hold in the eclectic fluctua

various
theories. 1
tion
among the
is
Now, we can
immediate
ascribe, it
true, to this principle of
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 unphilosophic consciousness ; and though the uni
versal
to
thought that every truth has to approve

self-consciousness
is
itself
human
entirely established,
yet this thought is here introduced under a per verted and one-sided aspect, and the whole pre supposition 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 deficiency of clear scientific consciousness, which makes them appear as immediately given. This
return to the directly certain is so far to be regarded primarily as a sign of scientific decay, an involuntary evidence of the exhaustion of thought. But at the
same time
1
it
presents one aspect which
is
not with-
The eclecticism of the last century B.C. stands in this respect to the preceding scepticism in a similar relation to that which in modern times the philosophy of the Scottish school bore to Hume it can;
not be regarded, anymore than the Scottish philosophy, as a
mere reaction of dogmatism against doubt, but it is, like the Scottish philosophy, itself a product of doubt,
c 2
ECLECTICISM.
out importance for the further course of philosophic of man is regarded as development. As the interior the knowledge of the most essential the place where truth originally has its seat, it is herein maintained
in opposition to the Stoic and Epicurean sensualism, that in self-consciousness a specific source of know
ledge
is
and though this higher knowledge something actual, a fact of inner experienceis
given
though
this rationalism, so far, again resolves itself

it
is
into the empiricism of direct consciousness, yet
no longer the mere perception from which all truth is derived. This appeal to the immediately certain may, the sentherefore, be regarded as a reaction against But sualistic empiricism of the preceding systems. because it does not go beyond the internally given, as such, and is nevertheless wanting in any deeper scientific establishment and development, philosophicconvictions are not recognised actually in their origin from the human 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 philosophy which only goes back to self-con

it the revelation of sciousness, in order to receive in the belief in external revelations and the God. How
to positive religion are allied leaning of philosophy at present it is to this, will be shown later on
;
enough
to
remark
that, as a matter of fact, in a
a Xumenius, and Plutarch, an Apuleius, a Maxiums, the Platonists of the first, two generally among centuries after Christ, eclecticism and the philosophy
of revelation
went hand
in
hand.
ITS PRINCIPLE
But
the
AND CHARACTER.
21
as eclecticism in this aspect bore within it
CHAP.
germ
of the
developed froni another point of view
of thought which so powerfully Neo-Platonism ; itself subsequently in

it
mode
i.
Eclec-
also contained
the
Î^T"
scepticism, to which in great part it owed its own germs of For that dissatisfaction which will not allow ti. origin.
thought to be at peace in any definite system, has

has not fully over come doubt in the truth of dogmatic systems, that
its
9cep cism
>
ultimate basis in this
that
it
cannot refuse to recognise doubt as to certain particulars, even though it does not approve of it in principle. Scepticism is consequently not merely
it
one of the
causes
of
which have conditioned

;
the
it
development
eclecticism
eclecticism
has
continually within itself as a phase of its own exis tence ; 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 brought together out of the many and various scientific theories. The more superficially, however,
doubt was
stilled
by a mode of philosophising
it
so
devoid of principle, the less was it should be for ever silenced.
to be expected that 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 perceive that the fragments of various systems would not allow themselves to be so directly united that each philosophical proposition has its
definite
meaning only
in its interconnection with
ECLECTICISM.
system; while, on the other hand, propositions from different systems, like the systems that themselves, mutually exclude one another
definite
:
some
the contradiction of opposite theories annuls their authority, and that the attempt to make a basis out
as recognised truth,
of the harmonising propositions of the philosophers, is wrecked on the fact of their
disagreement.
Academy
of the
Therefore after the scepticism of the had been extinguished in the eclecticism
first
century before Christ, doubt arose anew
in the school of
^Knesidemus to lose
it
self
third century, simultaneously with

in
all
only in the other theories,
Neo-Platonism
and no argument has greater

r
:
weight with these new sceptics than that which the precedent of eclecticism readily furnished to them
impossibility of knowledge is shown by the contradiction of the systems of philosophy ; the pretended harmony of these systems has resolved
the
itself into
the perception
of their mutual
incom
patibility.
ii.
And
of
Justifiable, however, as the renewal of scepticism
appears in relation to the uncritical eclectic treat ment of philosophy, it could no longer attain the
importance which
it
had had
in the
school of the
thought which can be shown even in this later scepticism, made a
new academy.
The exhaustion
of
positive conviction too necessary, to allow
many
to
return to pure doubt. If, therefore, the belief in the truth of the systems hitherto in vogue was shaken, and if even their eclectic combination could
not entirely satisfy, while strength was wanting for
ITS PRINCIPLE
AND CHARACTER.
23
the independent production of a new system ; the 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
;
CHAP.
way was entered upon, which Neo-Platonism more definitely pursued, and so opened the last epoch of Greek philosophy.
the
in the next period
24
ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTER
KCLECTICISM
IN
II.
BEFORE CHRIST.
THE SECOND AND FIRST CENTURIES THE EPICUREANS. ASCLEPIADES.
schools of philosophy which had still tained themselves on the theatre of history
I.
OF the
main
up
to
jMtrn
the middle of the second century before Christ, that

^
*the*"n-o
^6 Epicureans was, to all appearance, least affected

scientific
ccnttn-h-s
by the
its
movement
of the time.
Though
A
EjAcu-
juxtaposition with other intellectual tendencies had left upon it some traces, it does not seem to
have been influenced by any of these tendencies in a deeper and more permanent manner. AVe must, no doubt, suppose that even the refutation of the objections which encountered the Epicurean doctrine on all sides, gave occasion to some new phases in
the conception and establishment of it that the was further developed or modified in system perhaps
;
certain subordinate points by one and another of its adherents, and that alien doctrines may have been
litliiiio.t
more thoroughly investigated by them than by Hut when we have followed up Kpicurus himself. a^ e traces which migl t seem to indicate that later Emcurt-tutu individual disciples of Epicurus had departed, either
tt>
formally or materially, from their master,

1
the
sum
tion
collection and examinaof these the value of
which we cannot but acknowthough we uiav rust ledire,
THE EPICUREANS.
such departures which can be historically proved is so inconsiderable that the well-known judgments of Seneca and Numenius concerning the
total of
CHAP
scarcely suffers any orthodoxy of the Epicureans We learn from Cicero 2 that limitation from them.
1
the theory of Epicurus was not seldom conceived by

his
Koman
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 representative of
3
the
us of some Epi Epicurean philosophy. cureans of his time who separated themselves from
tells
He
Epicurus
friends.
by their theory of a disinterested love to is doubtful, however, whether this should be regarded as a radical deviation from the
It
Eudêmonism
of Epicurus
tion only asserts that friends
the statement in ques may be loved for their

5
;
own sake, even when they bring us no advantage but this does not exclude the idea that love to them
is
based upon the pleasure secured by intercourse

all
agree with
the inferences
these
later
philosophers
;
to
and conjectures deduced from them has been undertaken by

i.
Hirzel, Untersuchungen zu Cic. 165-190, in connection with Diining, De Metrodori vita et

scriptis, p. 18 sqq.
1
be Siro and Philodemus but though this idea is not improbable in itself, it cannot be ascertained whether it has any foundation.
5
Cic.
Fin.
i.
20, 69, thus ex-
Phil, der Gr. III.

;
i.
p. 379, 4.
Fin. i. 7, 25 Phil, der Gr. III.

3
7,
55
cf
presses it: Primes congress-its (and so forth) fieri proptcr
i.
Qiws
guide m
Torquatus, i. 17, respecting them) video esse multos Kcd impcritos. 4 Phil, der Gr. III. i. 460, 2. Hirzel, loc. cit. 170 gq., supposes
2. autrm itsus volujrtatem, cum (he makes progrcdlens familiarltatem effeobserve cerit, turn amorem efflorescere 55,
445,
nt, etiam si nulla sit ex amicitia, taiiien ip&l amid propter se i^sos amentur*
tantum,
litilitas
ECLECTICISM.
with them.
of
1
Such
a difference cannot be considered
Nor are we justified in importance. ascribing an alteration of the Epicurean theology to Philodemus, though he may, perhaps, have carried
much
it
further in certain particulars than Epicurus him 2 and though many deviations from pure 3 in Lucretius, on Epicureanism are perceptible
self:
closer inspection they will be found to refer to traits which merely concern the form of the poetic pre
4 sentation, but do not affect the scientific theories.
In
the
amarc proptcr
sc
over
as
as opposed to the love because of utility, there lies

IJMOS,
nothing more than the con ception of an affection based
upon delight in the person of a friend, and not merely on a Hut calculation of benefits. such an affection can also be based on the motive of plea To this only the further sure. argument can be applied Etenim loca,slfana, si iirbes,
:
The sun is described all. an essence which generates the births of the world the earth, in animated language, as the mother of living creatures; even the conjecture that the
;
stars are living beings he does not cast aside (v. 523 sqq.}.
This
to v.
own
savs
however, according cannot be his opinion. What he really

last,
122
sqq.,
.sv
,sv
gymnasia,
si equois
si
camp tint,
.
si
canes,
Itidicra cxcrccndi
aut venandl consnctudint
adin
am arc
fieri
~
sol emus,
qiianto
id
homiinim con&iU tHdine facilius

potuerit
ft ju*tiits !
i.
Phil, f/rr Gr. III.

Hitter, iv. 89-100.
435,
1.
3
4
Hitter thinks (p. D4) that
Nature
and
her
component
parts are described by Lucre tius at times in a much more vivid, and at times in a much more detailed manner, than the lifeless and uniform physics of the Epicureans would seem
is only the same that Epicurus (ap. Diog. x. 112) also in one of his hypo expresse> thetical explanations of Nature with reference to earlier theories (Phil, dcr Gr. I. 245). Concerning^the remaining points, Hitter himself remarks that the de scriptions of the poet can only and be intended figuratively this is the case with the pas sages which perhaps would be most surprising to an Epicurean (v. 534 sqij[.\ where Lucretius defends the Epicurean theory that the earth is borne up by the air (Diog. x. 74) with the
;
have permitted. Nature is conceived by Lucretius as a Unity, which rules absolutely

to
observation that the air is not oppressed by the earth, because the earth was originally of one piece with it, just as the w eight
T
THE EPICUREANS.
The same may be said of other philosophers among the later Epicureans concerning whom tradition has told us something. It may be that Zeno of Sidon
l appropriated to himself in the school of Carneades a more dialectic method, a mode of argument going
CHAP.
li.
more acutely and thoroughly

find in Epicurus
2
;
into details than
we
or that Apollodorus 3 was superior to Epicurus in historical knowledge and interest ; 4

of our limbs
us.
is
no burden to
departing from Epicurus, as
this strongly re minds us of the Stoic sympathy of the universe, Lucretius will have nothing to do with that
Though
sumes as many original figures atoms as there are atoms (Ritter, p. 101) is decidedly a
of the
theory, and consequently desig nates the parts of the world only as quasi membra. In any case this thought is without result for the rest of his doc trine of Nature. He rather maintains, as his own opinion, the unity of Nature in the same sense as Epicurus i.e. in the sense of an interdependence
brought about by the identity of physical and mechanical laws. Moreover, the doctrine of the spontaneous movement of the atoms (Lucr. ii. 133, 251
if, Epicurean hand, Lucretius is from Epicurus by distinguished maintaining more firmly the conformity to law of natural
misapprehension, expressly con tradicted by the passage ii. 478 sqq. (which Ritter mis understands). How little the ethics also of the Roman Epi curean differed from those of the ancient Epicurean it would be easy to show from the points adduced by Ritter, p. 104 sq. The agreement of Lucretius with Epicurus has now been expounded in the most thorough manner by Woltjer in the trea tise quoted, Phil, der Gr. III.
i.
363,
1
1.
I.
Cf.
c.
III.
i.
373,
2.
sqq.)
is
and
on
As Hirzel conjectures,
;
loc.
the other
phenomena
(Ritter,
97),
we
have already heard (Phil, der Gr. III. i. 397, 1) the explana tion of Epicurus, which is con firmed by his whole system,
that
176 sqq., appealing to Tusc. iii. Cicero, Fin. i. 9, 31 38 N.D. i. 18, 46 sq. 17, 3 The KTjiroTvpavvos discussed in Phil, tier Gr. III. i. 373. 4 Hirzel, 183 sq., who asserts in support of this, that Apol lodorus (according to Diog. vii. 181 x. 13) had composed a
cit.
;
>
unconditional necessity in universal causes, if even individual phenomena admit of various constructions. That Lucretius (ii. 333 sqq.},
rules
ffwayvyi) Soynaraiv, and perhaps, had justified in it the judg ment of Epicurus on Leucippus.
(P/tiL der Gr.
I.
842, 6).
ECLECTICISM.
Demetrius meeting an objection of (limeades with an answer which leads us to suppose that this Epicurean had gained in logical training
we
also find
But that through the dialectic of the Academy. either of these philosophers in any definition of doctrine materially diverged from the doctrine of
1
maintained in any quarter. When Diogenes in his catalogue mentions certain men who were called Sophists by the genuine Epi cureans, we have no reason to consider these Sophists
their
master
is
not
as
more than
isolated offshoots of the school, or to
seated dis argue from their appearance any deeply within it, or any change in its general agreements
character. 2
In the exposition (men tioned in Part III. i. 371, 4) ap.
1
re TlTO\/j.a7oi AAe|ai 5peTs, o re o T^r\v(^v 6 /xeAas Kal 6 \evKos.

Tro\vypd<pos
Sext, Jfath.
viii.
348,
where he
6
maintains, in opposition to the statement about argumentation discussed at p. 504, and in har mony with the distinction of that ytviKr] and e(5t/c?j a7ro5ei|is,
avfip /cat iriK\ r]0\s AaKwis, Aioyei>r]s 6
Taptrevs 6 TO.S eTriAe /cTOfS rrôAas (Tvyypd ^/as, KOL flpta;^ Kal aAAoi
TO.S
whenever a valid separate proof

is
ovs ol yvf)(Tioi EiriKovpeioL <ro(pL(Tllirxel (lac. airoKaXovffLi/.

*<///.)
adduced, the admissibility of the argument is at once shown. To him also, perhaps, belongs
what
830
;
is
in
quoted by iSextus, viii. any case it shows what
believes that oil. 180 those named Sophists by the true Epicureans must include here; men men all the
influence the objections of Car-
neades had made even upon the

Epicureans.
Diog. x. 25 pro ceed thus: {after theenumerat ion
-
tioned, from Apollodorus on wards, and therefore Apol lodorus himself, the two 1 tolenuei, Zeno of Sidon, xc.
this
is
P>ut
The words in
of several immediate disciples of Epicurus) Kal ovrot JJLZV t\\6yil
very improbable, even from the mode of expression. Had such been the meaning of the writer, he rnu.-t at least have said: irdvras 5e rovrovs OL
yV-l](TLOl
ElTlKOVpflOL (TO(j)lffTaS
;
O.TTO-
KCU A7roAAo5aipos 5 6 Kri vos yeyovcv (\\6yi/j.os, tis uirtp TO,
he wished to express himself clearly even this would have been insufliKa\ov<TLv
and
if
ASCLEPIADES.
1 physician, Asclepiades of Bithynia, stands in another relation to the Epicurean school.
L J)
The famous
is
CHAP.
II.
not expressly enumerated among its members Ast lcby any of the authors who mention him, but his piades theories would certainly lead us to suppose that he not an
He
the
had some connection with the school.

cient. He must have written rbv 5f Airo\\68(i)pov Kal TOL/S /xer
avTOj/
ol
:
He
is
at one Epicu
(ToîffTOLS
yvfjcrioi ETTiKovpetoi a-rroKaXovaiv. As it is,
only refer the words either to the &\\oi alone, or to the &\\oi and the names immediately pre ceding them, Orion and Dio
ovs
a.iroKa\ov<nv
we can
and is it likely that he would immediately with the after apply the same predicate school. to those who were not acknow ledged by the genuine Epicu
of Epicurus
;
rean, but shows
reans
number
ability
belonging to their This is in itself very improbable, but the improb

?
as
becomes
rind that
greater
si ill
Diogenes may in this genes. case be the same person men tioned by Strabo, xiv. 5, 15 but this is not necessarily the case, as Strabo does not de scribe Diogenes as an Epicu rean, and in the enumera tion of the philosophers of Tarsus, the Epicurean Diogenes may have been passed over, as well as the far more celebrated But the positive Stoic Zeno.
;
when we
among
these
arguments against the suppo sition of Hirzel are still more decisive. According to this, the Epicurean with whom the mention of Diogenes originates must have pointed out a whole series of Epicurean philoso
phers,
Sophists are two of the most distinguished leaders, Apollodorus and Zeno. Hirzel has just before (p. 170) shown that only Epicureans of the purest type were selected as overseers of the school and we can all the less concede to him that an ApollodorusandaZeno the for mer, as his designation proves, a highly-esteemed head of the school the latter regarded by
;
;
Cicero and Philodemus as one of the first Epicurean authori ties could have been, in the judgment of the 71/770-101 only
pseudo-Epicurean Sophists.
This physician, whose theo constantly mentioned in the Placita ascribed to Plu tarch, and in the writings of Galen, is count ed ^y the pseudo1
whom
as
he himself calls
ries are
f\\6yifj.oi
men who were
Sophists by the genuine Epicureans, and consequently members of the school who had become unfaithful to its true spirit. How is this conceivable ?
named
Galen, Isay. c. 4, vol. xiv. 683 K, as one of the leaders of the logical school of physicians.
As t\\6yi;wi, he bad previously mentioned Metrodorus, Hermarchus, Polyaenus, &c. in a word, the most loyal disciples
According to Sext. Math. vii. 20 sq., he was a contemporary of Antiochus of Ascalon. Vide
p. 30,
note
1.
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP.
II.
in his statement the Epicurean sensualism that the sensible perception gives a true image of
with
the thing perceived, but that reason, on the con of knowledge, trary, is not an independent source
borrows
to
all
its
content from perception, and has
be verified by perception. 2 In connection with 3 this he found reason superfluous, as an integral part
the going beyond Epicurus was only the whole compounded of said, soul, 4 to which he gave as all the senses collectively
of the soul, herein
:
he
Sext. Matli.
vii.
201.
That
roliint
(him in nninto
there were also some who de clared sensations to be the criterion of truth, Antiochus show s in these words &\\os 8e
r
:
ew
j>ri
V/;.SY<
set) mi a,
tici/t n Ic,
dicntnr
(/Horn HI ri)iin favour of
which Asclepiades
aru-ues that
TIS
eV
rri
larpiKy
/J.tv
(ro(pias. (ireidero
ras
/n.fv
cuV$Tjrrets
OVTUS Kal
a\ri6S>s
avTiXytyeis elvai,
r/yuas
\6yw
8e
(UTjSez/
oAws
Kara-
many animals live for a time without head or heart (the two parts regarded as seats of the See next note. Tiyf/jiovLKov"). 4 This results conception from the passage in Tcrtullian,
which therefore compares Ascleand inades with IHc;i archu> still more distinctly from del.
;
Here Asclcpiades the contemporary of Antiochus can

\a/uipdi>fiv.
alone be referred to. 2 This and nothing else ran be the real opinion of Asclepiades, on which the statement
,
Aurel.
])/
^r,nb.
t/rnf.
i.
14
(quoted
Mittfi.
rcf/ n inn
by
Fabric,
on
/xirtt
Sext.
<-n-
vii.
3SO)
.(xclt /rittdr*
a)i>ni(f
al\<fna
is
based, for he, like Epicurus,

J/OTJTO},
sf tftttn)H
denominated his atoms
in
)it
a
(/dt.
(a riyeiuioyiKov dwell! HIT definite part of the body)
\6ycf Oewpyrol ( infni, p. HI n. a), and also believed in an intellec tual knowledge of the hidden
Etenim
iiittininn
/il//il
ff
aJlud
r.v.v/-
(licit
ui nn
w/txi/i/in
bv means of inferences from the

perceived. 1 i(/r infrn, Sext. 3/fff//.vii. 202: Aor/c\i7ai/cupotWa TTiaSrjv rbv larpbv Ibid. HSO, ii yejj.oviK.ov. fj.fv he says ot)5e o\ws v-jvdpx fiv rL J)c an. Tert
I.
:! . . .
rl>
imte
cd tnm: i/iti I/rcft/ni occultartim rd /afcnt!in/i reruvi so l Hbilrm tier! nx>t//ni a cciilrntibiix itcnsniiiti, (/HI
oiiniiiiin
(iiifi in
]>er
">
r)y/j.oi>LKoi>.
pcrx/icctionr />crt!c it ur UK wort am rcroaltertioeorinn c.rcrcitiodicif Pint. I /tir. \\. L; S (Stob. i.

.
/>/.
Messcnins ex mi-dicis
<il
it]ii
/x in
DicfrcLrt liun,
4!)0) ex[)resses
<nit<
Andrt as
cf
the same in the Arr/cA. b tarpbs following words

:
Asclejriadcs
it<i
ubstulcrunt
ASCLEPIADES.
substratum the
Trvsv/jia
1
31
round
particles.
He
consisting of light and also traced the activities of
CPAP.
memory and
of sense. 2
intellect to
movements
in the organs
If lastly the atomistic theory of Ascle-
piades
3 4
is
Pontus,
it is
primarily allied to that of Heraclides of not to be supposed that he arrived at
this theory without the tradition of the atomistic system which was still living in the Epicurean school.
The primary
small
bodies
constituents of
all
things he held to be
which were distinguished from the atoms of Democritus and Epicurus in that they were divisible. From all eternity they strike to
gether in constant motion and split up into
berless parts, of
consist. 5
num
which sensibly perceptible things

in
But even
alffO-fja-ewv,
compound bodies
their ceasecer-
vacriav
ru>v
whether
from a complex of motions,
the
(Tvyyv/uLt/acria
practice, or
in
may mean common practice,
tain motions detach themselves,
and that through these
arise
work done together, or whether

a sense otherwise not demonstrable, corresponding with it may denote a society ea>tus,
of
1
abstract presentations, 3 On this subject cf. Lasswitz, who discusses it in his

treatise
p.
on
Daniel
Sennert,
<rvyyv/u.va6fj.(voi.
:
425
sq. ( Vierteljahrschr.
fur
Chalcid. in Tim. 213 Attt enim moles (oyttoi, vide infra)
nissensch. Philos. iii. 408 sqq.*), for this German restorer of the
qucedam sunt leves et globosa e&demque admodum delicatce ex anima subsiatit, quod totum spin-til s est, ut Ascle(jiiibi<8
atomistic philosophy (he died

in 1637) allied himself chieHy
with Asclepiades.
4
Phil. d. Gr.
ii. i.
886
sq.
pi-tides
On the &c. putat, analogous, though somewhat different definitions of Epicurus and Democritus, cf Phil, der Gr. III. i. 418 also I. 808. 2 His exact conception of this is not clear from the passage of Cselius Aurelius quoted in note 4, p. 30. The solubilis motus points to the idea that
.
The most complete account of this theory is given by Cael.

5
Aurel. loc. cit. : Primordia corporis primo constitiierat atomus he did not (this is inaccurate call them so for the reason that they are not indivisible) cor;
pvs&ula
intellects senna, sine idla qiiailtate solita (without colour, and so forth) atqiie ex
ECLECTICISM.
(
HAP
II.
less
motion continues, so that nothing in any section If of time, even the smallest, remains unchanged.
1
initio comitata (?) (/-termini w mort ntia qnrr svo incnrsn offensa Mutuis ietibus in infinita par1
1
itself).
That these OJKOI (a.Epicurus had said of the atoms)
it
in
fragment a solrantnr
maf/-
avripf/ji.r]Toi,
are \6yu Bfwprirol and 5i cuwvos we are told by Sext.
nitndine atquc schemate differ

entia,
qua
adject a vel in senn-t fact ant ftcHsibilia, vim
mrstnn eundo xibi. conjunct a omnia
mutation is habentia ant per magnitudlnem sui ant per multitndinem ant per schema- ant per
or din cm. Nee, inquit, ratione carere ridctur quod, nnttinsfaciant
qnalitatis corpora (that being without quality, generate bodies silver is of definite quality)
;
speak-* OJKOI ami What Ca-lius t/mjra apatio/j-ura. Aurel. says of tlie shattering of the atoms receives confirmation
(viii.
Math.
iii.
o.
lie
also
220) of
vorjrol
from the words quoted by Lass from the pseudowitz (p.

42>)
Galen, Introd. c. Kara 5e rbv (5!)S k

:
i),
vol.
xiv.
Aa K \t)ir idfiriv
(TTOixria avdpwirov oynoi 6pav(Trol Ka\ -rropoi and from Stob.7sV/. i.

;
white, whereas that which is rubbed off from it is black the goat s horn is black, the These sawdust of it white. primeval bodies Asclepiadesjike Heracleitus. called avapôi OJKOL Phil, (cf. the passages quoted, der Gr. II. i. 8flfi, 3 where, how ever, in Ens. Par. ev. xiv. 2)5, :?, instead of /j.fv bvop.a.<ravTts, ûerois to be read, accord vofj.d<ravTfs
;
;
according to which the pre decessor of Asclepiades (Heraelides) declared 6pavfffj.aTa to be the smallest bodies (the theories also ascribed to Heracleitus in the foregoing, and in the
;>50,
1 lacita,
i.
nva fXax^ra
13, 2 Kal
cf.
^y/j-drid
a/jLepij
seem,
however, originally to belong to Heraclides). This divisibility of the 6-yKOL is referred to when
Sextus (^fath. x. 5J18) observes that Democritus and Epicurus represent things as ari>ing e^
a.vop.oiwv (i.e. Tots yevvaij.fi ois} Heraclides and Te Kal aTraBtcv.
ing to Diels, Do.i ogr. 252, 2). I previously understood the ex as applying to bodies
pression not joined together
;
i.e.,
not
but I must concede divisible to Lasswitz that the primitive atoms of Asclepiades are not
this.
Asclepiades, on
e
the
contrary.
Ka9d-
ai/0yuotcov p.fv ira8T]rwv 5e

TU>
The interpretations ^/r/
of (therefore capable separation), and iinoeordnet, unordered, seem to me, however, in point oflantruage, ques T should, therefore, tionable. the prefer to e;ivc to Hvapuos
loose
signification,
irith
The oyKwv. side by side TropoL, which are with the UJKOL, and have the same significance as the void beside the atoms, are also men tioned by (ialen, Tlieriac. ad.
rrep
avdp/ji.cav
Pis.
1
c.
1,
vol. xiv.
2.")0
K.
not
combined
from
itself
one another
is
(so that each
07*0? other
separated
the
for
Plato Sext. Math. viii. 7. ascribes true Being to the notsensible alone, because sensible things are always in a state of
and
moves
Becomin
TroraôvSiKTiv peovaris
ASCLEP1ADES.
these theories had been attributed to an acknowof the Epicurean school, they would no doubt contain a noteworthy departure from the
CHAP.
ledged
member
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.
rrfs outn as, cixrrf ravrb (jd) 5vo rovs fXax urrovs xpdvovs vTro/u.Vftv
T?ji/o|yT7jTa TT)S ÔTJS
of the swiftness
(on account of the flow
f7ne
xe<r0cu,
KaBd-rrep
i
f\cye
eis
nothing can show
itself twice).
5m
;u
ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTER
III.
THE STOICS: BOETHUS, PAN^TIUS, POSIDOMUS.

CHAP.
III.
AMONG
the remaining schools of philosophy, that of
the Stoics was the

its
,.
The
Motes.
first which, in partial divergence older teachers, admitted foreign elements. from 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 even purity ; but we shall find that some,
greater
among them, were
inclined towards an eclectic
com
bination of that school with other standpoints. In the school of the Stoics, the rise of eclecticism
is
connected with the names of Boethus, Panaetius,
and Posidonius.
r cilia i nui (if the
<i
xiieerxxtn-x
Already at the beginning of the second century the successor of Chrysippus, Zeno of Tarsus, is said to have been perplexed as to one of the distinctive
doctrines of his school
fj
of
6V/r//.s-
the doctrine of the destruc-
concerniny
conflagration of the world.
on o f
{} ie
WO rld
so that he left the question of

} :
its
truth
Nnmen.
undecided
and
of
similarly,
the
/ecu
after
him,
the
/j.af>Tj-
ap. Eus. Pr. CT. xv.
Cleantbes, and Chrysippus taught the doctrine

18,
2.
Zeno,
"\vorld:
r)>v
con fin prat ion of /uei/ yap rovrou

5ta8ox o
"
T^V
rijs
crxoA.?)*
BOETHUS.
Diogenes of Seleucia in his later years became doubtful about this dogma, which he had previously defended. Neither of these statements, however,
1
an
CHAP.
is
satisfactorily attested;
sible in itself,
though the thing is pos and we can easily explain it, especially
if
in
the
case of Diogenes,
the objections of his
disciples against the conflagration of the world
had
embarrassed him and caused him to refrain from

to Boethus, 3
As expressing any decided opinion on the subject. we know that he not only openly re- Bofthus.
this point, but
nounced the Stoic tradition on
on
other and more important questions approximated to the Peripatetic doctrine, so as to imperil the
purity of his Stoicism. An example of this has already come before us His deviationt from in his doctrines concerning the theory of knowledge
:
he described Keason (vovs) and Desire as 4 criteria side by side with Perception and Science, he not only set up the Aristotelian JTTKTT??/^ in the
for if
place of the Stoic irpoKîs^ but added to it and to Perception two other independent sources of know
ledge, the recognition of which was not consistent
^
6\wv. Ps.-Philo. jEtern. m.
p.
c.
T *}s
15,
/cal
248 Bern.
TjviKa
Aeêrat 5e
vfos
i\v
10761/175
crvvfTn-
ypa^tafj-fvos T(p ^6yp.ari rf/s e/cirupca(Tf(i)s
mj/e TTJS rj\iKias

"-
(i>$oid(ras
eVicTx 6
2
Neither of
the
witnesses
regard to Zeno of Tarsus, the otherwise well-instructed author of the Philonic treatise cannot have been acquainted with any divergence of his from the school, or he would not have omitted to appeal to him. s Concerning whom of. Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 46, 1.
4 5
speaks from his own knowledge, as they themselves tell us. We know not, therefore, on what In their assertions are based.
Ibid. III. Ibid. III.
i. i.
71,
1
;
84,
;
1.
concerning
650.
and gq. ^no-TTûTj, ibid. II. ii.

84
74
ECLECTICISM.
;
!fAi>.
with the Stoic empiricism, though it perfectly harmonised with the Peripatetic doctrine. Hut the attitude of Hoethus to the Stoic theology For although he held, is still more antagonistic.
1
with others, that (rod was an ethereal substance, he would not admit that He dwelt in the world as
its
describe soul; and he consequently refused to 3 he rather assigned the the world as a living being
;
abode of the Deity to the highest sphere, and re from thence upon the presented Him as working
universe. 4
As
to the reasons
which determined the

Diog.
TTfpl
vii.
In respect to vovs this is in I lill. d. Gr. II. ii. 190 sqq. Aristotle nowhere, indeed, describes the upeis as a source of
1
148: B07j0oy 5e eV
shown
TT)
or cognitions presentations but lie traces practical ends and aims partly to natural desires, and partly to the con stitution of the will, on which must depend what we consider
;
T&V be understood in the same way as the corresponding definitions

i.
tyVffeWS OVffiaV OfOV T1]V a.TT\a.vwv crtya tpa.v, which is to
of other Stoics (Phil. d. Gr. III. 137, 1, 2), the ^yfôviKov of the world is said to have its seat in the purest part of the ether.
to
be good (I.e. 582, 3 586, 2 031, 2; 653; cf. Etli. N. i. 7;

;
1098, ft, 3). 2 Stob. Eel.

alOtpa debv
i.
60
Bo rjflos T&V
opinion
In his of the soul also he remained faithful to the Stoic materialism. The Stoics Diog. vii. 143.
airecp-tivaro.
:i
declare
living
0rj(nv OVK
/to-}}.
the
flvai
world
:
to
BoSjfos
be
5e
and animate
c.
ov rbv
5
e
KOCT/J.OV.
Philo, sKtcrn. m.
:
16, p. 251,
This would not necessarily ex clude the ancient Stoic doctrine from that it spreads itself thence through all the parts of 15 ut in that case the world. the world would be a living creature and the Deity its soul, which Hoethus did not allow. 15ut if this conception be re jected, there remains only a motion of the world from with out, and so far the extract corre given by Philo (/ sponds with the view of our
<?.)
^vxv
if
rov
Ko(Tfj.ov
K a T a T o v s
o 6e6s
avTiSoôvvras
P>oi
txcKTTa ftyopa [o $e>s] Kal TrdvTcov ola yvricnos irarrip eirirpo:
Stoic
these words belong to
Treuei, Kal, fl
Se
raAi]$ey
e/VetV,
the excerpt from
to bable, at least according to the sense.
now appears
which me most pro

:
thus,
KOI
iravra, 7/Aiaj T6 KOU TraKTTa.j.ei os KO.I
BOETHUS.
philosopher to this rejection of Stoic pantheism, tradition tells us nothing the decisive cause must
:
37
CHAP.
no doubt have
lain in the
fear of imperilling the
sublimity and unchangeableness of God, if He were, according to His substance, connected with the
In these theories Boethus, in opposition to his school, agreed with Aristotle, but he essentially
world.
from him both in his materialism, and in the opinion that Grod not only directs and guides the
differs
universe from the ruling point, but stands beside every part of it, ready to help ; whereas Aristotle
denies to the Deity every activity directed to the world. Boethus is therefore seeking a middle course
1
of Aristotle;
between the pantheism of the Stoics and the theism like that which was subsequently
4
attempted from the Peripatetic side in the

the Universe.
2
Book
of
With
this is connected
Boethus contradiction of
the doctrine of the conflagration of the world. Of the four arguments by which he opposes this doc 3 trine, the first shows that the destruction of the
world must result without a cause, for outside the world there is nothing but the void, and in the world
there
is
nothing which could bring destruction to

all
it.
The second seeks to prove, not altogether conclusively,

that of
Trpbs
the different kinds of destruction

t>ia/uLoi>r)v
none
rrjv
rov o\ov
Kal
c.
T^V Kar
5joi /c7?<rtj/.
1
opGbv \6yov
awn air lov

KCU rots
16
4
According to Ps.-Philo, I.e. 249 253, Bern. (052, sgr., p.

Kara
Siaipfffiv,
C. sq. H., 503 sq. M.).
T]Xi(f
re Kal
<re\rivri
Kara avaipeGiv
in
&\\ois
S
3
TT\dvT)<n
Kal airXavfaiv, tri
TTJS
eVexouo-Tjs
TrotoTTjros (as
aept Kal TO?S /mfpecri rov /cdoyiou TTapLffrd.fj.fvos Kal ffvvSpwi (Fliilo,
loo. cit.).
-
the destruction of a figure), Kara avyxvo iv (chemical mixture, cf. Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 127,
1).
Vide infra, chapter
v.
:J8
ECLECTICISM.
The third main could be applicable to the world. tains that after the destruction of the world the Deity
1
CHAP,
would have no object
for his activity,

;
and must con
nay, if the Deity be the world-soul, he must himself be destroyed. Lastly, the fourth contends that, after the complete
sequently sink into inaction
annihilation of the world, this
tire
;
must
itself
be
2 and then the extinguished for want of nourishment new formation of the world would be impossible.
But Boethus had doubtless concluded from
this not
only that the world was imperishable, but also that 3 he exchanged the Stoic cos it had no beginning ;
mology not
for the Platonic
but for the Aristotelian

:
theory, the doctrine of the eternity of the world his departure from the Stoic dogma is here also a
transition to that of the Peripatetics.
That Boethus likewise opposed the Stoic

prophecy
is
belief in
not asserted
4
;
his
own
utterances
on
this subject are confined to an enquiry concerning the prognostics of weather and similar things, the
For that only is capable of division which is e or e ffwavropfvuv, or only weakly united not that which is superior to all else in force. An entire annihilation of the
1
5ie<rTo>Ta>j/,
Gr. III. i. 153, 2), and this would presuppose a luminous body, 3 This appears especially from the third argument; thepseudo-
him
Philo also (p. 2411, 4) represents as attacking the presupposition

KOIJ/J.OS.
4
the world is not maintained by t he other view, for this is still to subsist in the form If finally all elements of lire. were simultaneously abolished through ffvyx va is there would
quality of
>
el
yevriTos
/ecu
<pdaprbs
The contrary would rather seem to result from Cic. JJiciit. ii. 42, 88, according to which
Pantetius unus
(jtYrutu
e Stoicis axtrolo-
be a transition of the
*ov
into the
^1
2
<jv.
this
Because as pure fire it could but be neither 6v0pa| nor only avyr]((>n which cf. Phil. d.
<J>A&,
rejrcit; but pra-dicta only implies that Boethus did not expressly oppose the that he himself belief, not
it.
shared
PANÊTIUS.
connection of which with the phenomena portended
39
CHAP.
he sought
to discover.
is
With Boethus
2
associated his celebrated co-
in his opposition to the disciple Panaetius, not only doctrine of the destruction of the world, but also in
180 B.C.
the independent attitude he assumed to the tradi tion of his school, and in his readiness to allow
This distinguished and the chief founder of Roman influential philosopher, in Stoicism, was born, it would seem, about 180 B.C., 3 Rhodes, and was introduced to the Stoic philosophy
entrance to other views.
4 by Diogenes and Antipater.
1
He
afterwards went to
living after places
Cic. Divin.
i.
8,
13
Quis
and was no longer

110 B.C.
his
igitur elicere causas pr&sensionum potest ? Etsi video Boethum Stolen in esse conatum, qui hactenus (only so far) aliquid
egit,
lit
Van Lynden
i.
life between 185-112 B.C. The Ind. Here. Comp. Col. 51

(cf.
Phil. d. Gr. III.
33, 2)
earum rationem rerum

:
explicaret, quce in inari ccelove
Ibid. ii. 21, 47 fierent. et prognosticorum causas perse. cuti sunt et Boethus Stoicus .
.
Nam
names Nicagoras as his father, and in Col. 55 mentions his two younger brothers. That he was of good family, we know from Strabo, I.e. When Suidas,
sub voce, distinguishes from the celebrated Panastius a second and younger Pangetius, the friend of Scipio, this is merely a proof of his ignorance, as is
et
Posidonius.
In both
passages the emphasis falls on the causes prognosticorum, the connection between natural
prognostic and result.
a Van Lynden, De Pancetio Rlwdio, Leiden, 1802. 3 Concerning his native place there is no doubt (vide Strabo, On the xiv. 2, 13, p. 655). other hand, we are told nothing of the year either of his birth or death, and they can only be
abundantly shown by Van Lynden, p. 5 sqq. 4 Diogenes is mentioned as

his teacher in the Ind.
Col.
Here.
2; and by Suidas, Uavair. Antipater, by Cicero, His piety to Dirin. i. 3, 6. wards the latter is praised by
51,
;
approximately determined from the facts that he attended the

discourses of Diogenes of Seleucia in 143 B.C. as an openlyrecognised philosopher, accom panied Scipio to Alexandria,
;
the Ind. Here.

these,
Col. 60.
Besides
according to his own statement (ap. Strab. xiv. 5, 16, p. 676), he heard Crates of Mallos in Pergamus. Polemo also, thePeriegete,is, on chrono-
40
ECLECTICISM.
Rome, where he long remained an inmate of th^ household of Scipio Africanus, tlie younger.- Scipio and Lidius were his friends 3 and hearers, and he won
1
CHAP.
111.
7//.V
den IT
lit i inc.
over
many
zealous youths to Stoicism. 4
Scipio also
chose him for his comi*inion
when
in
143
u.c.
he
was sent at the head of a deputation to the East, and particularly to Alexandria/5 After the death of
Antipater, Pana;tius undertook the leadership of the school in Athens, 6 of which apparently he was the
logical grounds, regarded as his teacher rather than his The text of Suidas disciple. which asserts the latter (Uo\e/j..
EtJTj-y.) seems corrupt. Of. Kernhardy in loc., Van Lyndon,
1
the Stoic school in Athens.
135-1:50 B.C., we must suppose that he worked here for a con siderable number of years. Vellejus says that Scipio had
him with him domi
)ni/iti(<-qttr,
3G;>vy.
Whether
this occurred after
and the Ind. Here. Co!. /JG, 2, seems to speak as if he accom

panied Scipio to the army.
a
the Alexandrian journey, and whether Pansetius visited Rome

of his own accord, or was invited there by others, tradition does
Cic. Fin. iv.
i),
23
1.
iL S, 24.
Ojf.
A.
4
2G, JO A. xvii.
i.
(
ii.
22, 7G.
Gull,
21,
Suidas
not inform us. Plutarch (C. Prine. Philosoph. i. 12, p. 777) presupposes that Panajtius was not in Koine when Seipio in vited him to accompany him. Hut Scipio must have been already well acquainted with him to have given such an
invitation. * } ide the following note, :ind Cic. Pro Mur. 31, GG
;
Havair. Ho\vfiios.
Vide supra,
Cic.
p. 10,s^.
2, 5;
Acad.
/.
ii.
Position.
ap. Pint.
rc(j.
c.,
and Apophthegm.
sq. d.
p.
ct imp. ISe/ ip. Min. 13 200; Athen. xii. 541),
(where
TloaeiSwi ios
is
in
any
for
case a slip of the

TlavaiTLos,
memory
S.
:
repeated
b
which, however, is xiv. G57 ,sv/.). Cf.

Col.
,">:;
Justin. Hixt. xxxviii.
Veil.
at ore.
i.
13,
3.
long Pauajtius was in do not know but as he came

;
HowKoine we
Ind. Here.
TT}S
5<a5oxs
the Alexandrian journey, therefore in 142 15. c., and probably before that, journey, and as, on the other hand, Kutilius Kufus, who died after 81 15. C., seems
t
hither
at
latest
after
Avrnrdrpov (TXO\?IS. Cf. these further statements that he died in Athens (Suid.) that he did not again return to
tyevfro
;
to
have heard him in

p.
Kome
which can scarcely have happened before

(nHjtra,
11, 3),
Rhodes (Cic. Ttixc. v. 37, 107) that he was oil ered the right of citizenship in Athens, but did not, accept it (Procl. in Jfcsiod. E. Kal H|i. 707, no doubt after Plutarch that there was in Athens a
)
:
PANJtTIUS.
head until about 110
B.C.
1
That he had previously
CHAP.
III.
been active in a similar capacity in his native city is 3 not likely. 2 As teacher and author, scholar and His learn ing and for common meals Posidonius had been the im reputa society v. mediate successor of Panastius tion. called Panaatiasts (Athen. in Rhodes, which according to 186, a). The attempt of Schepthe dates would only be pos pig, De Position. Apain. (Sondersh. 1869), p. 3 sq. to make sible if Panaetius had been at Pantetius the head of the the head of the Rhodian, and not the Athenian school, and Rhodian, and not of the Athe nian school is settled by the had filled this post towards the foregoing, and by the proofs end of the second century. 3 given infra, p. 42, 1, and p. 52, 3 Concerning his writings vide Van Lynden, p. 78-117, 62 sqq. (Mnesarchus and Dardanus). We cannot place his death The best known of these are much earlier, as, according to the books Trepl rov KaQ-t\Kovros (cf Cic Off. iii. 2, 8, he lived after Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 273, 3, 276 sq.\ the composition of his work on acknowledged, according to Duty (which he cannot have Cicero, to be the most profound written when he was very work on that subject, the model of Cicero s own. lliere are young), for 30 years but espe also quoted a work on the cially because Posidonius could otherwise scarcely have been schools of philosophy (TT. alpfhis disciple nor can it have ev6v/u.ias, IT. Trpovoi ay, ffftav}, TT.
1 .
;
occurred much later, for Crassus, who came as quaestor to Athens
iii. 6,
found Mnesarchus there, and

not Panastius (Cic.
11,
De
Orat.
i.
a political treatise (Cic. Legg. 14) and a letter to Tubero. From the treatise IT. irpovoias Cicero seems to have taken his
criticism
Crassus, born, according to Cicero, Brut. 43, 161, under the Consuls Q. Caapio and C. Laelius (140 B.C.) could
45)
and
of
42,
astrology,
De
(Cf.
Divin.
ii.
8746,
97.
not have become quaestor be fore 110 B.C., but also not very Vide long after that date. Zumpt, AWi. d. Berl.Acad. 1842 Hist. Phil. Kl S. 104 (80). 2 Suidas (Uofftti&v ATra/i.)
;
5
:
I c. 88, 97; Schiche, p. 37 sqq; Hartf elder, p. 20 sqq. of his treatise Die Quallen von Cic. Biich, De Divin. Freiburg, Hirzel supposes that 1878). treatise to be also the source of Cicero s De. J\ at. De. ii. 30,
;
75-61, 154, and he is probably presupposes this when he says right, while Schwenke (Jahrb. of Posidonius crxo^v 5 fax*** fur PMlol. 1879, p. 135 sq.\ (v SidSoxos yeyovws ical derives this section, with the But Cicero, rest of the book, from Posi uadf]rr]s Ilai/amou. Tutc. v. 37, 107, reckons him donius TT. Q&V. The letter to among those qui semel cgrcssi Tubero may have been used by Cicero for the second book of itunqnam domwn reverterunt and on the other hand Suidas the Tusculantf Disjnitationes manifestly presupposes that (cf Zietzschmann, DC Tu&c.
P68cf>,
; .
ECLECTICISM.
philosopher, he enjoyed great reputation, and it is probable that no one since Chrysippus had worked
1
with greater success for the spread of Stoicism.

///.
elmT
)J,ilo-
The
7i/a
si derable
Stoic system, however, had undergone conalteration in his hands. Though Pan.etius
its
sopk/T.
agreed with
2
principles
and found no part of
it
superfluous, yet bis own interest, consistently with the spirit of the period, was chiefly directed to the
practical side of philosophy
3
;
and he therefore en
deavoured (herein departing from the usage of his

school) to bring that aspect nearer to the general comprehension by presenting it in a more intelligible
and attractive form. 4
But
this practical interest,
when the
scientific objects
are subordinated to
it,
always involves an attempt to harmonise and cornj>nt.
Font. Halle, 18G8) on the other hand the chief source of the rirst book of the Tmculan. Uisp. is not, as Heine thinks (De Font. Tusc. Disp. p. 8 .//.), to be sought in a treatise of
;
lie
was held
in
Athens
in Col.
71
we
are told of his honourable

;
Seneca, Ep. 33, 4, conipares him and Posidonius with Zeno.Cleanthes, and Chrysippus. Which is evident from his
burial
title
Panaetius, whose view is directly opposed to that of Cicero; but, as Corssen says (De Po,<id. llhod. Bonn, 1878), in a treaosidonius. tise of This, after what has been said, scarcely requires a special
I
of
is
jtrincrpx
i.
Stoic orutn,
(51,
and
3
confirmed by the quota3.
tions in Tart III.

of Pamutius down to us
A few physical propositions

;
proof.
Cicero,
i.
c.f/.,
calls
him
have been handed but the greater number and the most eharacteristic of the quotations from
prlnct ps cjus [sc. Moi ((/] discipline ; 1. c. ) mntjnus homo et (Leffff. imprimis eruditug ; (Fin. iv. .,
(Divin.
3,
6)
vc-l
2,
&}imprimis inqetmusct
ii.
(jraris ;
(Ojf.
II,
;
")!)
Htoiconnn
the
Ind.
f/r(triMinni# litre,
possess relate to and theology, morality. Such of his writings as we know are either historical, ethical, or theological in their contents; whereas not a single dialectic; detinition has ever
tliat
him
we
anthropology,
(\nnp. Col. GH, praises his
many-
been quoted from him.

4
sided knowledge, and mentions (Col. OS) the esteem in which
Cic. Fin. iv. 28, 79;

;
Off.
i.
2, 7
ii.
10, 5J5.
PANAETIUS.
bine differing points of view. Panaetius, therefore, freer attitude towards the doctrine of his
:
CHAP.
assumed a
predecessors
he would not withhold from other
Delation,
*?
p
philosophers the recognition due to
he highly esteemed Aristotle, Xenocrates, Theophrastus, and Dicsearchus ; and his admiration of Plato was so
:
them
trines.
great that
it
might seem he would have preferred to

It cannot be ex
follow him, rather than Zeno. 1
pected of one
appreciated the merits of the earlier philosophers so impartially that he should adhere very scrupulously to the traditional doc
:
who
trines of a single school and, in fact, the many deviations of Pansetius from the Stoic dogmas show
that he treated the authority of his school, in re spect to philosophy, with the same independence of
judgment that he displayed

of literary
1
in regard to questions
and
iv.
historical criticism. 2
28, 79
He
disputed,
himself
;
Cic.
Fin.
sem-
Proclus
reckoned
:
perqiie habuit in ore Platonem, Aristotelem, Xenocratem Theoy
among the Platonists may also be translated

tins
they
Panae-
phrastum, Diccearchum, ut ipsins scripta declarant. Titsc. i.

32,79(#id<?p.44,l,).
Ind.Hcrc.
4>t\o-
Col.
61
$v yap
nal
iVxu/>o>s
irXaroiv
<f>i\oa.piaTOTG\r}s,
d[\\a]
ZT7i>ft>j/[ei
/cat
o>]j>
7rape[i/e]&>[K]e
ruv
A*a-
[TI
5m
T7/]v
and some others belonging to the Platonic school. Whether he or Posidonius is meant by the philosopher from Rhodes, whose remarks on Parmenides are mentioned by Proclus in Farm. vi. T. vi. 25, cannot be
ascertained. 2 Panaetius
is
8-nij.iav \_Kal _
rbv Ufpi^Trarov.
Of
Grantor s treatise on Affliction he said (Cic. Acad. ii. 44, 135) it should be learned by heart, word for word. According to Proclus in Tim. 50 B, he seems to have written a commentary on Plato s Timaiis the words of Proclus, however, Uavair.
;
in this respect
a remarkable exception to the careless manner in which the majority of the ancients are accustomed to deal with learned His opinion contradition. cerning the genuineness of the dialogues passing under the
KOL a\\oi
rives
T>V
riAarcovt/cwj/,
name
do not necessarily imply that
his; of Socrates, and judgment concerning the writ-
44
like
ECLECTICISM.
Boethus, the doctrine of the conflagration of and though he only said that the
1
the
world;
ings of Ariston of Chios are discussed in Phil. d. (,r.

JI.
1, 20G, 1, and III. i. 35, 1. We see from Plutarch, Arixt. 27, and Athen. xiii 550, I, that he was the lirst, as it
vavrbs
llu-r.
. . .
Tjvro/j.6\r](Tai>.
iii.
2, ., p.
KU(TfJ.OV
1090,
Epiph.
:
Havair.
TUV
t\yfV
Q.Qa.VO.TOV
Kal
in
With this agrees ayripu. substance Stob. Eel. \.\\\
seems, to dispute the story of the bigamy of Socrates, and from Hut. Arist. 1, that he corrected a wrong statement of Demetrius Phalerius concern f Aristides ing a xP riy La
closer investigation. It is possible that he went too far in the matter of Ariston s writings, and his conjecture respecting Archelaus (cf. Phi/.
(Hav. iri.QavuTtpav tlvai VO/JLIÎ Kal /ULU\\OV apecTKovcrav avrw TYIV

diSiOTTJTa TOV K6(T/J.OV oAwj/ els Triip ueTa/3oA77J
;
$)
TT)V TOtlV
),
I
though
antetius
we learn after his

himself
point
;
from
it
that
manner had expressed

guardedly
up<m
the
through
also quite con sistent therewith that in a dis

it
and
is
Gr. I. 869) may have been unfounded, as in his opinion (Schol. in Aristoyk. Han. 1493
d.
ujq.
i.
cf.
Hirzel, Unters. :u Cic.
234) that Aristophanes, /. c., is speaking of another Socrates; but the fact that Panajtius felt the necessity of critical exami
nation, rarely felt in his time, not affected, by this. On the other hand it is in the highest degree improbable that the as sertion of his having denied Plato s authorship of thePhtfdo rests upon any other ground than a misunderstanding, as I have shown concisely in Part
is
sertation on the universe pro bably emanating fromParuetius (ap. Cic. JV. J) /ii. 45, 115,46, 119), it is emphatically asserted that the whole universe is framed with a view to the ittcolumitas niundi,imd that there is nothing in it so admirable
qit(un
quod
It a stftbilix cst nninit it
cohffrct ad pcrma-nendum, nt niJtH nr e.i cof/itari quid cm (ijiliux, for a

dliK dlqiic
j)i>sxit
384, 1, and more at length in the Commentationcs MoininII. d,
who assumed the destruction of the world would have had no occasion to lay the chief stress on its durability. Nor does Cic. X. D. ii. 3)!, 85, offer any contradiction if the Stoic does not here come to a decision whether the world will last for ever or only for an in
philoso])her
:
seniatuf, p. 407
1
.sv/.;
cf.
405.
5
JJiotj.
vii.
142: Uavainos
in. c.
definitely long period, this does not prove that he had no opinion about it. but only that it is not
Philo, sKtcrn.
Jtt-rn.(\^l,
**/ovv 6
<".
J5, p. 248,
necessary for his immediate purpose, the proof of a world-
//.
497 M.):Bo7?0t;s
Vla.vai.Tios
.
.
forming intelligence
this question
If
is
to
bring
2i5wvios Kal
Tas tKTTvpwcrfis Kal Tra\iyyvt(Tia.s KaTa\nr6vTts irpbs QfWTtpov 807uff. TU TTJS cupQapcrtas TOV KJ&/U.QV
into discussion. true that the burning of

is
the
4
i ;
world
mentioned,
/.
c.
118, with the
comment: dc
HIS RELATION TO STOICISM.

eternity of the world was, in his opinion, more prob we can see that he decidedly preferred the
III.
45
CHAP.
able,
Platonic or Aristotelian theory to that of the Stoics. In connection with this, he not only limited the soul s existence after death to a certain space of
1
time, but denied
it entirely.
It is also stated that
quo Pancetium adclulritare diccbatit, but this mode of ex pression can neither be taken from Panaetius nor from Cicero s Greek original, the author of which cannot have learned merely by hearsay that Panaatius was sceptical concerning the world s conflagration. The words are to be laid to Cicero s account nor can we infer from them that even he was uncer tain about Pansetius s real meaning, for he may have em ployed this form of language to represent Balbus as speaking
;
word al5i6T7js (nor in as having no end. But as the former was as a rule admitted by the Platonic school (cf. Phil. d. Gr. II. i. 876 sq.\ and as the chief opponents of theStoicdoctrine since Zeno were the Peripa
tetics (Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 836, 929), it seems to me probable that
from his recollection of oral communications (cf. Comment. Mommsen. p. 403 sq. That Arnob. Adv. Nat. ii. 9, names
Panaatius among the defenders of the conflagration theory is only a proof of his superficiality
(cf. Diels,
1
Doxogr. 172
sq.).
For which of these two theo ries he had decided whether he repudiated a beginning of the world as well as an ending we
are not told. The words, addvarov Ka\ aynpw in Epiphanius,
if
Panaetius, when he had once given up the Stoic dogma, did not remain half way, but went over to the Peripatetic, which at that period was generally the next alternative. 2 This is clear from Cic. Tusc. i. 32, 78. After the Stoic doctrine of a limited duration of the soul has been repudiated, Cicero continued M. Numquid iffitur est causa, quin amicos nostros Stoicos dimittamus, eos dlco, qui ajunt animos manere, e corpore cum excesserint, sed non semper? A. Istos rero, &c.
:
Rene, reprehendis creiffitur Pana-tio a Platone suo dissenticnti ? quern cnim

jM.
damus
they really emanate from Paneetius, remind us of Plato s

&I>O<TOV
ayripuv Kal (Tim. 33, A) and even the further statements do not carry us with certainty beyond the question of the end
;
locis dimnum, quern sajiientissimum, quern sanctissimum, quern Homerum pMlosophorum appellat, hujus hanc unam sententia/m de immortalitate animoruni non probat.
omnibus
Vult eniniy quod nemo negat,
quicquid
)iasei
of the world, since the notion of having no beginning is not so completely included in the
rwtum sit interire : autem animos alterant,

.
.
auteni adfert rationem

esse,
nihil
quod
doleat,
quin id crgrum
-it;
ECLECTICISM.
HI.
.
CHAP.
he reckoned only
six divisions in
the soul instead of
the traditional eight ; for he included speech under the voluntary motions, and ascribed sexual propaga
tion, not to the
csse quoq-uc possit
;
soul,
but to the vegetable nature.
quod nut em
in
morbum
:
teriturum
cadat, id etiam. in~ dulvre autcm ani-
MOS, ergo etiam interire. Now, as I must concede to Heine (Dc FontilniK Tuseul. Disput. Wei
even an mar, 18G3, p. 8 orthodox Stoic would neces sarily oppose the doctrine of immortality so far as this main tains not merely continuance after death, but an eternal con
.<?</.),
But that the objec tinuance. tions of Panaatius had not this
not to internal disease and dis solution but to external force. When, at last, Panietius aban doned the conflagration of the world, he had no motive for attributing to the soul a limited existence he had only the choice between absolute denial and unlimited acceptance of its immortality. From fuse. \. 18, 42, it would appear that Panrctius believed in the disso lution of the soul immediately after death. Is autcm an tin us,
;
meaning merely, we can see from the manner in which

Cicero
introduces
them.
He
it is here said, qui, si est kortint quatuvr gcnerum, ex quibus omnia const are dicuntur, ex in-
distinguishes Panastius, indeed, quite clearly from those Stoics qui ajuntanimosmanere. These are previously disposed of, and there then remain only two possible views, that of Plato and that of Panaatius that which maintains an endless duration of life after death, and that winch altogether de The same is evident nies it. even from the objections winch Cicero quotes from Panastius, he who especially the second represents souls as lasting till the conflagration of the world, must not base his denial of their unlimited existence on the argument that they become diseased, and therefore may also die, but on the view that they are not able to withdraw themselves from the fate of the whole: for they would suc
:
flammata
anima
const at,
lit
potissim u in videri video Pa iwtio, superiora capcssat necesse ext.
AiMl enlm
genera proni,
petunt.
hah
t >nt
litre
et siiprra
dun semner
procul a terris id ere nit
Ita, sire dissipantur, ; sire

et
permanent
crsse
est
connerranf Jmblmat/is
ii"-
turn sun in, lioc etiam
ferantur in e&liun, When Cicero here remarks that the view of Pamvtius con cerning the nature of the s ml being presupposed, we must admit that it is exalted to Heaven even in the event of its after being annihilated death/ the inference is that it was Pana-tius himself with whom he had found the doc
trine of such a dissolution of
the soul.
1
p.
96
Nemes. T)e Xat. JTom. navainos Se 6

:
c.
!">,
<pi\o(ro<pos
cumb, according
to his theory,
TV
/j.fv
(pccvririK^ TTJS
KaO
6p/uLi)u
HIS RELATION TO STOICISM.

The
first
l
of these theories is not of
much impor
CHAP.
III.
but the second, in the discrimination of from covens, presupposes a psychological dual ^rv^rj 2 Panseism, which is originally foreign to Stoicism.
tance
;
theory
it
tius here follows the Peripatetic doctrine, as in his are again reminded of of immortality.
We
3
in his ethics,
by the
division
of the virtues into

ffix
That he also departed from the severity of the Stoics and approximated to the view of the Academy and the Peripatetics, in his
theoretical
and
practical.
Ethics.
definition of the highest good, is not probable

Kivf](T(i)S
\eya)i>
4
;
fJiepos
eTvcu
able
how
far this
dependence
6pQ6rara, rb 5e Kbv ov -rfjs xf/i/xfys /jiepos aAAa Tertull. De An. TTJS D-ividitur autem \_anima] 14 in paries nunc in duas
<pu<rcos.
nunc in quinque
(to
Diels, Doxogr. 205, parallel passage in Theodoret, Cur. Gr. Aff. v. 20, adds ab Aristotelc) et in sex a Pancetw, Through Diel s luminous re
:
which from the
extends to details, and it is perfectly conceivable that here and in what follows he himself may first have given this unStoical meaning to the truly Stoic notion of the dominion of the \6yos (ratio) over the
6pfj.))
1
(temeritas).
Ritter(iii. 698) undoubtedly seeks too much in it. 2 The old Stoic psychology
the text, those are set at rest which Zietzschmann (De Tusc. Disp. Pant. 20 sqg.) connects with the reading of the manu Nunc in quinque et in scripts When this author sex a Pan. infers from Cic. Tusc. ii. 21, 47 (est enim animus in paries tributus duas, quarum altera rationis est particeps, altera expers) that Panaatius in his ethics followed the Platonic and Aristotelian distinction of a rational and irrational part of the soul, I cannot agree with him. Even if Cicero in this section holds to Panretius
storation
of
conjectures
from the
derives all practical activities ^yfôviKbv, and in its
materialism
;
has
no occasion
for the distinction of ^ U X^ aT1(^ the latter is rather sup posed to be changed into the former after birth (Phil. d. Gr.
<}>v<ns
III.
8
4
i.
197, 1).
vii. 92.
Diog.
Diogenes indeed maintains 6 /ieWoi Havainos (vii. 128)

:
Kal
TlocreiScavios
of>K
a
Kal xoptiyias.
vyieas Ka
this state in regard to Posidonius (ride proofs in Phil. d. Gr. III. i. p. 214, 2 216, 1) is decidedly
But as
ment
throughout,
it is still
question
false,
Tennemann (Gesckichic
;,s
ECLECTICISM.
though he perhaps emphasised more strongly the distinction between desirable things and things to h. rejected; and similarly the statement that he denied
1
the aTrdOsta of the wise, may lie traceable to tinfact that he brought out more clearly the difference
between the Stoic superiority over pain and the

Cynic insensibility to it. But we may, nevertheless, gather from these statements that he tried to soften the asperities of the Stoic ethics, and among the
possible views of their propositions, gave the preference to those which brought him least into
many
with the ordinary theory. 2 The same en deavour is also evinced by the tendency of his cele brated work on Duty, the prototype of that of Cicero
collision
for this
is
expressly designed, not for the perfected

pleasure according to nature is not inconsistent: but when we
Pli tl. iv. 382) is right in saying that we cannot trust to it in regard to l an;etius. According- to Plutarch (l)ctnoxtlt. 13), he tried to prove that Demosthenes held the KaXbr alone to be a 5i airro aiperbv all the less would he himself have
d.
understand by pleasure in tinnarrower sense the emotion of 7)801/77, it is like every emotion
contrary to nature. Of. Ibid.
218,
3.
III.
A. Gell.
yna-ia
xii.
">,
10
,SVY/
ai>a\-
doubted
it;
and Cicero says ex-
cnim atqnc
airdOeia
non
that he pressly (infra, p. 49, 2) did not. When Ritter (iii. 699) finds in the proposition (ap. Sext. Math. xi. 73) that there is not only a pleasure contrary to nature, but a pleasure accordin- to nature, a manifest deviation from the older Stoicism,
this fron\
weo
tfintitni, inqiiit,
</i/ori<>/-
dam etiam r.r cmlcm jtorticn jmidentwrum horn in ion

sicut>
judicio Pantrtii
cxt.
abj<>ct<uiu<
iinjirobata
cir-
This
is
seen frcm the

that,
iv.
cumstance
Cicero,
letter
Fin.
to
according to 9, 23, in the

dc
dolvre
seems questionable, both the passage itself and

(
L>1
Tubero
tin- ({notation in Phil. d. dr. The Stoic HI. i. p. ,sv/. doctrine is only that pleasure is a thing indifferent (o8iety>opo \ with which the theory of a
.)
he did not expressly declare that pain is not an evil, but only enquired: Quid exact etqtialt (jit ant unique in easet alieni, delude qiuc. ratio
/xtficndo,
,
ci>
esset perfercndi.
PAN&TIUS RELATION TO
1
STOICISM.
49
who are making progress in wisdom ; and for this reason it does not treat of the KaropOwâ, but only of the KaOrj/cov. Meanwhile, however, all this contains no real devia
1
wise man, but only for those
CHAP.
IL
tion from the Stoic ethics, and what we are otherwise told concerning the moral doctrines of Pansetius is in harmony with them. 2 His from the
divergences
traditional theology of his school were more consider able. It can only be the doctrine of Pansetius
Scsevola, puts forward (like 4 Varro 3 at a later period), when he says that there are three classes of of the gods, those
scholar,
His
theol 9y-
which his
Mucius
poets,
spoken by by the philosophers, and by the statesmen.

:
The
narratives of the poets concerning the gods are
absurd and unworthy fables they represent the gods as stealing, committing adultery, changing themselves into beasts, swallowing their own chil On the other hand, philosophic dren, &c. theology
full of
is
valueless to states (it does not adopt itself to a

1
This at least results from Cicero s exposition, Off. iii. 3, 13 sq. also ap. Sen. Ep. 116, 5, Panaetius would first of all give precepts for those who are not In reply to the quesyet wise. tionof a youth as to whether the wise man will fall in love, he says that they will both do better to keep themselves from such an agitation of the mind, as they are not yet wise men. For further details concerning the treatise of Panaetius see Phil. d. Gr. III. i. p. 273, 27G
;
sets forth the claim of life according to nature ap Cic

;
Off. iii. 3, 11 sq. 7, 34, he declares id soltim bomim, quod csset honestum; ap. Stob. Ecl.ii. 112,
;
he compares particular duties with marksmen aiming from

different
standpoints
at
the
same mark. What Cicero quotes (Off. ii. 14, 51) has also an
analogy (PJnl. d. Gr. Ill.i. 263) with ancient Stoics. The utterance in Off. ii. 17, 60 is truly Zenonian.
"the
S12
Ap. Clem. Alex. Sfrom.
ii.
416,
B; Stob.
Eel.
ii.
114, he
was doubtless Varro.
Cf. infra, chapter vii.Varro. According to Augustine, Cir. D. iv. 27, whose authority
4
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP.
public
religion),
for
it
contains
many
things the
knowledge of which
either superfluous or pn ju the people; under the latter category, dicial to Sc;rvola places the two propositions that many uf honoured as gods as Heracles, the
is
personages Êsculapius, the
Dioscuri
were
in
merely
human
are not beings, and the gods

1
appearance as they are represented, for the true God has no sex. no age, From this it naturally resulted 2 and no members. be regarded as that the religion could only
existing
a
service of public institution in the them order, and that the authors of it must regulate selves in their doctrine of the gods according to the
convenient
masses. power of comprehension in the do not know whether Pametius was the
3
Though we
first
to bring
forward this discrimination of a threefold

of the gods,
in
doctrine
we must
in
at
any
rate
assume that
his theology, as
that of the
it
men who
for
the
most part
adopted
Sc;evola,
Varro, and
Seneca
a thoroughly free attitude to the popular

:
and was justified religion found expression not known that either of them, is it
though
in
the
of myths, which was so allegorical interpretation with the Scoics and from which much in favour
1
philosophical tln-oloiry are unnecessary for the people,

silent,
Amoncr those portions of which
(!/
III.
i.
ill 7,
:>)
this
is
concerning which Augustine is we must reckon the

philosophic
doctrines,
defi-
treated :is bolmurin<r to the Stoics universally; but the Stoic whom the author of the I hn-ita hero takes his
i
n>m
purely
incomprehensible to him. Yarn* says this more

nitely.
5
oxen-pi can only have belonged to the later period, which is also indicated by the appeal to
Pluto,
i.
0, 3.
In the Placita
(cf. Phil. d.
PANsETIUS RELATION TO STOICISM.

no Stoic could ever entirely escape, went beyond the most general determinations. Pansetius placed
1
61
CHAP.
himself in open opposition to the Stoic tradition, on a point which the school was accustomed to con
sider of the highest importance
namely, in his
dis
of soothsaying, mentioned above: 2 herein, he seems to have accepted the criticism of Carnebelief
ades. 3
We
cannot, however, on this account convict
him
of desertion from the Stoic principles, 4 since 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
philosophers he un tends to an understanding with points of mistakably view regarding which Stoicism had hitherto been
the
earlier
accustomed to maintain a purely hostile position. 6

1
Vide
325,
Phil.
d.
Or.
III.
d.
with which cf. the quotations from Varro, infra

p.
Gr. III. i. 340, 1, and snpra, that he alone among the Stoics positively discarded,
p. 42, 1)
chap.
2
vi.
end.
this
at
any
3
rate, astrological sooth-
point the testimonies are not quite unanimons. Diogenes (vii. 149) says simply: avvTr6(TTarov avr-^v
\_TTIV /xaz/TJK7?j/]
fyi]<n.
Even on
saying.
Cic. Dirin. i. 7, 12: omittat wcjere Carneades, qiwd facicbat etiani Pantcting requirens, Jupplterne cornicem a la-va, corvum db dextcra canere jussisset.
Cf.
Quare
Epiphan.
/uiavreias
c.
H<cr.
III. 2, 9
TT)S
On the other hand. Cicero says, Divin. i. 3, 6: Nee tamen. answs est negare vim csse divinandi, sed dubitare se dlxit. Similarly
/COT
ovSev
7re<rTpe</>eTo.
Epiphanius
is
entirely in
the wrong when he adds, after the words quoted in the previous note nal TO, irepl Of&v
:
Arad.
ii.
33, 107.
Meanwhile
we
see from Dirin. i. 7, 12, that he propounded his doubts from pretty decidedly, and Di-vin. ii. 42, 88 47, 97 (cf Phil,
;
.
\zy6fj.eva avypei. eAe-ye yap <p\-r]vafyov flvai rbv irepl Oeov \6yov.
5
Supra,
p. 42, 2.
Some other opinions quoted
from Panactius are unimportant
K 2
52
ECLECTICISM.
That Pansetius,
is
CHAP
III.
in
adopting this mode of thought,
Contem
poraries and (hxand
j)lc.t
Paw
Hera-
of
among the Stoics of that time, not only by what we have seen above of proved, the deviations of Boethus from the Stoic doctrine, but also by what we are told of his fellow disciples,
Heraclides and Sosigenes.
Stoic
faults;
did not stand alone
tins.
The former opposed the

equality
is
proposition
1
concerning the
like others,
of
all
elides.
the
latter,
said
to
have
attempted, not without inconsistencies, to combine the Aristotelian theory of the mingling of substances with that of Chrysippus. 2 we know nothing
P>ut
further of either of these contemporaries of Pan;etius. In his own school we may suppose that the con
ception
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
ac
quainted with the names of many of his numerous 3 Posidonius is the only one disciples, concerning
far as his character as a Van philosopher is concerned. mentions Lynden (72 amoiiL;- these his opinion re ( specting comets (Sen. ^\ vii. :0, 2); his theory that At tica, on account of its healthy
so
gard to the mixture, for which

cf. Phil, t/.fir. III.
rii/es
}
2(\
/,/.} ol
3e
.</.)
avTuv,
T<J>V
T I]S
ApirrTorehovs
<tt.
>u.
TroAAa
irepl
So^Tjy ixrrepoi aKovrrai Suvrjdfj/Tes, fiptju.fi a:^ VTT e /ieiVou
Kpdrrews
na.1
aurol Xtyavcriv.
.
climate, produced (1 rocl. in Tim.

~>()
<:,
Plato,
Tim. 21,
<-.)
gifted men I elhuvinu: the state

:
Ai>Tnra.Tpov(r\
ll ul
IlJ.i. p. 4S).
/one inhabited (Aeh. Tat. IKII;/. J ehir. Ifiictr. Temp. iii.

torrid
(
ment that the
is
in
Jt>).
Diog
Alux.
vii.
121.
IF.
they could not, on ace iint of their other presupposit ions follow Aristotle entirely(this serins the sense of the imperfect text), thev fell into contradictions.
:)
Because
Aplir.
fj.ieus
M2,
after
re-
Amonjr
these: the
a.
m.
Of
the
ol
Stoics
7i:unex
should
following be mentioned:
Chrysijipus,
^v
XIWITITT^W
(l)drecks:
Athens,
esareh
u s, of
(especially in
who
had also heard
SCHOOL OF PANÊTIUS.
whose opinions we possess any details. Of the suc cessor of Pansetius, Mnesarchus, we can only conAntipater, the Pan;ctius (Cic. IJe Or at. i. 11, 45 cf. 18, 83 2nd. Here. Comp. Col. 51, 4 ; 78, 5 Epit. Diog.Gi. Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 33, 2), who likewise heard
III.
63
CHAP.
Diogenes and
of
73).
successor
Damocles of Messene (iW^.76,4).DemetriustheBi;
thynian (IJiog. v. 84 Ind. Here. Col. 75), with whom his father
Athens (Cic. Acad. Numen. ap. Bus. Pr. 22, 69 xiv. 9, 2 ; quoting from him Eii.
Antiochus in
i.
;
Diphilusis also mentioned as Stoic. To him belong, as it ap pears, the two epigrams in Ana
thol.Gr.ii.64,Jac. Dionysius of Gyrene, a great geometrician (Ind. Here. 52). Georgius of Lacedaemon (Ind. Here. 76, 5). Hecato of Rhodes, whose
treatise on Duties, dedicated to Tubero, is quoted by Cicero, Off. iii. 15, 63 23, 89 sqq. B rom the same treatise, if not from a separate work of his own on
;
Augustin. Cicero (l.v.
c.
Acad.
Fin.
iii.
i.
cf.
2,
him and Dardanus tvmprinStoicowm. From Ind. ci/tes

Here.
Col.
it
18, 40). 6) calls
51, 53, 78, cf. Epit. follows that Darda Uiof/., nus was likewise an Athenian and a disciple of Diogenes,
Antipater, and Panretius. As he was at the same time called the successor of Panaetius, he would seem to have conducted the school in common with Mnes archus. Their successor- was
Benevolence, Seneca seems t have taken the greater part 01 what he quotes from him (Sen.
Benef.
iii.
i.
3,
;
ii.
18,
;
vi.
37,
18, 2, 21, 4; 1 Ep. 6, 7 ;

;
6,
9, 6.
Several other works,
probably (as Zumpt supposes, Abh. d. Berl.Acad. Hist. Phil.

Kl. 1842, p. 105)
some
of
them comprehensive,
rus
of Athens, whom Cicero describes as a contemporary of Zeno the Epicurean (N. 1). i. 34, 93) and the Ind. Here. Col. 53, names among the disciples of Pametius, but who is to be distinguished from the Seleucian before mentioned, with whom Zumpt confuses him. His leadership of the school must have fallen in the beginning of the first century, and perhaps even began before the end of the second. Apollonius of
Apollodo-
are quoted by Diogenes (see his Index), who, according to the epitome (in which Rose rightly substitutes E/cor. for
his
had dedicated to him The BiNicander and thynians Lyco(Ind. Here. 75. 5 76, 1). Mnasagoras (Epit. D). Param on us of Tarsus (Ind.
Kara;!/),
own biography.
Here. 74, 77). Pausanias of Pontus (ibid. 76, 1). Plato

of
Rhodes
(Diog.
iii.
109).
Posidonius (vide infra). Sosus of Ascalon (Ind. Hero. De Urb. 75, 1 Steph. Byz.
;
Kysa, in Phrygia, ruv Tiavairiov yvcopi^v #/H(TTos(Strabo, xiv. 1, 48, p. 650), of whom nothing
f urth
c;r
Atr/c.),
whom
doubtless the same after Antiochus of Ascalon,
the Academician, had

treatise (infra, p. 86, 2).
named a
Perhaps
is
known.
Asclepio-
d o t u s, of Nicuja ( I/id. Here. Col.
after the death of Pancetius he
ECLECTICISM.
jecture that the Stoicism which his pupil Antiochus (vide i lifra) found it so easy to combine with the
had still belonged to the school of Mnesarchus and Dardanus, (which Antiochus also visited), Sot as as an older member. of 1 aphos (Ind. Here. 75, 1). Stratocles of Rhodes, de scribed by Strabo (xiv. 2, p. 655) as a Stoic, and by the Intl. Here. 17, 8, cf. 71), as a disciple of Pametius and author of a work on the Stoic school. T i in odes of Knosos or Cnii:>,
-102).
Concerning Scylax of
Halicarnassus, celebrated as an
astronomer and politician, we learn from Cic. JUrin.u. 42, SS, that he was a friend of Pametius, and, like him, an opponent of astrology. That lie belonged
to the school of the Stoies, is not, however, said. In regard to Nestor of Tarsus, it is not quite clear whether he was a fellow disciple or a disciple of
dus (Ind. Here. 7(5, 2). Ant idotus also appears to have belonged to the school of Pametius or Mnesarchns, as,
a -cording to Tnd. Ilere.Col. 7D, Antipaterof Tyre, seems at rirst
to have been his disciple and of the afterwards disciple Also the poet AnStratocles. tipater of Sidon (J)ior/. iii,
time.
Pametius, or lived at a later Strabo(xiv. 514. p. r,74)
mentions him after Anlipater and Arehedemus and befnre the two Athenodori (discussed infra, p, 71); the Epitome of Diogenes, side by side with Dardanus and other disciples of Diogenes of Seleucia, before
Antipater.
Antholfxjy contains many epigrams (ride Anthol. dr. xiii. SKI), Jacob. belongs to the generation after ana-tius According to !icero (l)e Orat. iii. 50, 15)4) he was
Hi)),
1 (
of
whom
the
according to
the other hand, neroh. Lucian, 21, the Stoic Nestor of Tarsus, had been the teacher of Ti berius, which, as a contempo
On
already
known about
1)2
15.
c.,
and
living; autlior refers to his life (l)e

I)
still
and the same
an event in :5, 5), which Posidonius would seem to have

Fu1<>,
quoted.
mus, or Theotimus, must have been a con

lot
i
temporary, or a lit lie later; the same who, according to Jtioy. letters x. H, forged immoral with the name of Epimrus same person (])criia]is also the that is quoted by Sext. Mut //. vii. 140): for, according to Athen. he was executed for xiii. (511, this at the instance of Xeno the
/>,
rary of Pametius, in spite of the ninety-two years life here attributed to him, he could not possiblv have been. We might conjecture that the so-called Lucian had mistaken the Stoic Nestor for the philosopher of the Academy of the same name (mentioned 7////Y/, p. 102, 1), the of Marcel lus (who teacher may also have instructed Tibe rius), and that the Stoic was a contemporary of Pana tius. Between Nestor and Dardanus the J !])i~tome introduces a
l>a-
silides.
probably
This, however, was not the teacher of
Marcus
via.) but
Aurelius
(infra,
cli.
Epicurean (Phil.
d.
dr.
III.
i.
an otherwise unknown
SCHOOL OF PANJETIUS.
doctrine of the that doctrine in
65
Academy already approximated to and that his own exposition of it

l ;
CHAP.
III.
his views resembled those of his master
on other
which this is expressly points besides psychology, of Of Hecato, we know that he considerably stated. 2 from the strict ethical doctrine of the Stoics
departed
of the school of Dio genes; for the former could not have been placed here, and was no doubt earlier than the source of the Stoic biographies Besides the of the Laertian. Greeks, there were the Romans whom Pametius had for dis
member
we hear in De Orat. 78 (supposed date 91 who of two Balbi B.C.), were Stoics, one of these must
therefore,
21,
iii.
of ciples in Rome, and some them also perhaps afterwards in Athens. The most important of these, Q. ^lius Tubero, S c as v o 1 a , Q.
be meant together with a third Besides of the same name, these the Ind. Here. Col. 74 names the Samnites Marcius which latter and Nysius
;
introduced
the
<nrou8ai6TaToi
Mucius
(in distinction from the (r7roi5aibi) as a separate class. 1 Nothing else has ever been
Fannius, P. Rutilius quoted from him except an Rufus, L. Êlius, M. Vi- utterance against unphilosophiMummius, cal rhetoric (ap. Cic. De Orat. gellius, Sp. have been already named i. 18, 83), a logical observation Further we (ap. Stob. Eel. i. 436), and a (supra, p. 10 sq.). may mention: A certain Pi so, of definition of God (ibid. 60). whom we know nothing more These passages contain nothing
C.
(Jnd.Hcrc. Col.7, 6), butaccording to the theory of Comparetti he was the L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, who was consul in 133 B.C. Sextus Pompejus
;
divergent
2
from
the
general
Stoic doctrine.
Galen, H. PHI. 20 (Diels, Doxoqr. 615) Mf^crapxos Se TTJI/

:
~2,T<aiKu>v
inro\rj\l/iv
e-jriKpivcav
TO
rf/s
(Cic.
De
Orat.
1.
c.
and
i.
15, 67
(/cat
add. D.) rb
s
(nrep-
Brut. 47, 175; Off.
i. 6, 19; Philipp. 12, 11, 27), a distin guished authority on civil law, geometry, and the Stoic philo
ravra
jiij
sophy; andL. Lucilius Balbus (De Orat. iii. 21, 78 Brut.

:
42, 154) ; for that the two last owed their Stoicism to Panre-
tius
On the is most probable. other hand, Q. Lucilius Balbus (Cic. N. D. 6, 15) seems to be too young for this. When,
add. D. p. 206) juerexetv (Panaatius did not reckon it accord ing to p. 46, 1, supra, as be M 6 ? 7? T ^ s longing to the fyvxris cf~ndTJ /uJj/oi/ rb \oyinbv Kal Tb ai(rQi]TiK6v, the latter being naturally again divided into the rive senses, with which we come back to Panastius six faculties of the soul.
<^
</>ix^?)>
ECLECTICISM.
CRAP,
_
in
its
application to individual details;
in
this
;
respect he was certainly anticipated by Diogenes but tradition tells us nothing further of these philo
sophers.
Posido711 M.S
.
Rather more has been communicated to us

2
re
specting Posidonius, Apamea, long activity seems to have extended over, or nearly 4 A disciple over, the first half of the first century.
Gr. III. i. 2f.3, 2. Poxldoni llliodii licLeiden, LS10 liquice Doetrinte Muller, Prat/ in. Hixt. (fr/ec. iii. 245 sqq. Scheppig, lh- Posid. Apain. liermii Gentium Terrarum Serif) tore: Sondersh. 18(59.
1
a Syrian of
whose
PMl.
d.
one, or the most

5e
K.a.1
known
eVi
P>ake,
(is
Pd>/nrji J
Map/cou
Strabo, xiv.
2,
;
2,
;
liJ,
p.
65.")
MaoKeAAou), and thus shows himself (as in the statement discussed sujtra, p. 41, 2) to be imperfectly informed as to Posidonius and partly because we should necessarily expect to
;
xvi.
10,
252, c. buidas,
4
At/ten, vi. p. 753 Lucian, Macrub. 2U

;
find some trace of his presence in Rome in Cicero, all of whose
sul>
rocf.
philosophical
More precise information
we do not possess. Three data may be made the basis of an

calculation (1) that Posidonius was the dis (2) that lie ciple of Panjetius lived to be eighty- four years old (Lucian, 1. c.} and that,
writings, and a great part of his letters, were written at a later time. Per
approximate
haps the circumstance that under M. Marcellus the league of the Rhodians with Rome was renewed (Lentulus, in Clc.
ail
Fainil.
xii.
15)
possibly,
(l>)
according to Suidas, he came to Home under the consulate Ac of M. Marcellus (51 K.C.).
and subêcordingly Hake, quontly almost all the authorities, believe that he was born in 135 B.C. and died in 51 u.c. But the statement of Suidas
(notwithstanding Scheppig, p. 10) seems to me suspicious; partly because it is not probable that osid tiiius as an old man of more than eighty years journeyed a seeond time to Rome; partly because Suidas speaks as it this visit of Posi donius to Koine were the only
1
however, a merely clerical error- may have caused the journey which occurred in the last consulate of Maritis (ii/frti, under p. 57, 2) to be placed
that of Marcelius.
p.
M filler
(I.e.
245) believes Posidonius to have been ten years younger than he is represented accord ing to the ordinary theory, lie bases this partly on the asser tion of Athen. xiv. ()57,/., that 15. vii.. said that he Strab>,
had known Posidonius; partly on Strabo, xvi. 2, p. 753 TIJJ.IIS (f)L\o(FlorreiS. TUV KaQ
1<,
ff6<p&v
Tro\v/j.aOe(TTaTos)
i.,
partly
on Pint. Jinit.
where some-
POSIDONIUS.
of Panrctius,
1
67
he
also visited the countries of the

2
CHAP.
III.
West, as
thing
is
far as Grades,
but not to seek a sphere
for his
which
quoted from Posidonitis seems to have been
written after Cresar s death. But the last is not correct; the quotation from Posidonius contains no allusion to Cwsar s murder. From the Ko0 riâs we
well as the latter statement. It relates, perhaps, not to a passage in the last part of Strabo s seventh book, but to
c.
3,
4,
p.
297
or
(t
c.
re &v
5,
8,
e/Tre
TIo<Ti8(t>vi.os),
p.
can only infer at most that the lifetime of Posidonius had touched that of Strabo, which would also have been the case if Posidonius had died in 50 B.C. Meantime Wyttenbach in Bake, p. 263 sq., shows that the
expression
316, where a report of Posi donius is quoted concerning an event that occurred in his period of office, which an inaccurate
recollection might have repre sented to Athenoeus as an oral
communication. But if the two statements which occa

sioned the death of Posidonius to be placed in or before 51 B.C.,
even
sense.
is not seldom used, by Strabo in a wider The ac (uaintance of
Strabo with Posidonius may still be held without placing the death of Posidonius much beyond 50 B.C. For as Strabo
(ritlc
infra, p. 73, w.)
went
to
as a boy before the year 44, perhaps (as Scheppig, p. 11 sq thinks, agreeing with Hasen-Miiller, De Strait. Vita, 18) in 46-7, or even in 48 B.C., he might possibly have seen the Ehodian philosopher in his later days. Scheppig there fore places his birth in 130 B.C. and his death in 46 B.C. Even
,
Rome
concerning his visit to Rome under Marcellus and his meet both ing with Stiabo, are uncertain, the possibility is not excluded that he may have been born some years before 135 B.C. and may have died before 51 B.C.
1
Cic.
i.
3, 6;
iii. Divin. 2, 8 Of. Suid. vide siqwa, p. 41,

;
2.
2 The traces of this journey are preserved in Strabo s quo tations from Posidonius. here see that Posidonius re mained a long time in Spain, especially at Gades (iii. 1, 5,
We
on
this
assumption
sufficient
p.
138;
c.
5,
7-9, p. 172, 174;
time would not be found for the instruction which Posido nius received from Panretius. It is therefore questionable whether we can depend upon the statement of Athenams. This statement occurs at the same place where Athenrcus also maintains that Posidonius had been with Scipio in Egypt
(supra,
p.
from thence he coasted along the African

xiii. 1, 66, p.
614");
shores to Italy
3,
4,
(iii. 2,
xvii.
p.
144,
827);
that
he
visited
198), Liguria (iii. 3, 18, p. 165), Sicily (vi. 2, 7, p. 273), the Lipari islands (vi. 2, 11, p. 277), the east coast of the Adriatic
5, p.
Gaul
(iv. 4.
40,
5),
and
may
be founded upon a mistake as
Sea (vii. 5, 9, p. 316). That he did not neglect this opportunity of visiting Rome may be taken
58
ECLECTICISM.
2 Khodes, where lie was so completely naturalised that he is frequently called a Ixhodian. 3 His name attracted numerous scholars,
l
CHAP.
III.
teaching
this
he found
in
and especially Eomans

himself
therefore, although he never
taught in
reckoned among
Koine, the men
spread of the Stoic

for granted.
he must certainly be who did most for the 4 philosophy among the Komans
;
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 Home (Pint. known to his Roman readers Mar. 45), while, on the other cf., for example, X. I), i. 44, \miili(iris onuriidii mishand, the supposed visit in the 123 year 51 seems to me, as I have tram PoxiffoHiitx. He himself had heard him in Rhodes (1 lut. shown, improbable. At any rate, we have not Cic. 4 Cic. J\ J). i. 3, G Tuxc. the slightes intimation of such ii. 25, Gl Ue Futo, 3, 5 Jtrut. a design. The chief purpose 01, 316), and kept up a con of this journey rather con stant connection with him G Lt f/inntx tn/ncn sisted, as far as we can gather, (-Z V/i. i. 2, in geographical and historical Diof/i neui, &c., in jtrimixijuc The date seems familiart iii imstruin investigation. to be the beginning of the first miun). In the year i;.c. he century, soon after the war sent Posidonius the memorial with the Cimbri cf. S;rabo, of his consulate to revise, but vii. 2, 2, 203. For further con Posidonius declined the propo sition, as the memorial could jectures, vide Scheppig, p. 4 aqq. At what time he went to gain nothing by it (Ay;. Att. Rhodes and what induced him ii. 1). This is the last definite to settle there, we are not told date in the life of l\idonius. but as the journey in the west Previously Pompey had made must have consumed several the acquaintance of the philo years, it is to be supposed that sopher, and given him repeated lie only commenced his activity proofs of his estt-em (.Strabo,
;
: 1 ;
.
l\>*icli>-
5!>
<t<l
as a teacher subsequently. 3 Athen. vi. 252, c Luc. Macrob. 20 Suid. From Luc.
:
;
xi.
1,
C),
42; Cic.
vii.
7W.
him,
<:.)
p.
4J>2 ;
riut.
Pomp.
/.
c.;
Plin. //. ,V.
7.
G55 Mar. 45; }). we find that he received the llhodian citizenship, and filled public oflices even that of a
c.
;
Stnibo, xiv.
2, 13, p.
visit
112). to
1.
The story of Pompey s which Cicero

cites as
vii. 5, 8,
31(5; Pint.
(Titsr.
proof
of
Stoic
is
fortitude
under
sufferings, was also acquainted with
well known.
He
the
Try tan is.

4
We
can at once perceive
older disciple of Pametius, Itutilius llufus (Cic. Off. iii. 2, 10).
POSIDONIUS.
even at a later period he was regarded as one of the first Stoic authorities, and his numerous writ2 ings were among the scientific works most read.
1
CHAP.
!
In his conception of Stoicism, Posidonius follows His

in the
plrilo-
main the tendency of his teacher Panastius. In critical acuteness and freedom of spirit he stands
3
indeed as far behind Panaetius

in erudition
4
;
as
he excelled him
and he consequently did not oppose

xvi. 2, 17, p. 755). What Scheppig (p. 42 sq.} observes in his
him
21
;
Seneca repeatedly names as such (Ep. 33, 4; 104, 108, 38), together with
;
defence
Hie,
is
not convincing to
T
Chrysippus, and Panastius and in Ep. DO, 20, he says of him Posidonius, id mea
Zeno,
:
and when he says that the
fcrt opinio, t x his, q?d plurimum philosophic contulerunt. 2 Concerning the writings known to us, cf Bake, 235 sqq. on the geo Miiller, 248 sq. graphical and historical writ There ings, Scheppig, 15 sqq. are more than fifty of them, s me of them extensive works.
.
with w hich Posidonius appropriates the most fabulous narratives about fulfilled pro phecies does not signify much, he forgets that a person who accepts the most improbable
facility
stories
without competent au
What a mine of knowledge and learning the later authors pos sessed in them, we see from the numerous quotations in Cicero, Strabo, Seneca, Plutarch, Athe
na? as,
et
thority cannot possibly be a critical investigator of history. 4 There is but one voice among the ancient authorities concerning the comprehensive learning of Posidonius. Strabo
(xvi.
2,
10, p.
753) calls
him
and
says
1
;
Galen
Galen {De ffippocratis
(De Hippocr.
652 #)
:
Platonis Placitis), Diogenes, &c. But, no doubt, much besides has been trans without acknowledg ferred ment to other expositions. 3 Posidonius shows himself, as we shall find, very credulous,
Stobrcus,
vol. v.
et Plat. viii. Tlocrfidwvios o

reav
Sia
TO
yeyv/uLvdffdai
Kara
7eo>-
/nfrpiav.
His
is
4,
knowledge
also
of
geometry Galen (iv.
praised by p. 390). Stray por
not merely in his defence of soothsaying, but in other cases where he accepts fabulous statements too easily, for which Strabo occasionally censures him (ii. 3, 5, p. 100, 102; iii. 2, 9, 147; iii. 5, 8, 173; cf. also
tions of his geometrical works in Proclus are to be found
(Bake, p. 178 xqq. Friedlein s Index}. A proof of his as tronomical knowledge is the globe of the heavens, which Cicero describes, N. D. ii. 34, 88.
;
Of his geographical enquiries
60
CHAP.
III.
ECLECTICISM.
the tradition of his school with the same indepen dence as his master did. In regard to several imO portant points in which Panrctius deserted the old
Stoic doctrine, Posidonius returned to
it.
He
held
to the
dogma
and he added
of destruction of the world by fire; 1 some further arguments and theories
to the ingenious devices invented by his predecessors for the defence of soothsaying 2 for he ascribed a
:
(Bake, 87
sqq.)
s<iq.
we
have
Scheppig, 15 evidence in
Strabo s numerous quotations. Concerning the enquiries into natural history which lie com bined with his geographical
descriptions,
infra, p. mass of historical 62, 3. must have lain in knowledge the great historical work, the 49th book of which is quoted
vide-
allow so much space external to the world, as would be neces sary for the, world s KTrvpu<ris.
The
contrary
statement
in
Philo, JElcrii. in the passage

p. 44,
1,
Mundi, where,
quoted
x/i/tra,
was read (previously
to Iternays correction), instead of RorjQbs o SiSî/toy, Eo-r}9. Kal

nocrtScovios,
is
nullilied
bv this
text,
by Athemeus,
iv.
108
d.
This
work treated
of the clusion
of
books period from the con

in fifty-two
s
restoration of the true wliich also does away Hirzel s objections (( nti
i.
with
r*.
zit,
Polybius history For (11(5 H.c.) to 88 B.C. further details, ride Bake, p. 133 *y/y., 218 *qq.; Miiller, 21 J
.
$<}<[.
225 sqq.~) to my exposi Clc. tion of the theory of Posido

nius.
Further details will be found in the passages quoted,

Phil. d.
(rr. 111.
i.
Scheppig,
vii.
1
2-1
Diog
*qq. 12: irepl

TT}S
:5i57,
1.
We
5?;
ovv
T?is ysveffeoos Kzl

K6cr/j.oi>
(pdopus rov
fjiev
tprjcrl
"Lrjvwv
eV
eV
T<
TTSpl
0\OV,
T<2y
XpyCTlTTTTOS
TS
TtpuTui VLOS eV
(puiTLKcay Kal YloafLûi-
ir^rwTfo Trepi KOffôu, ê. Tlai/aiTios- 5 apBaprov aTrei^rji/aro

T(Jj/
a separate and comprehensive book that he sought to establish belief in

also
in
;
there learn treated of in the 2nd \6-yos, but
that Posidonius had prophecy not only
book of
his
<j)vcriKbs
KOIJUIV.
Tiiat in these
w>>rds
not niM-iilythe discussion, but the ass.;rti )ii, of the, beginning world is and destruction of ascribed t Posidonius, is sulfth"
and to explain its possibility more particularly by other argum uits (ihid-. III. i. :J:5 .),
it,
(
:ni,
:-}
;
;M:J,
r>)
that
his
]>ro-
acce])t;ui ;e
of
ful tilled
ovident.
this
thai
jjis
In
iii
coniirnrition
of
ilie
stafi
;nt
we
liave
was just as uncritical as his predeces sors Antipater and Chrvsippus
phecies and dreams
remark
I
(I lut.
is;
I
1
P/ti".
ii. .), 1} /;//.?.)
deviating from pre jojs.S ^rs, would only

i.iius,
To (ibid. III. i. :i:ii), 5). in Iced, is to be referred

ibid.
II.
i.
him,
fcf.
337,
1)
the
en-
DOCTRINES OF POSIDONIUS.
value to this belief that might incline us to consider
01
CHAP.
III.
him not merely a Stoic but a Syrian Hellenist. The belief in demons was also taken under his protec
tion
support of a belief in pro the immortality of the soul, 2 which phecy ; likewise But on the whole he is, in Pansetius had opposed.
utilised in
l
and
his
mode
Panaetius.
of thought, unmistakably the disciple of 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 doctrine of prophecy in the 1st book of Cicero s treatise De Divination e. 1 Cf. Phil. d. Gr.lll. 310,2; 320, 3 Cic. J9m;i. i. 30, 64 Trilns
; :
existence of immortal souls generally has no ground for
immortal.
modi* censet (Posid.) Dcorum adpulsu homines somniare : lino qvod provideat animus ipse per sese, qnip2)e qui Deortim cognatione tencatur,
plains aer
sit
morum,
imriynita
in
altero qvod immortalium aniqiiilnts tamqtiam

voritatis
denying human souls to be But we also learn from Cicero (L c. c. 31, 63 sq.) that Posidonius maintained that dying persons had the gift of prophecy because (for there is no doubt that this argu ment also belongs to him) the soul which even in sleep de taches itself from the body, and thus is rendered capable
of looking into futurity, multo magis faciet jwst mortem, citm omnino corpore excessefit. Ita-
not a;
ad-
parcant, tertio, quod ipsi Di cum dormwntilrug conloquantur. 2 Hirzel ( Unters. zu Cio. i. 231 sq.~) indeed thinks that as Posidonius like Panaatius disbelieved in the conflagration of the world,
so like him he must have entirely denied the doctrine of immor But even if this were tality.
qve adpt opinguante morte multo eat divinior. As, moreover, it has never been said in any quarter that Posidonius doubted the
though
not in itself unnecessary, the conjecture is wholly excluded when it has been shown that Posidonius entertained no doubt of the conflagration of the world. Posidonius belief in
demons would already pre dispose him to believe in a future life (until the end of the world) for he who allows the
;
the soul after death, Cicero especially had every opportunity of asserting it, we have not the slightest ground for the assumption. But whether we are justified in going still farther, and as cribing to him the Platonic doctrine of the eternity of the soul will be discussed infra,
life
of
p. 67, 4.
3
Phil. d. Gr. III.
i.
62, 1.
62
ECLECTICISM.
itself
CHAP,
was already likely to cause a certain indiffer ence to dogmatic controversies. The adornment of
general intelligibility of discourse had also for Posidonius a value which they had not for the older Stoics he is not merely a
s P QQC
His
lore of
and
the
rhetorlc.
philosopher but a rhetorician, and even in his scien tific exposition he does not belie this character. If,
1
Erudition,
he excelled most philosophers in learning, there lay therein an attempt to work, even in philo sophy, rather on the surface than in the depths
lastly,
Natural
science.
cannot be gainsaid that he was inclined to ignore the difference between philosophic enquiry and erudite knowledge. 2 If the interest in natural
and
it
was stronger in him than was usual in the o Stoic school, this circumstance might also contribute to tarnish the purity of his Stoicism, and to bring
sc i e nce
him nearer
1
to the Peripatetics. 3
His admiration
no(Tei5c6i/tos
û.eraAAcoi
Cf. Strabo, iii. 2, 9, p. 147: 5e TO TrXijOos T&V
(in Spain) tiraivuv

TT/S
/ecu
TV
iria
ctperV OVK airex^rai

p-rjTopelas,
<rvv-
even the mechanical arts were invented by the philosophers of the (iolden age. Perhaps he is responsible also for what Strabo
1
T?0ous
aAAa
crvvcvBov-
TCUS
u7rep/3oAa?s.
Even the
that as philosophy is the knowledge of things human

says,
i.
1,
fragments we possess are sometimes ornate in style, but alwavs well written, and show no trace of the tasteless mode of exposition delighting mostly in the form of scholastic inference employed by Xeno and
Chrvsippus.
-
anddivine(
;>),
PliiJ
.</ .v
8S,
According to Seneca, Ep. 21, 24, he reckoned mathc-
avTcp (Strabo is speaking primarily of his geographical
work)
KCU TO apiaToreXiôv,
ol
T?;J
tiirep
rnatics
and
all
liberal
arts
^KK\ IVOV(TIV
Stoics)
airily.
Sta
ri/j-frepoi
tTi
(the
under Seneca, philosophy. Ep. IK), 7 at///., combats the which Posidonius statement
iKpvfyiv
ruv
Some
had
tried
to
establish
that
rowi d by stotle are given by Simplicius
])articulars borPosidonius from Ari-
DOCTRINES OF POSIDONIUS.
for
G3
Plato
of Panoetius)
was just as great (after the example and in his commentary on the
;
CHAP.
III.
2 we may well suppose that he tried to the Stoic doctrine with the Platonic. Even combine
Timseus,
his
agreement with Pythagoras is of consequence in 3 and Democritus himself is reckoned by him among the philosophers 4 to which the earlier Stoics would have demurred on account of the re
his eyes
;
;
lation of
Democritus to Epicurus. 5
m. (from Geminius
Hence it
is
mani-
Phys. 64,
b.
abstract of his Meteorology.) Schol. in De catlo, 309, b, 2 Alex. Aphr. Arist. 517, a, 31 Meteorol. 116, a, o. 1 Galen, Hipp, et Plat. iv. 7, Kairoi Kal rov UXdrowos 421 6av/JLa(TTws ypdtyavros, ws Kal 6
TiocreiStovios /jidfav
eTno-rj/icuVeTcu
Bav-
rbv avfipa Kal Qslov O.TCOKaAe?, ws Kal irpeffftevwv avrov TO. re TTfpl TO)I/ ira9wi/ 56y/u.ara Kal TO. irepl rcav rf/s ^/ix^s Swduecav, &c. Posid. ibid. v. 6, p. 472 wo-n-ep 6
:
HXdroov ^/xas
2
e5t 5a|e.
vii.
Sext. Math.
93
Plut.
Procr. An. 22, p. 1023;
Theo
of the passage in Math. iv. 2 sqq. shows, does not belong to the citation from Posidonius. Also the remark in Theo Smyrn. Z. c., that day and night correspond with the even and uneven, manifestly taken from the com mentary on the Timseus, can only serve to give a physical sense to the Plat onicutterances, and therefore can prove nothing in regard to Posidonius own adhesion to the Pythagorean number system. Hitter iii. 701. 4 Sen. Ep. 90, 32. 5 His eclecticism would have gone still further if Posidonius
really, as Ritter,
iii.
Smyrn.
;
De MRS.
c.
46, p. 162,
Bull. Hermias in Phcedr. p. 114, Ast., if a commentary on the
Phsedrus of his own is not here referred to. That he perhaps wrote a commentary on the
had derived Greek philosophy from Oriental tradition. This,

not correct in so a sense he merely Democritus that his of atoms was taken supposed Phoanician philosopher Mochus(P7Z.d. Gr. I. 765), but this tells nothing as to the philosophical tendency of Posidonius, but only as to his deficiency in historical
702, says,
however,
is
Parmenides has already been

observed, supra, p. 43, 1. 3 Galen, Z. c. iv. 7, p. 425 v. What Plutarch, I. c., 6, p. 478. quotes from Posidonius (ride Phil, d Gr. II. i. 659, 1) belongs to the exposition of the Timaaus,
;
universal said of doctrine from the
not direcMy to his own theory and the Pythagorean opinion ap. Sext. Z. c., as the comparison
;
criticism,
which
is
abundantly
attested by Cicero
and Strabo.
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP.
III.
he must necessarily have approximated the other systems to Stoicism, and Stoicism to the other A special opportunity for this seems to systems.
fest that
have been afforded to him, as to his contemporary Antioclms (vide infra)) by the polemic against In order to repel the accusations scepticism.
which were derived from the

sophic systems,
it
1
conflict of the philo
was asserted that in the main
It does not appear, however, they were agreed. that he allowed himself many departures in material our sources, at respects from the ancient Stoicism
:
IRs
anthro
pology.
any only mention one important divergence, his 2 Whereas the Stoic doc Platonising anthropology.
rate,
trine, in opposition to that
of Plato
and
Aristotle,
denied a plurality of 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 lie found explained in reference to one principle.
it,
like Plato, inconceivable that

is
reason should be
the cause of that which

the passions
1
3
;
and he believed that the
contrary to reason and of fact of our

definiti ns, though they douhtless co itaiu many amplitica-
To
this the
8
sage refers
So/ceT
(Dio
avrots
67Ti
oAoi/
TW
\6y(f>
TOVTW
ws
Ttns
TTpO/ecu
ruv
(f>ii(TLi>
fiiov,
tions rectifications of the earlier theories, tell us nothing of any departure from the Stoic doctrine in connection
an<l
eV
irpo-
with
the
fore
TpeirTiKo is.
-
universe.
8itj>f
The observation mentioned (i,\). (!(), 1, concerning empty

is
philosophical view of !i will, there sullice to indicate the

his
(, r.
quotations, Phil. d.
111.
i.,
space outside the world
quite
given
3
in
tilt;
a.
-count.
of
the
unimportant
otherwise
;md
what
we
know
of his physical.
astronomical, and geographical
the Stoics. (Jalen. J)c Hipp, ct Plat. (where this subject is heated
i iiysics oi
POSIDONIUS.
being frequently at strife with our will could only be explained by an original opposition of
affections
65
CHAP.
the faculties working in

passionate movements
man
he showed that
arise
evil things,
of the
mind could not
merely from our notions about good and
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
reason. 2
and opposite activity of
Finally he remarked that the circum
stance that fresh impressions affect the mind more strongly cannot 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 particular faculties, 4 which,
at length) iv. 3, p. 377 sq. 461. 1 LOG. cit. iv. 7, 424 sq. 2 Loc. cit. iv. 5, 397
;
;
v. 5,
questions
soul,
as the seat of
the
c.
7,
and not only in regard to points which may be decided simply from immediate perceplion
or
416
3
v. 6,
473
sq.
self-consciousness.
L. c. iv.7,416,^. I pass over some further arguments. When,
however, Ritter, iii. 703, represents Posidonius as saying In order to understand the doctrine of the passive emotions there is no need of lengthy
:
As an instance of the latter he brings forward mental conditions, and says of them that
they require ou
ou5 dbroSeêo)/
crews
>v
(jLaitpwv
\6ycw
/u.6vijs
Se O.VO.^VT]-
arguments and
proofs, I cannot find this in the utterance in
But mean, In order to understand them there needs no

ewcrr-roTe Traoôûej/.
this does not
Galen, v. 178, ch. (502 &). Posidonius here blames Chrysippus

for appealing to passages from the poets in regard to such
proof but,Their actual constitution is known to us immediately

;
through
4
self -consciousness.
v. 1,
. .
.
ITTTTOS
Galen, I. c. pey o$v
429
a.
Xpv<r-
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP
III.
being distinct from reason, are determined by the he would have these constitution of the body
l
forces regarded, however, not as parts of the soul but only as separate faculties of one and the same
essence, the seat of which, according to the prevail the heart. 2 ing opinion of his school, he placed in
Desire and courage must also, he thought, belong the latter only to to the animals the former to all
; ;
those capable of changing their place

fffis
3
:
an indica-
rfLparai
rivds
flvai
rov
ov
tiri-
qw
Kbv,
a duobus
ct
(i
c.Torsus
titnlis,
fiye/j.ovi-
Trddr),
Z-f]vwv 8
principally quod ajiint

TCL-tionnli)
rds
Kpiffeis
avras d\\a ras
quod a /i/nt
avrals <rvffro\ds Kal \v(Tfis tirdpffeis re Kal rds Trruxreis
yiyvoptvas
TTJS I|/U%TJS v6/uLi*v fivai TO. TrdOij. 6 HocTfiSuvios 8 dpcporepois 8ie-
vexBeis eiraive i re dp.a Kal irpocnerai r~6 FIAaTwyos Soy/aa Kal dvri-
duodi din evnndc protliis discrimination of (tt c H- tt, the riyeôviKbv from the \OJIKOV shows that we have here to do with a misunderstanding of
\oytitbv,
hi,
\tyei
oi ire
roils
irepl
rl)V
ra.
Xpvffiinrov
iraQj] SeiKKpiffffft,
Kpiaeis
Kivfifffis
flvai
vvuv ovre
fTrtyiyvofj-fva
own in regard to what lie had found in his authority. For conjectures as to the origin of this misunderstanding, nde
his
3
oAAa
Litwv
nvas
o
ereptov Svvauvo/iial*C(v
a\6~ywv a
Tl\dTu>v
ctv
1
eviOv/j.rjriK fiv
re Kal 0u,uoei5r).
r>v
(ialen, ovv
/.
c.
v.
0, 47(5
oVo
ftrrl
r<Jov
fypw
SvffKlvrjr
I Intl.
iv. S, 189, et passim. ws Loc. cit. v. 2, 454 IKWV îv^s firoael rrj SiaOfffei rov aw/j-aro!,.
:
Ka.1 TrprxnrffyvKora SIKTIV (pvrwv reds Trerpais tf ricriv erfpois roiov-
KLV7i<Tf(*u>rr)s
rois,
iri8vfJLLa
p.ovy
SioiKe io Qai
\eyfi avrd, ra 8
avfj-iravra
rals-
aAAa ra a\oya
utj.<l)o-
Loc.
cit.
vi.
2,
51")
8vvd/uL(Tiv
rrj
Api(TTOTe A.Tjy
etS-n
pev
T)
re KOL 6 nocreifiwvLos (Ue pr] ^v^ns OUK ovo-
rfpais xprjcrOai
Kal T?7
fjiovov
r firi6v/j.riTiKf) 0f/xo6i5e?, rbv avOpwrrov 8e

rpicrl,
/j.d{ov(nv
hiijis
(which he luis pcrdone in inaccunitc lan

<pa<n
rais
Kal
Trpo(Tft\fi(pfvcn
yap
TTJV
\oyi(rriKi]V
ap%riv.
guage, infra
5
flvai
GS, 5) SiW.ueis /uuus ovffias fK TTJS

]>.
KapSias
tull.
i
6p^.a),ueVr]S.
When
(intent
x
.
Tcr-
AII.
(/>c
14),
departing
exposition,
(sc. ct in
.
.
The distinction between ani mals which are capable of motion from a place and those which are not, together with
the observation
latter
mu>t
i>
ntin
:
tlic
above
]Ki)
t<
says
(i
Diriditur
i
//it/Hi)
decent
(ijiml
quosdam Stoicorum,
desire, Aristotle (cf. I /dl.d.

11.
/
,
that even the have sensation and tirsi met with in

(, r.
11.
ii.
duns amjjlius ajjud Posidonium,
4U8).
POSIDONIUS.
tion that Posidonius, in
G7
l
agreement with Pansetius
CHAP.
IIL
and
Aristotle, held that the faculties peculiar to the
less perfect natures were retained in the higher, and were only completed by the addition of new faculties. 3
Whether Posidonius,
inference
drew the further from the opposition of the rational and

like Plato,
irrational soul, that the former, before its entrance
exist
into the body, existed without the latter, and will without it after death, is uncertain ; 4 but if he
doctrine of the
held this, even with the modifications required by the world s destruction, his deviations
from the Stoic anthropology would necessarily be

multiplied thereby to a considerable extent. These deviations from the Stoic tradition had not, indeed, the influence on the other doctrines of Posi1
//?>
Vide mpra, p. 47, 2. Phil.d. Gr. II. ii. 409.

f.
&/.),
here appeals to the observation of Cicero, apparently derived from Posidonius, N. D. ii. 12, 33: Plants are endowed
(<t>v(rei(Tvvfxe<r9ai,ef.PkiLd.Gr.
who
Cf. Schwenke (Jahrb. Class. PMlol. 1879, p. 136
fucrint fvturique sint, [quid cstl cur ii quid ex quoque evenint et
Ill.i. 192, 3)v?itha,natura; bcsHis autem sensum et motum dedit hoc liomini (sc. natura) Itmpliw, quod addidit ration cm. 4 Cicero remarks (De Divln. i. 51, 115) in order to establish
. . .
quid quamque rem signip cet perspicere non pogn-nt ? if this agrees with the other contents of the first book of Posidonius, the pre-existence of the soul De Posid.. Bonn, 1878, (Corsscn, p. 31) must have been found there. But the semper and ab omni atemit ate must even then be laid to Cicero s account, for Posidonius could admit souls to exist neither before the beginning nor after the end of the
foreknowledge in dreams
spirit lives in sensibus. Qui
The
ab ab
world to which they belonIt is all the more quest ionabfe whether the exposition of this Stoic has not been here amplified by Cicero, or whether somewhich he hypothetically thing quoted from Plato may not have been taken in a more
sleep
liber
quia
vixit
omni
cum
icternitate versatusque est in numerabilibus animus,
omnia qufc in natura rerum and in c. 57, *unt, videt, &c.

;
131, he returns to the subject Cumque animi hominum sem-per

:
definite sense.
F 2
68
CHAP,
ECLECTICISM.
donius which we might have expected from his own utterances ; though lie decidedly recognises the de pendence of ethics upon the theory of the emotions,
there
is
nothing told us of his ethics which would

2
clash with the Stoic moral doctrine: for the state
ment
of Diogenes,
that he did not hold virtue to
be the only good, and sufficient for happiness, we 3 and if he have already seen to be untrustworthy
;
was of opinion that many things, even for the pre 4 servation of one s country, ought not to be done,
this,
though a deviation, was,

be considered an
in
any
case, only such
a deviation from the cynicism of the

as
oldest Stoics
in
may
amendment
harmony
5 with the spirit of the system. Nevertheless, we cannot regard the Platonisiug anthropology of our
isolated admission of alien philosopher as a merely elements into the Stoic system ; for in this alliance
with Plato and Aristotle there comes to light an internal, historical, and not unimportant transform
This system had, in its theo abolished the Platonic and Aristotelian retical part, and matter duality of form and substance, spirit
ation of Stoicism.
:
1
4f>9
Loc. 471
fit.
*<7-
iv.
7,
421
v.
C,
(up. Clem. Strom, ii. 410, TV;: r ^ Cv v Qfoapovvra rr\v rwv o\wv
a\i]dftai>
vii.
3
*
103; 128. Vide xnjn d, p. 47,

ic.
Kal
rdtv
KOLL
TC)
4.
ffKevdêii
avruv Kara
crvyKaraSvvarbi ,
virb
Off.
i.
4-">,
159.
Kara
/urjSe^
ayo/ufvov
rov
Even
l>v
given adequate requirement of life according to naturc (Galen, /. c. v. 0, ]). 470) does not toueh the nucleus of the Stoic theory, and his own delinition of the highest good
the contradiction Posidonius to an inexplanation of the
a\6yov /j.epovs rijs ^vx^s, i-s only a formal extension of the older
definitions. The difference bet\veen Po.-idonius and Clirys-
ippus (mentioned Phil. d. (ir. III. i. 2), in regard to diseases of the soul, is also
2:>2,
unimportant.
POSIDONIUS.
and in connection therewith had
also
<
denied the
CHAP.
existence of a plurality of spiritual faculties in man. At the same time, however, in the practical sphere, 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 anthropology, to introduce an opposition of principles; for we may easily see that it is not the Platonic
triple
division of reason, courage, and desire, but rather the twofold distinction of rational and ir
rational in the
is
human
soul,
with which Posidonius

clearly in-
concerned.
Our philosopher himself
cates this connection
when, in his doctrine of the emotions and their connection with reason, he exalts
that they teach us to recog as their principal use nise in ourselves the distinction of the divine and
rational
follow the
from the irrational and animal, and to demon within us, and not the evil and
un-divine. 2
1
Here not only

is
is
the psychologic dualism

re avo/ui.o\oyias Kal rov KO.KOKara irav fiiov, rb
This dualism
expressed
TTJS
also in the notice in Plutarch, Fr. 1, Utr. an. ancorp. s. (pgr. c.
Sai/ôvos
eVeo-flat
which says that Posidonius divided all human activities and conditions into tyvxiKa,
6,
<ru)-
7*1/6?
avr$ 8ai/j.ovi avyre 6vri Kal r^v oôiav tyvaiv
TW
eV
exovn T V
KOVVTI, rep
TTOTC
^ v ^ ov
Se
f6(r/uLov
Sioi-
x*lp ovi Ka-l fow8ei

(pfpecrOai.
ol
/j.ariKa,
2
<rcc/j.ariKa
<roi}/J.a.
irepl ^/U^TJI/
and
:
(TWKK\ivovras
\J/irXi/ca TTfpl
5rj
Ap. Galen, rwv Tradwv
v.
6, p.
469
rb
5e rovro TrapiSovres rois ySeA-noGcrt rriv
o&re eV TOUalrlav
irepl
ruv
TTJS
atriov,
rovrf<rri
iraQ&v,
otir
eV
rots
70
ECLECTICISM.
which constitutes with Posidonius the proper nucleus
of the Platonising triple division clearly enunciated ; but it is also said that this dualism chiefly appears
CHAP.
III.
Psycho
logic
dualism.
necessary to the philosopher for the reason that it is the anthropological presupposition of the ethical The first symptom opposition of sense and reason.
of this bias
we have already noticed
in
;
Pametius
in the distinction of û%?; and $VCTLS in its further development in Epictetus and Antoninus we shall
find, later on,
link
the
transition
one of the phenomena which prepared from the Stoa to Xeo-Platonism.
between
the Stoic doctrine
The psychology
of Posidonius therefore appears as a link in a great historical nexus ; that it was not
and NcoPlatoinsm.
without importance for the later conception of the Stoic doctrine, we may see from the statement of
Galen, that he had met with none
1
of his time
among the Stoics who had known how to answer the

Posidonius
against
objections
2
of
the
old
Stoic
theory.
Stoics of the first
century,
B.C.
In the period immediately following Posidonius the spread of the Stoic school is indeed attested by the great
Koi
6uo\oyias
fv
ov
tffTiv
fj.
"yo-p
/3\4irov(riv
opOoOTL
avrp
T()
Kara
rjbei
Kal
&ye(rOai vTrb TOV a\6yov re Ka.KoSaifjt.ov os Kal aOeov rr]S
Cf. ibid. p. 470 ,sv/.,and what is quoted supra* 68,5, from Clemens. In opposition to the moral dignity of the spirit,
^VXTJS.
has been si own what is pecu Posidonius as compared with the older Stoic doctrines the points on which he is evidence for them, and as such has repeatedly been quoted in
i
liar to
earlier sections of this work, are enumerated by P>ake. In his
Posidonius, ap. Sen. Ep. 02, 10, speaks of the body as inutilis caro et fluid a receptandis tantun rib is liabilis.
i 1
collection, completed by Miiller, Frtii/in, Hist. dr. iii. 252 xqq.,
and Seheppig, l)c Posid. 45 sqq., are to be found the historical

and geographical fragments and
theories of this philosopher.
Loc.
rit. iv. 7,
end
402
sq.
it
In the preceding pages
STOICS OF
THE FIRST CENTURY
B.C.
1
71
numbers of its members with whom we are acquainted but only a portion of these seem to have occupied themselves independently with philosophy, and even
;
CHAP.
III.
to
of that portion there was certainly not one philosopher compare with Pansetius and Posidonius in scientific
It
is,
importance and influence.

1 Beside those already enu merated, p. 52 sq., the follow ing may here be mentioned (#) Greeks: Dionysius, who,
:
therefore, all the
11, according to Cicero (Tusc. 26), must still have been teach ing in Athens in the year 50 B.C., as Cicero in this treatise repre sents him as heard by his
ii.
in the Ind. Here. col. 52, 1) whom Strabo, xiv. 2, 13, p. 655, describes as a Stoic from Rhodes was probably a pupil of Posidonius. Also the two teachers of the younger
;
and Leonides,
Cato,
Athenodorus
with the
young interlocutor in that city. In that case he must be distin guished from Dionysius of
Cyrene, the disciple of Panaebut he is no tius (p. 53) doubt the same person spoken
;
surname Cordylio, from Tar sus, whom Cato took with him from Pergamum to Rome and kept with him till his death
(Strabo,
Plut.
xiv.
5,
14,
p.
674.
of
by Diog.
vi.
43, ix. 15,

it.
and
ai\-
opposed by Philodemus
jj-eiiav,
Cato Min. 10, 16; Epit. Diotj.\ previously overseer of the library at Pergamum in which he capriciously corrected the writings of Zeno (Diog.
vii.
col. 7 sqq.(as results
from
34)
and Antipater
;
of
If 19, 4 sq. after Zeno). he was the head of the school,

col.
he can scarcely have followed immediately after Mnesarchus

(ride supra, p. 53)
;
Tyre (Hut. Cato, 4 Strabo, xvi. 2, 24, p. 757; Epit. Dwg.\ doubtless the same who, accord
ing to Cicero, Off. ii. 24, 86, died shortly before the compo
sition
perhaps, as
has already been shown, loc. tit., Apollodorus is to be placed between them. Further, we have the three disciples of Posi donius Asclepiodotus (Sen. Nat. Qu. ii. 26, 6 vi. 17,
:
of
this
treatise,
in
it
;
Athens, and had written, would seem, upon Duties
passim} Phanias( Diog. 41) and Jason, the son of daughter, who succeeded him as head of the school in Rhodes (Suidas, subrocc while on the other hand, as is shown, Phil d. Gr. III. i. 48, he cannot be, as Comparetti supposes, the anonymous disciple of Diogenes alluded to
3, et
;
treatise of his irepl K6&/J.OV, is quoted in Diog. vii. 139 etpass. and respecting two other trea tises, it is uncertain to which
;
vii.
his
Ac Antipater they belong. cording to Ind. Hero. col. 79

(supra, p. 54) he had one or perhaps two disciples of Panaetius for his instructors. Apollonius of Tyre seems, accord ing to Strabo, I. c., to have been treatises somewhat younger
;
under his name are quoted by
72
ECLECTICISM.
more probable that most of them followed the direction which these two men had given that the school at that period held in the main to the doctrine of Zeno and Chrysippus, but repudiated and partly alien elements less strictly than before
;
CHAP.
111.
Strabo, and ap. Diog.

0,
vii. 1, 2,
I
24,
perhaps also ap.

7;,
hot.
i
Cod. 1G1, p. 104,
IT).
o-
dotus, who instructed Cicero, and who afterwards lived with him, finally having become
(10
of Sandon, from Tarsus or the neighbourhood, perhaps a dis ciple of 1 osidonius, the teacher of the Emperor Augustus, con
cerning
5, 14,
}>.
whom
674
;
cf.
iStrabo, xiv.
blind, died at his house about B.C. and made Cicero his
1)0, 3() J
i.
;
heir (Cic. Brut.

ii.
36,
115; N. D.
;
3,
Acad. G; ad
JJir. xiii. 16, ix. 4
Tusc. v. 39,
113; ad Att.
of
his,
20); a disciple freedman of the

ii.
Lucian, Macrok. 21, 23; Dio Chrysost. Or. 33, p. 24 It; .Klian. T. H. xii. 25; 1 lut. Popl ic. c. 17, and Apoph thegm, llct/. C(fs. Any. 7, p. 207; Qu. Con?, ii. 1, 13, 3, p. 634; Dio Cuss. lii. 36; Ivi. 43 Zosim. //? *. i. 6 Sukl. A07ji/d5.
;
triumvir Crassus,
(id
Apollonius
From him
Mu ller. Fragm.
485
tig.
Hint.
6>.
iii.
by name, is mentioned by Cicero,
Fam.
be
xiii.
16.
must
the distinguished Apollonius of Ftolemais in ihe Ind. Here. col. 78, whom the compiler of that catalogue
calls (piXos
-fj/j-uv
;
Whether the writings from and sayings quoted Athenodorus belong to him
another person of the in most instances cannot be discovered with cer tainty, but it seems to me
or
to
same name,
for this
man,
as
is
there stated, had heard
Dardanus and Mnesarchus who were both (cf. p. 53) disciples of Diogenes, and as such can hardly have lived to the year 00 whereas the Apollonius B.C. of Cicero, as a boy in his
;
probable that by the Atheno in dorus Sen. mentioned

3, 1-8, 7, 2 Ep. without further descrip is to be understood our tion, Athenodorus, since at that time he was certainly the best known man of the name in Rome; that he was likewise the same who wrote about, i.e.
:
Trattqn. An.
10, 5,
house, long after this date, instruction of enjoyed the Diodotus and accompanied a-sar (though not probably in extreme age) to the Alexandrian
(
against,
gories,
the Aristotelian cate
war. Comparetti (/. c. p. 470, 547) wrorgly identities them. Apollonides, the friend of Cato, who was about him in
his
la.-t
:
and who was opposed on part icular points by Conutus,
we
20
;
find from
(S,-/iol.
Simpl.
in
.<?//.)
5, a.
15, 5.
41, 7.
Arixt.
47,
(,
//,
.
61,
a,
25
I, /y,
days
cf
-
(1 lut.
<l
Cut.
-
Mln.
j
-
Porph.
6^777.
32, e. 47, 21, b (Schol. in

;
65*-7.
1>kU
Gr IIL
P-
48).
A then odor us,
the son
Brandis, //, 12); AWuindl.d. Ih-rl. AJtad. 1S33;

cf.
Arivt. 4S,
STOICS OF THE FIRST CENTURY
B.C.
73
in its learned activity, partly in the practical appli cation of its principles, came into amicable contact
CHAP.
III.
on many points with other schools. An example showing the extent to which this eclecticism attained
in
individuals
will
be presented to us in Arius
other Stoics of this name, one of them from Antioch, men tioned by Suidas, 0eW 2,pvpv., the other from Tithora, men tioned by Diogenes, ix. 82, we do not know the dates, but the latter must be older than
Kl. 275; Prantl. Gesch. d. Lofj. i. 538, 19. Some fragments of an historical and geographical character have been collected by Miiller, I. c. The ethics quoted in Diog. vii. 68, 121, may also belong to the son of Sandon; and he is no
Phil- Hist.
doubt the Athenodorus Calvus,
who
11,
inspired Cicero
(Cic.
treatise
on Duties
14)
;
ad Att. xvi. while on the other
JEnesidemus.) Lastly, Strabo, the famous geographer, con sidered himself as belonging His birth to the Stoic school. must be placed, as HasenVita 13 sq. (who also discusses the various theories), in or before 58 B.C., as in 44 B.C. he saw P. Servilius Isauricus, who died in his nine
rniiller
hand the author of the epwhich Diogenes fre Traroi, quently cites, is more probably the Peripatetic of the same
says,
De
Strait.
p.
Diss.,
Bonn, 1863,
name spoken
To
this
of infra, p. 124.
same period belongs

and was
Theo
cording
of Alexandria, who ac to Suidas, sub voce,
lived under Augustus
the author of a work on Rheto an epitome of ric besides
tieth year (Strabo, xii. 6, 2, p. 568), and saw him in Rome, whither Strabo can scarcely have gone before his fourteenth
Apollodorus Physics. Perhaps he may be the person al luded to in the 2nd. H&rc. col. 79, in the words AAe|avo>i/
Amasea
native city was in Pontus (Strabo, xii. 3, 15, 39, p. 547, 561) he lived,
year.
His
thought by Comparetti to be Dio of the Academy (vide infra, p. 100). In that case he was a disciple of
Speus,
however, under Augustus and Tiberius at Rome. (At the end of his 6th book he names Tiberius as the present ruler and Germanicus as his son ;
this passage must accordingly have been written between 14 He and 19 after Christ.) betrays himself to be a Stoio not only by utterances such as
i.
Stratocles (ride snjjra, p. 54) and only the latter part of his life can have fallen under
If he survived Augustus. Arius (rifle Infra, 106, 1 Suidas ysyovws tirl Avyoiiffrou says
:
:
ftera
"Aptiov)
he
must have
lived to a great age like his master Stratocles. (Of two
1, p. 2 (the Stoic definition of philosophy), i. 2, 2, p. 15, but he a] so calls Zeno 6 îte repos i. 2, 34, p. 41, and xvi. 4, 27, p. 784; vide sujira, p. 62, 3,
74
ECLECTICISM.
Didymus, who indeed counted himself a member
of
III.
CHAP
the Stoic school, but who approximates so closely to Alexander the Academician, that it seems preferable
to speak of
him
after that philosopher.

(Parad. Proocw.
titoicus;
2,
Perhaps Athenodorus, the son of Sandon, may have introduced
a
31,
;
in
]Jrnt.
(Jl
118
as
in
him
to
Stoicism
whom
lie
2>6Tfectlsshnng
Stoicux
and
calls
rnj.1v
ercupos (xvi. 4,
21,
Pro Mar.
29,
attacked on
p. 77 .)), and concerning whom he shows himself to be accu rately informed (xiv. 5, 14, p. Meanwhile he had also 674). heard the Peripatetic Tyrannic (xii. 3, 16, p. 548) and Xen-
Stoical asperities, called in De Finilnis the leader of his school, the writings of which Cato (iii. 27) earnestly studied, and after his death one of the ideals of the Stoics (Phil.
account of
archus (xiv. had had the
4,
4,
still
p. 670) and more famous
Boethus either as a fellow dis ciple or more probably (for the
word
<ri
j/e<iA.o(ro07j(rauei/
in xvi.
d.Gr.lH.i. 254,3). 11 is teachers, and Athenodorus Antipater and his friend Apollonides have already come before us. Concerning his Stoicism ride
also Pliny, Hist.
permits also this interpretation) as a teacher. (Of a third instructor, Aristodemus, he does not say in xiv. 1, 48, p. 650, to what school he belonged, or in what he in structed him.) The date of Protagoras, a Stoic, men tioned by Diogenes, ix. 56, is
2, 24, p. 757,
(/;) Among the of this period, the following are known to us as adherents of the Stoic doc trine Q. Lticilius Balbus, whom Cicero praises as a dis tinguished Stoic (jY. D. i. 6, 15) and whom in the second book of this treatise he considers as the representative of the school. M. P o r c i u s C a t o U t i c e n s i s, already described by Cicero
3f. vii. 30, 113,
xxxiv. 8, 92. M. Fa von ins, a passionate admirer of Cato s,
respecting whom cf. Pint. Brut. 34; Cato Min. 32, 46; Cffaar 21; Pomp. 73; Sueton. Octnr. 13 Valer. Max. ii. 10, 8; Bio Cass. xxxviii. 7, xxxix. 14. Also Valerius So ran us, an older
t
;
unknown.
Romans
contemporary and acquaintance

of Cicero
s
(Cic. Jlrut. 46, 169),
seems from what is quoted by Augustine (Cir. I), vii. 11, 13), probably from his treatise on the Gods (Bernhardy, Horn. Lit. 229), to have belonged to
the school of Panaitius. Some others who are also occasionally reckoned among the Stoics, as
Varroand Brutus, will be spoken of later on.
THE ACADEMY.
75
CHAPTER
IV.
THE ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS IN THE FIRST CENTURY
BEFORE CHRIST.
THIS
approximation
and
partial
blending of the
CHAP.
schools of philosophy, as has

aras
been already observed,

decisive
accomplished in a still
more
manner
in c
Tllc
he Academy.
effectively the way vas cleared for eclecticism, partly through the scepicism of the Academy, and partly through the theory
We have
seen
how
ndc*.
probability connected with that scepticism ; and low in consequence certain traces of this mode of nought appear even among the first disciples of
>f
ârneades.
fber the
It
was
still
more
of the
definitely developed
first century before Philo and Antiochus. Christ, by 2 3 Philo, a native of Larissa, in Thessaly, was the pjt n 4 In isciple and successor of Clitomachus in Athens.
1
commencement
Of
Phil.d. Gr.
5, 2.
III.
i.
526, 2;
ler Griefsw.
1869), col. 33, he
upra, p.
8
C. F.
:
Mrissevo
~>hilo)ie
Hermann, De Pliilone Gott. 1851 ibid. De

;
Lariss.
;
disputatio
al-
Krische on Cicero s vra, cademica,, Gottinger Studien, 126-200, 1845.

1855
L.
he was about twentj^-f our to Athens, and here for fourteen years attended the school of Clitomachus, after he had previously been instructed in his native city (according
to Biicheler s emendation, for eighteen years therefore, from his sixth or seventh year; I should rather conjecture irepl
; :
came
when
1
4
Stob. Eel.
Cic.
ii.
38.
6,
Acad.
ii.
17: Clito-
lacho Philo vester operam midPlut. Cic. 3; 98 annos dedit tob. I. c. According to the Ind. l.Biiche,
OK[TW (Te5bf]eTT7, or something similar) by Callicles, a disciple of Carneades. According to the
ECLECTICISM.
("HAP.
the Mithridatic war he

side, to
fled,
with others on the
Roman
IV.
and here gained for himself great 2 both as a teacher and as a man. Through esteem, him Cicero was won over to the doctrine of the new
Rome,
3 Whether Academy, as Philo had apprehended it. he ever returned to Athens we do not know but in any case he does not seem to have long survived the Roman journey. 4 As a philosopher he at first, we
;
Ind. Here, he had also enjoyed the instruction of Apollodorus the iStoic, at least the imper
fect text
toric, ride Tune. ii. 3, 11, 26. Vlnl.C if. 3 3>L\wi os SiriKovfft
:
:
TOV
e|
AKa.8riiJ.ias,
ov
/ndXiaTa
f9avfu.acrav
seems to mean this; but whether Apollodorus is the Athenian mentioned (suj)ra,p. 53) or the Seleucian mentioned (Phil. (1. Gr. III. i. 47) seems the more doubtful, as Philo s
Qwv Kal 5ia rbv Koyuv

Kal
8ia
rbv
i.
Cic.
Acad.
1,
Tpoirov TjycLirrjffav. 13 Pliilo, inag:
n\i$ rir.
and
3
own
(sujtrn,
leadership of the school can scarcely p. 53) have begun later than that of
N.
4
Cf. the following note, also Stob. Eel. ii. 40. Pint, L c. Cic. Tune. I. c. D. i. 7, 16 Brut, I.e., tot urn
;
;
ci nit; tradifli.
Apollodorus of Athens, and as the predecessor of the latter, .Mnesarchus, was the teacher of Philo s pupil Antiochus (ride infra 86, 1). That he followed Ciitomachus as head of the school, we tind from the Ind. Here, and Ens. Pr. Er. xiv. 8,
.
The
Mitliridatic
out in
Pliilo
88
B.C.,
war broke and probably
came immediately after) this to Home. We hear of a treatise he had composed whil( Antiochus was with Lucullan
j
in Alexandria (Cic. Acad.
ii.
4
j
and (according to Xumcnius) from Cic. Brut. 306, that he was the most important philoso pher of the Academy of his time
;
8!>,
11), which, according to Zumplj (Abh. (L Jierl. Acad. 1842

in the
(princeps Acodemi(e)\ Ac/id, ii. 17 (Philone nntnn rm fttitroeinium Acudeniiir non ilcfnif). In Athens Antiochus was his Infra 86, 1). Besides pupil philosophy he taught rhetoric very zealously (Cic. JJc Orut. iii.
<>,
llht. Phil. AV.p. 67), would fal year 84, according to Her mann /. c. 1. 4, in 87. Whei Cicero came to Athens in 7H B.C
h<
he cannot have been there, as would otherwise have been
mentioned
/;////.
in Pint.
:
dr. 4;
v. 1,1.
Cic
(>vV/V
SM, :ur,
Fin.
Per
28/110).
1
Cic. Brut. 80, 306.
Concern
haps he remained in Rome, or as seems to me more probable was no longer living. How th statement as to the length o
his life is to be completed can not be ascertained, Biichele
ing the instructions lie gave there in philosophy and rhe
PHILO.
:
77
are told, zealously

its
defended the doctrine of Carneades

in the sequel, however, he regard to this doctrine, and
CHAP.
!in
whole content;
unsettled in
(became
(without expressly abandoning it, he sought greater fixity of conviction than the principles of his pre 1 decessors afforded. Though it was not in itself con
the spirit of scepticism that he should 2 His prac(regard philosophy from the practical point of view, yet this mode of treating it received from him an
trary
to
went beyond scepticism he was Pyrrho, by the destruction of to clear away hindrances, with the re dogmatism moval of which (according to that philosopher) happiness came of itself; but in order to attain this
application which
:
not
satisfied,
like
end he found complete directions

to be necessary.
for right
says,
conduct
The philosopher, he
may be
compared with a physician ; as health is for the latter, so is happiness for the former, the final end of his
whole activity
3
;
and from this definition of
its
aim,
prefers QyKovra rpla, for he says there is no room in the lacuna for e/SSo/irj/coj/ra (Ind. Here, Ac-ad. 33, 18).
Nutnen. ap. Bus. Pr. Ev. At the beginning of his career as a teacher, Philo
1
xiv. 9, 1
was
full of zeal
TO.
in defending
f-iredvfj.fi, fv olad 6n, TUV e\eyl-6vruv TVX^V, iva e êra vwra /SaAAwj avros (pel/yew. That Philo had at first professed the Academic scepticism more unconditionally than he afterwards did, follows from Cic. Acad. ii. 4, 11 sq. vide infra,
5<f/cei
e/ca>i/
the doctrine of the

SeSoy/jifva
Academy
T$
p. 80, 2.
-
KAen-oSTOU/CO??
7?5e
Kal
TO?S
(cf. Phil. d.
3
vupoiri %aA/C(.
SubSe
Pyrrho had already done this Gr. III. i. 484, 3). Stob. Eel. ii. 40 sq. foncevat
:
sequently, ht)wever, ovSev /j,ev Kara TO. aura eavTcp eVJet, r) 5e TUIV avTuv vaQri/j.a,Tct}V avfcrTpffpev tro\tvdpytid re Kal 6fj.o\oyia.
\)}v
(^rjcrt
rov
rij
<$>i\6<ro<$)ov
iarpy
"ffv
Kal
yap
iarpiKfj
(nrovS^j
iracra.
irfpl
TO TeAos, TOVTO 5
<pi\offO(pia
vyiaa
Kal rrj
fj,ovia.v.
Trtpl rrjv
S^T e^wy
^STJ
T^V
Siaiadrjcriv
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP.
IV.
he derives the six divisions of philosophy which he assumed, and according to which he himself treated of ethics in its whole extent. 2 Where the interest
1
for a systematic
form of doctrine, though primarily
only in the sphere of practical philosophy, was so strong, there also the belief in the probability of scien
tific
knowledge must necessarily have been strengthto maintain that the Stoic ethics agreed so entirely in all things essential with those of
According to Stoboeus, 1. c., they are the following. The

1
first tiling that is necessary, lie
says,
is
that
the
sick
man
the
that
Academy and
Peripatetics,
should be prevailed upon to himself to medical submit that other treatment, and counsels should be opposed
this
is
Zeno had no occasion to separate himself from the Aca The fourth part treats demy. Trepl &LWV, and fixes the deupr}/aara 8i wv TOV re AoKS,
rj
the
Ac yos irpor pen-ruths
fyvXatfT] yevricrerai
which lias partly to prove the worth of virtue (or, perhaps more accurately, of philosophy) and
(TrapopiJ.G)v eirl rrjv aper-rjv\
primarily for the

individuals.
is
conduct
of
The
same problem
undertaken by
partly to confute the objections against philosophy. (The TrporpeiTTtKos of Philo is thought
the fifth part, the TTO\ITLKOS, in regard, to the commonwealth. In order to provide not only for the wise, but also for the
jUe crco?
by Krische, I. c. p. 191, and Her mann, i. G, ii. 7, to be the pro

totype of Cicero
ef.,
s
8ia.Kfifj.evoL
avdpoairot,
who
JIortciiKi
itx
however, PJiiL d. dr. II. ii. This being anained, there (53). be a remedy must, xt comlt the one hand, applied on false and injurious opinions must be discarded, and, on the other, right opinions must be
>f,
are unable to follow logical in vestigation, the ft/.rf/t part is required, the viroQe-TLK^s \6yos, which coins the results of ethics into rules for individual cases. This is evident from the concluding words of Stolxeus, p. -1(5 (in regard to Arius l>idyOVTWS p.fv ovv $>i\wvos mus)
:
imparted
\6yos
Trepl
irfpi
a.yaQ>v
nal
tllO
X fL
av-rrj
^Laipfcris.
eyu
^Sr/
el
/j.tv
KUK(t)V T07TOS.
TllC
t/tij f/ IS
apyortpw;
5LKfifj,rii>,
apKecrffels ttv
re\Siv.
In this part
crvve ipoi
ra
irepl
TU>V
of Philo s ethics Ffermann con jectures (ii. 7) the source of the 1th book of Cicero s treatise
apenKovruif,
rfj
rr)s
however, not only cannot be proved, but it is also improbable, as Philo, and not Antiochus, was the first
This,
Jh
r niihiix.
Any one who agrees mann s conjecture
with Her
respecting the less right to as Hermann does
PH1LO.
and the inclination to scepticism weakened ; jind so we actually find that Philo withdrew from the standpoint which had simply disputed the posl
79
CHAP.
Modificati<m
Mbility of knowledge. J
The
Stoic theory of
know-
the
fledge he could not, of course, adopt
; against the of intellectual cognition, he argued with Carneades that there is no notion so constituted
scepticism of the
Cl
doctrine
that a false notion

,he
may
not co-exist with
it
2
:
and
perception from which the itoics ultimately derived all notions he denied for ill the reasons which his predecessors in the Academy
truth
of sensible
id
given
3
;
and
little
as he could agree with the

impressum effictumque ex eo, unde esftet, quale esse non posset ex eo, unde non esset hoc
. . .
This connection
(denied by
[that
is,
I.
indeed,
c.
;
Hermann,
but
Stob. I.e.} Philo placed the ultimate end of philosophy in happiness, that he believed this to be
we know (from
cum infirmat
judicium
cogniti.
tollitque
tollit
Philo, ct incogniti
But
this
does
(ii.
not
conditioned
by right
moral
0ea>-
mean, as Hermann
ws
11) as
(vyicas eôucrat 56ai,

jSi ou),
and by a whole system of such views, and de

ccTa eVl
voted one of the six sections of his ethics expressly to the re moval of false and the impart ing of true opinions, the in
ference is inevitable that he held true opinions to be neces sary, and consequently did not maintain at any rate, for the the stand practical sphere point of pure doubt, nor was
that Philo maintained serts, that if there were a visum like that required by Zeno, no comprchensio would be possible but rather, if the comprehen
;
must be a visum impressum, and so forth, there would

sible
with mere probability and what we know of him shows that this was not the
satisfied
case.
*
Cic.
it a
Acad.
ii.
6,
18:
dim
.
. .
\enim
n eg a ret,, quicqiiam esse comprehendi posset, si illud esset sicut Zeno dejinirct tale visum visum igitur
. .
.
be nothing comprehensible the same statement that is made by Sext. Pyrrh. i. 235 (infra, p. Cf. as to the corre 81, 2). sponding propositions of Car neades, Phil. d. Gr.lll. i. 501 *q. 3 If we have no direct in formation on this point, it follows with great probability from what we can gather of the contents of the lost 1st book of Cicero s Aca-demica Priora and the 2nd book of the Academica Posteriora from Acad. ii. 25, 79, and from the
;
80
ECLECTICISM.
adversaries
of the
CHAP,
Academic doctrine as hitherto

little
understood, he as
doctrine
itself.
desired to renounce
his disciple
the
When
Antiochus ad
school
of
vanced
the
proposition
that
to
the
its
the
Academy had been untrue
original tendency
to the
since the time of Arcesilaus,
and that there must
therefore be a return from the
new Academy
:
old, Philo raised the liveliest opposition to this de mand, 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 solely and entirely of maintaining the But when we one genuine Academic doctrine. look more closely, this union of the new Academy
1
with Plato, as that of Philo with the new Academy, is only to be attained by a subtlety which even his 2 Scepticism, contemporaries did not fail to rebuke.
fragments preserved by Nonius (cL the arguments of Krische, HerI.e., p. 134 *#.} 182 sq_.
,
new Academy, that of Clitomachus and Carneades, which he undertakes to defend ag-ainst
the
maim,
1
ii.
10).
Antiochus.
i.
Cf.
18,
Au<rustin,
c.
Cic.
Acad.
4,
,
13:
.
.
Anncf/cit
Acad.
(ii-ui iK
iii.
41:
7////V
(An-
t ioc/fi nuiffixti -)
PJtilo
tiochus)
ct
arreptis
Pliiloti
iterinn
rrxtitit
cji/s
mis
donee
rt li-
in librix,
ijixo
quod corcim ctiain tjc audU bam US, dnas Acaderid<<
iinwerctHr, ft
onint *
//utter
mias esse, erroremque eornin,qui it a jtutaruHt (as Antiochus,

?
quids
Titlliun
<>/>/D-cxsit.
////v/),
txtryuit.
Tlie
same
is
maintained by Cicero as an adherent of Halo s doctrine

(he has
just
before directly ac-
Philo are ])rolial)ly dearu iiments of Cicero (ap. August, iii. 7, 15) on the superiority of the Academy to all other schools.
rived
tiie
-
From
knowledged himself a follower of the new Academy), c. 12. 46.

In relation to this subject Cicero says {Acad. ii. 6, 17): Philtme aiitem vivo patrocin nim
When Halo s
treatise
came
Acad mid; -non dcfiiit. The Academy which he defends is

c.
the hands of Antiochus (as Cicero relates, Actid. ii. 4, lie was quite startled, and 1 \} asked Ileraclitus of Tyre, for many years the disciple of Philo
into
and Clitomachus
Vidvrcnturne
PHILO.
Philo believed, was, as against the Stoic arguments, perfectly well established; for the rational conception, which they had made the criterion, was as such not available but in themselves things are not unknowable ; and in connection with this, he main tained 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 of things ; 2 this was denied only in opposition to the Stoics, and with reference to the
:
CHAP
Iv
-
Stoic 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
rion,
back to the original doctrines

ilia PJiilonis, aut ea Pit Hone rel ex ullo
professed
go by the
tnim vcl e Acadeniico

?
audimsset all qu an do to which he replied in the negative. In the same work Philo s statement concerning the doctrine of the new Academy is described as an untruth, and tin s censure is
repeated,
1
demica was Catulus), net/at Academicog omnino dicere (c

ibid. 6, 18).
3
Carneadean scepticism, the representative of which in the first edition of the Acapure
Thus the
is
of the scepticism of the
6, 18.
i.
Sext. Ptjrrh.
<f>iAcoi>a
235:
demy
oi
8e
tine (C. Acad.
and design Aca represented by Au-usrise
pl
(paffiv,
Offov
Tripiw,
TrriKfj
/uw eVi rouTeVrt rij

d/caTCt-
(pavraaia,
flvai
<j>vcrfi
ra irpdyâra, oaov 5e
TUJV Trpay/u.d.Toci a.vTwi
^TTTa.
n
2
But the expression must here be taken somewhat wider sense

82,
3.
Cf. supra, note 1. This statement meets us often (ride Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 493, 4) that it is ultimately derived from Philo is probable,
4
;
Cicero.
ii. 6, 14), who no doubt derived this conception from Philo as explained by
cf. inf. p.
Acad. ii. 4, 12. The arguments of Antiochus against Philo he will pass over, ///? nun nii ace/r rgarins cst is,
Cic.
adi-<
partly from its inter-connection with all other presuppositions of his, and partly because it is
;
sta,
qua- sunt
litri
qui dcfeusa (the
not only found in Augustine, C. Acad. iii. 17. 38 18, 40 but in c. 20, 43, Augustine expressly appeals to Cicero fur it.
;
82
ECLECTICISM.
Platonic school
l
CHAP.
but he could not see in this re
storation of the old
the tendency of the original Academy had not departed at all from 2 But if we ask in what consisted this Platonism.
the answer genuine Platonism, On the one hand, Philo, factory.
is
Academy any abandonment of the new, since he held that the new
not very satis
in
agreement with
his predecessors of the new Academy, denied the of a complete knowledge, of compre possibility not merely in regard to the Stoic theory ;
;
hending for like those of knowledge, but quite universally he lacked a sure criterion for the dis predecessors, 3 Notwithstanding, crimination of true and false.
August,
iii.
18, 41
(doubt
less
after Cicero): Antiochus Pinion is auditor, hominis quan tum urbitror circunispectissinii,
(jui
jam Tcluti aperire cedentibits host lit us jxn tax ca-pcrat ct ad Platonis auctoritatem Acddeiuidiu Icijcsque revoct//r in re (as lie saw the enemy
treat, lie
tiochus to Philo a remit/rare in norain domnm c vctcre. 3 This is evident from Cic. Acad. ii. 22, 69. After Cicero, as an adherent of Philo, has defended the proposition, iriltil
<",s
,sr
quod
pcrc-ipi possit,
with
had begun
to
open
the
gates of the city they were besieging, and to re establish the "previous order which had been interrupted by the war). 2 So far Plutarch (Luc. 42 hilo the Jirnt. 2) may call
; I ;
the old sceptical argument, the impossibility of finding a crite rion for the discrimination of true and false, he here con tinues Scd j>riux jxnn-a cum
:
AntiocliO)
(ini
Int c
vyw/, qixc
tit
CL
me defenduntur,
d tiitiiis
$cri/>$it
ct ditlicit
a/>nd
PhilonetH tuni din,

didicisfte
constaret
ct
f
itcniiiicin,
(Ichis rebus ftcntissiinc

Jitfc /ion
head of the new Academy, and Antioehus that of the old and
ieero (Actul. i. 4, K5; similarly ii. 22, 70) may describe Antiochus as the man who through the renovation of the old Aca
(
ctidcin
in
dcrius uccusuvit
i
ncm
ct t/tc
</
Hdin dnlc/i dcfcnSb*

.
tartwtt
(juts en in ixlc dies

fjui
i//i
inluxerit, qiitcro, dcr it rd in, (jtidin

I
ostenfdlsi
multoK annos
rc/
i
<t
ssc
nctjitcirisspt,
.
demy
in
fell
away
from
hilo
nut din
Vide
the
following
while he himself conversely sees

his retrogression
note.
from An-
PHILO.
however, he would not renounce all certainty of conviction, nor would he allow that with the comof things, all knowledge must stand
prehensibility
83
CHAP.
and
incomprehen- His doche thought, there is a great difference ; he who sible, holds things to be incomprehensible is far from ness: no certainty is to be necessarily asserting that
<
fall.
Between
uncertain
and
?/
attained
there
something stamped upon the
a clear manifestness, which is yet a truth other than comprehension

is
soul, to
which we hold even

1
if
we
How we are not in a position to understand it. receive information of this truth, Philo does not
shown more particularly, nor did he what share in the formation of manifest con explain victions belonged on the one hand to the senses, and, 2 but when he speaks of on the other, to the reason
seem
to have
stamped upon the soul, we can think of anything else than that immediate hardly
truth which
is
knowledge, which, as we shall

The representative of Antiochus in Cic. Acad. ii. 10, 32, seems to refer to Philo when he
1
see,
played so great a
esse aliqmd verum illud quidetn imprcssum in animoatque mente, neque tamen id percipi ac comsays, having previously spoken Carneades and of the absolute scepticism of the prcndi posse. new Academy Alii antem elc- Clitomachus, who allow only a
conantur ostendere
perspicui,
gantius, qni etiam
quod
eos
qucruntur, insimulcmus omnia in-
certa dicere, quantumqtie intersit inter incertiim et id, quod pcrcipi non possit, docere coin
nantur atque distinguere. But any case what is added in c.

11,
high degree of probability to our knowledge at the best, cannot have expressed themselves in such a manner. 2 We should have expected even in this case that his definitions of it would have been
alluded to in the discourses directed against him by Cicero.
3
34,
must
relate
to
Simili in errore versantur,

convitio
xjricua
(
him cum
:
veritatis
coacti
eVap7es,
pereWpyeta) a
definition to
(ii.
which Her-
mann
13)
rightly draws
perceptis volant distinguere et
attention.
G 2
84
ECLECTICISM.
part with his disciple Cicero. When, however, we find that he did not venture to ascribe to this know
CHAP.
and assumed manifestness to be a kind of consequently conviction, the certainty of which transcends mere
full certainty of intellectual cognition,
ledge the
probability, but does not reach the unconditional cer this is very characteristic tainty of the conception of the middle position of our philosopher
1
between
Carneades and Antiochus, and it was so far not without reason that Philo was distinguished from his predecessors, no less than from his successors,- as
the founder of the fourth Academy; while, on the other hand, this appellation tells in favour of the
opinion that between the doctrine of Philo and that of
Carneades an important divergence had really taken

place. That directly certain element, Philo, like Cicero after him, might seek before all things in the utter
ances of moral consciousness, and so his theory of know ledge might serve him as a foundation for practical
philosophy, the necessity for which seems to have been his determining influence in originating the theory. 3
1
This opinion
justifiable,
s
I
believe to
(7. c.
70,
2: 82, 3) that
rcri
jn
<-f
there
ti-iliil
is
he
ii.
notwithstanding
tiot/i
f<(/xi,
no CXM
the
Hermann
K>),
contradiction
(ji/nd
rcij>i
jnn<K>t.
On
for
cannot admit that
with
pernpicwttts coincides the unconditioned ceraccording to tainty, which, .Plato, is present in the intuition
Philo
s
contrary, when lie mi.sed even in the Stoic (bavTavia KO.TO.ATJTTTI/CT? the Him of true knmvledê, and consequently the
of ideas, and excels in truth the intellectual knowledge of Had this been the Stoics. Philo s nieaniiiir he could not possibly have maintained uni-
he :nust have the more in that knowledge to which he ascribes such unconditional
//oft/
ri
ii ft
///*/,
discovered
it
all
certainty.
(
f.
7V///.
p.
</.
Gr.
.sv/.
III.
i.
ai l!,
verbally as he does (vide supra,
tiupra,
77
PHILO.
But in
itself
85
Philo
scientific
long be maintained.
He who assumes
position could not a certainty,

self-evident or
CHAP.
as Philo did in his doctrine of the
manifest, could not, without inconsistency, deny that every sure token of distinction between the true and
is wanting to us ; he could no longer pro the principles of the new Academy ; conversely, he who did profess them could not logically go be
the false
fess
yond Carneades doctrine of

found
it
probability.
If a
man
impossible to satisfy himself any longer with that doctrine, there remained nothing for him
ticism of the
but to break with the whole standpoint of the scep new Academy, and to claim afresh for human thought the capability for the of
knowledge
This further step was taken by the most Antiochus 2 of important of Philo s disciples,
truth.
1
Ascalon.
This philosopher had for a long time enjoyed Antiochus s instructions, and had himself embarked upon works advocating the scepticism of the
Philo
when he began
to
in
may have been
Academy, grow uncertain about it. 4 This great measure the result of his
having attended the lectures not only of Philo, but

Of whom those known to us are mentioned infra, p. 99 sq. 2 vide him, Concerning Krische, Gott. Stud. ii. 160-170
1
;
Par. 1856; but, as the treatise of
Chappe was unknown in Germany, this flagrant plagiarism was "only discovered after the
its author. Strabo, xvi. 2, 29, p. 759 Plut. Luc. 42 Cic. 4 Brut. 2
3
;
and
Asc.
C.
Chappius,
et
De AntwcM
Paris,
death of
mta
;
doctrina,
who, however, does not go beyond what, is well known, A literal copy of this dissertation appeared in D Allemand s De Aiitioclio Asc. Marb. and
1854
^lian, F.AT.xii.25.
is
A<rKa\uviTr]s
his
4
most usual appellation,

p.
ii.
Supra,
80, 1
2, 4
;
82,
1,
Cic.
Acad.
19, 63.
86
ECLECTICISM.
of the
Stoic Mnesarchus,
1
CHAP,
who, as the disciple of

of
Panretius,
had indeed opposed the scepticism
the
new Academy, but at the same time prepared the way for that blending of Stoicism with the
Platonic doctrine which in the sequel was completed Antiochus. During the first Mithridatic war,
by
we
2 and him with Lueullus in Alexandria to an open rupture be only then did things come 3 He afterwards stood at the tween him and Philo.
find
Numcn.
2
;
ap.
Eus. Pr. Er.
ing the Stoic whose

/>.).
name
the
xiv. 9,
Augustine, C. Ac<id. iii. 18,41, doubtless taken from Cicero; of. Cic. Acad. ii. 22, 69: Quid? eum MncsareJii
poenitebat? quid? uiqui crant Athcnis ttnn pr He only sepa cipes Stoicorum. rated himself from Philo at a
later
Dardanil
treatise of Antiochus bore, p. Either in this work or 53. in the KavoviKa, from the second book of which a passage is quoted in iSext. Math, vii. 201
sup. p. 30, 1), but pro bably in the former, we have the source of the whole polemic
(ride
date.
sarchus
J
and
Concerning Dardanus,
3.
ii.
Mne
ride
(cf.
against the scepticism of the Academy, which Cicero (Aead.

ii.
supra, p. 52,
Cic.
.?</(/.)
represents
Lueullus
Ai-ad,
4,
11
supra, 76, 4);

61.
ibid.
2,
4; 19,
Whether he went
Athens
to
straight
from
Alexandria,
however, or had accompanied Philo to Rome, and here allied himself with Lueullus, is not
stated.
as repeating from spoken dis courses of Antiochus (vide 5, Cf. Krische, I. c. 12 ID, 61). 168 K^tj. Of the second version of the Acade/uica Cicero ex
;
xiii. 19), pressly says (Ad Ait. qu(C f rant contra aKaraXriîav
prf/
cho e
>
colli
ctd
nb AntlooliOt
According to Cicero, /. e., it was in Alexandria that An

tiochus
first
saw the work
of
dcdi ; but Varro had now taken the place of Lueullus. Cicero also made use of Antio
Varron
Philo, which he was so unable to reconcile with those doc trines of Philo already known to him that he would scarcely to be the treatise believe
chus by name in the books
J)e
genuine (ride sup. p. 80, 2) and this induced him to write a work
;
against
it,
called Sox us (ride
N. I), i. 7, 16), to which Philo seems again to have responded and concern (t-idc sup. p. 80, 1,
Finibut, the lifth of which is taken from him. Also, in re gard to the Top ica,W Mies (De Tupii: Cic., Halle. 1878) shows it to be probable that Cicero follows Antiochus in chapters 2-20. Put as in the short rapid compilation of this t reat ise he had no books at hand
>;///.
and consequently wrote from
ANTIOCHUS.
head of the Platonic school in Athens when Cicero, About in 79-78 B.C., was his pupil for half a year.
1
87
*
CHAP
2 ten years later he died. Through Antiochus the
Academy was so decidedly #?* i -L 1. j polemic the sceptical tendency to which it had diverted from abandoned itself since Arcesilaus, that it never, as a scepticism.
1
whole, returned to it ; and Antiochus is, therefore, 3 When called the founder of the fifth Academy. he had once freed himself from the scepticism of
Carneades, he made a polemic against it the special 4 The sceptic, as Antiochus task of his own life. with the certainty, even the abolishes,
believes,
probability
which he himself maintained

i.
for
if
memory
also
(Top.
5)
we may
mortuus
cording
(cf.
Plut. Luc. 28, ac
perhaps discover in it the substance of a lecture which he heard while with Antiochus, and with the help of written notes brought away; nothing is known besides this of any treatise of Antiochus on
Topica.
1
which Antiochus had mentioned the battle at Tigranocerta, perhaps as an

to
eye-witness). Since this battle took place on October 6, 685 Antiochus A.U.C. B.C.) (69 must have lived at least till
Plut. Cio. 4
Cic.
;
1
4,
Brut. 91, 315
Fin. v. cf Acad.
.
1,
i.
13; ii. 35, 113; Legg. i. 21, Atticus also had made his 54.
acquaintance in Athens (Legg. 1. c.}. To this later time must be referred what is said in the Ind. Acad. Here. 34, of mis
sions (TrpeovSetW) to Rome and to the generals in the pro vinces. 8 see this from Cic. Ac ad.
the following year. On the other hand, we see from the Ind. Here. 34, 5, that he died in Mesopotamia in con sequence of the hardships of the expedition. Brutus some years later heard no longer Antiochus but his brother Aristus in Athens (Cic. Brut. 97,
332, with
which Tune.
v. 8, 21,
We
ii.
2,
4,
and more
61
:
distinctly
Hcec Antiochus fere et Alexandrece turn et multis annis post multo etlam adsever ant ius, in Syria cum esset
c. 19,
from
does not disagree). More pre cise dates for the life of An tiochus it is not possible to fix. 3 Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 526, 2. 4 Cf. Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 12 Augustine, C. Acad. 6, 15 Nlhll tauten magis defendebat,
;
:
quam rerum
sapientein.
percipere posse
mecum, paulo ante
qiiam est
>-
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP
[V.
the true does not allow itself to be known as such, it cannot be said that anything appears to be true; consequently he not only contradicts the natural
1
împossible
makes all action, like Chrysippus, Antiochus, rejected the notion that we might follow probability in action,
;
2 necessity for knowledge, but also
for
as
even without knowledge and assent partly because, we have seen, without truth there can be no
;
and partly because it is impossible to act without assent and conviction, or, on the other hand,
probability,
to refuse assent to the self-evident, the possibility of which a portion of the adversaries conceded. 3
This practical interest
is
:
just what
is,
in his eyes, of
the highest importance the consideration of virtue is, as Cicero expresses it, the strongest proof of the possibility of knowledge, for how could the virtuous
man make
had no
fixed
a sacrifice to his fulfilment of duty, if he and unassailable conviction ? how would
practical wisdom be possible if the aim and problem of life were unknowable ? 4 But he also believed he
had the better of

of theory.
his adversaries
even in the sphere
The whole question here turns on the
statement, against which Carneades had chiefly directed his attacks that true conceptions have
tokens in themselves, by which they may be dis with certainty from false. 5 tinguished Against this
Cic.
17,
-
Acad.
18, 5!)
;
ii.
11,
33,
3G
In the
54;
34, 101).
first of these passages Lucullus says, in reference to

J hilo s objections against tional conceptions
Lvc. Loc.
JA>C
clt. 10,
30
g(j.
ra
7!
,
clt. 8,
24; 10, 32; 12,

;
(.sv/ym/,
37 sqq.
4
2)
noils oratlo contra
Acadei/t
clt. 8, 23 cf. 9, 27. Plnl. d. Gr. III. i. 501 yyy.
and
Cic.
Acad.
ii.
6,
18; 13, 40.
dejinitioncni, quani Phllo ruluit evertere.
inlam snxcljtltur ret medians earn,
iioltls,
ANTIOCHUS.
the
sceptics
had
chiefly
urged the various cases
CHAP.
of deceptions of 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 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
ished,
a source of true conceptions ; for though sensation is primarily only a change taking place in ourselves, it also reveals to us that by means of which this
must likewise, as Antiochus readily admits, allow truth to general concepts, if we

change
is
effected. 2
We
would not make

3
all
thought, and
all crafts,
and
arts
impossible. if, imagina tions of dreamers or lunatics are brought forward by his opponents, Antiochus replies that these are all
But
as against this, the
wanting in that self-evidentness which is proper to true intentions and conceptions ; 4 and if they seek to embarrass us with their sorites, 5 he answers that from the similarity of many things it does not
follow that there
is
no distinction between them

cases
6
and
|
if
in
particular
we
are
obliged
to
suspend our
1
judgment,
we need
6
not,
therefore,
2
8 4
Loc. cit. 7, 19 sqq. Sext. Math. vii. 162 sq. Cic. Z. c. 7. 21 sq. Loc. cit. 15, 47 sqq. 16, 51
;
That Antiochus after the
sq.
|
tiochus
I
According to 16, 49, Anmust have discussed
this objection at great length. s Cf. Phil. d. 6V. III. i. 503.
precedent of Chrysippus (Phil. d. Gr.lll. i. 116, 2) adopted this expedient even in regard to purely dialectical objections, such as the so-called ^/fvS6fj.uos we see from Cic. Acad. ii. 29, 95 sqq.
00
CHAP,
TV>
ECLECTICISM.
The sceppermanently renounce all claim to it. tics themselves, however, are so little able to carry out their principles that they involve themselves
1
Is it not striking contradictions. to maintain that nothing can be a contradiction
in
the
most
maintained, and to be convinced of the impossibility Can a person, who allows no of a firm conviction ? 2
distinction
between truth and
error, use definitions or
classifications, or
which he
to
it ?
3
is
even a logical demonstration, of absolutely ignorant whether truth belongs
how can it be simultaneously main there are false notions, and that between tained that true and false notions there is no difference, since
Lastly,
the
first
difference
of these propositions presupposes this very 4 must allow that some of these ?
We
arguments, especially
called very superficial,
proofs.
those
last
quoted,
are
not
deficient in subtlety, but others
must certainly be
and rather postulates than
In any case, however, Antiochus believed him self justified by such reasoning in repudiating the
demand
cence
1
that
we should
refrain
from
all
acquies
5
;
and in striving
;
after a
dogmatic knowledge
Arcesilaus drew this
:
>SV
Loc. dt. 16, 49 xq. Loc. Loc.

Loc.
fit. 9,
17,
54
tiochus.
xqq,
-
inference
29; 34, 109.
14,
cif. 14, 43cif.
ctifr tn
nil I rci sapiens adtt iitu tttr iinquani, nliqttando

(intern
3
1
44: 34, 111, where there is also the observat ion that this was the objection which caused Philo the
o]>
opinabitur ; in a Mtti r ; nulli iyitur

n>/>/f/itam
rci adxi
ntU tnr.
niitted that the wise
Carneades adman some-
most embarrassment.
He thus Cic. /. e. 21, (\7 xq. formulates the relation of Arcesilaus, Carneades, and An"
times agreed, and therefore had an opinion. The Stoics and Antiochus deny this latter but they also deny that from agree;
merit opinion
necessarily
fol-
ANTIOCHUS.
Instead
Creative
of
sceptical
01
nescience.
But he was not

;
CHAP.
enough
to produce -an independent system
therefore turned to the systems already existing, (he Lot to follow any one of them exclusively, but to
from adopt that which was true mutual contradiction of the
all
and as
it
was
philosophical theories which appeared to give to scepticism its Antiochus believed that he Maintains greatest justification, could not better establish his own conviction than
J"
\
the
|of
bv asserting that this contradiction in some cases J did not exist, and in others concerned only unthat all the most important schools essential points were in the main agreed, and only
;
mtnttfall
the chief
sys tem s
.
philosophy
differed
from each
other in
words.
He
counted
he himself, indeed, as belonging to the Academy ; desired to re-establish the Platonism which his pre decessors since Arcesilaus had abandoned, and to
But from the new Academy to the old. his opinion, did not exclude a simultaneous this, in The Academic alliance with Zeno and Aristotle. and Peripatetic doctrines are, he says, one and the
1
return
same form of philosophy bearing different names
their diversity lies not in the fact but only in the 2 The same is the case with the Stoics expression. also adopted the Academic-Peripatetic philothey
:
lows
false
for a
man
true,
can distinguish
and
unknowable.
:
knowable and ultimate The
12,
Sup. 82, 2; Cic. Acad. i. 43 Fin. v. 3, 7 Brut. 91,

; ;
;
question, therefore, is always this whether there is anything
315 15;
2
Augustine,
iii.
C.
Acad.
;
ii.
G,
18, 41.
Cic.
Acad.
;
which
with
lets
itself
be
a
known
QavTao-ia
ii. 5,
15
;
44,
136
certainty,
5,
14
8,
21
6, 22 v. 3, 7 cf. iv. 2, 5.
i.
4,
17 Fin.
uri}(cf.tp.87,4;88,5).
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP,
_
sophy, and only changed the words or, if it be admitted that Zeno introduced much that was new in substance also, 2 this was of such a subordinate kind, that the Stoic philosophy may, nevertheless, be considered as an amended form of the
l
philosophy
new system. 3 Antiochus himself adopted so many Stoic doctrines that Cicero says him he desired, indeed, concerning to be called a member of the Academy, but
as a
<
of the
Academy, and not
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 Peri
patetic
7/7* ccJrctieitni.
and in
spite of the affinity of his
mode
of
thought with Stoicism, he must be considered an

eclectic.
Antiochus divided philosophy in the usual man 5 that he did not ascribe the ner, into three parts same value to each of these is clear from the posi;
1
Cic.
Acnd.
7,
Int.
JY.
v. 8,
i.
D.
ii. 5, 15 0, 10 22; 25,74; 21), 88; 16; Lcf/.j. i. 20, 54;

;
Cf. Pint.
(AC. 4.
When
Cicero
bext PurrJt. i. 235. Acad. i. 0, 35 xq. 3 Ibid. 12, 43: Vcrum CM autem arUtror, nt Antiocko nostro familiari placebat, cor-
2^
left
heard Antiochus. he had already

the
{K
new Academy: riv ^rapo\T1s Oepaweiw
\6yov eV rols TrAeioroiy Sext P.jrrh. i. 235: 6 Avrioxo, T^V Zroiiv tierjyaycv th
rectwnem
^W,
on
is Ka
eV
reteris
Academic
pvtiusquamaliquam tunanidi*aiplinam jmtandam [_Stolcorum
2ra>i>ca.
rfr Ax*** .lâBai eV OMT AffaS^ta QiXovo^: ret August. ( Ac<id. iii.
l
.
m ].
ii.
18, 41.
43,
132: Antio-
chus, qni appellal>atu.r Aoadem*eus,era.t qiddem .v/ pcrpam-a

issi t,
r,
Acnd. i. 5 19 (cf ii That these two representations reproduce tlie

Cic.
30,
HO).
views of
Fin.
gerniams&iinm Stnit.
j)ressly states,
v. 3, 8.
Amiodms, Cicero Acad i 4
ex-
14-
as
is
said in 45, 137, balbutienn.
ANTIOCHUS.
he assigned to them ; for he placed ethics, as the most important division, first, physics second, and logic third. He paid most attention to the of knowledge and ethics. 2 Ethics, especially, jtheory
tion
1
CHAP.
by Cicero to have been in his opinion the most essential part of philosophy. 3 In his theory of knowledge the principal thing is that
is
said
kJ^*
scepticism which we have already mentioned; for the rest he adhered, according to 4 Cicero, strictly to the principles of Chrysippus ; and
refutation
of
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
not only with the Peripatetic with that of the Stoics that
:
which Platonism agreed doctrine, but also

o
all knowledge pro from sensible perception, but in ceeded, indeed, 5 itself was an affair of the The
understanding.
. .
.
So at least we find in Acad. not only in the enumeration, but also, and repeatedly,
1 i.
^sqq.,
quitur telem
aut ipsnm Aristoa Chrysippo pedem
in
2
ii.
the exposition of the three Antiochus, ap. Cic. Acad. 29, etenim duo esse Ticeo
divisions.
So, in c. 28-30, Antiochus is throughout opposed on the assumption that he recognises the dialectical rules of
misquam.
9,
maxima in pltilosophia,judicium
veri
Chrysippus.
5
Acad. i.8, 30: Tertia deinde

.
etjinem bonorum, &c. 8 Acad. i. 9, 34. 4 Acad. ii. 46, 142 Plato autcm omne judicium reritatis
:
philosophice pars
Aristotle)
citim
;
sic trac-
tabatur ab utrisqiie (Plato and
quanquam
oriretur
veritatotique ipsam,
abductam
sensibus,
et
ab opinionibus
esse
et
Numqtiid liorum probat noster Antiochus ? ille vero ne majorum qnidem suorum, ubi enim aut Xcnocratem se-
\fgitationis voluit.
ipsius
mentis
judiin sensibus. volcbant rerûm esse judicem, &c. But the disciple of Antiochus speaks in a precisely similar manner of Zeno
reritatis
a xensibus tamen non
esse
Mentem
(11, 42).
04
ECLECTICISM.
doctrine of ideas, on the other hand, he abandoned, and thus, in his efforts for unity, it might wel
appear to him at last that the Stoic theory of knowdefinition o ledge was only an extension and closer 2 To what an ex the theory of Plato and Aristotle.
tent Aristotelian and
sions were
Stoic definitions
logic,
and expres
s
Tovica?
-L
mingled in his supposing this
we
see in Cicero
really *
account
follows
In the same superficial manner, Antiochus combines the Platonic metaphysics not onh * fo] with tllose f Ari ^ totle hut also of the
Antiochus. 4
>Stoic
>
"hy*ic8.
he, or Varro in his
name/
represents the supposec
and Aristotle as follows there are two natures, the active and the passive force and matter, but neither is ever without th( That which is compounded of both is callec other.
identical doctrine of Plato
body
or a
quality.
Among
these qualities
th<
simple and the compound are
to be distinguished
t<
the former consisting of the four, or, according the latter, of Aristotle, five, primitive bodies
;
al
th<
the rest
of the first category,
five
and
air are
active, earth
and water the receptive and passive 1 nderlying them all, however, is the matter withou their substratum, the imperishable quality, which is
Vldi Acud. \. 8, 30, comp. 1)3,4. pared wit hi), 33 and
1
stf/>.
as he
CM
\
Acatl.
f<t/j>.
i.
11,
42
Kq.
u
1
i(/c
p. S(J, 3.
himself remark*, lie in word <jualita\ troduces the newly into the Latin laiiLTuag :is a translation of the Greel
I
As \Vallies demonstrates thoroughly (I)c Font. Top. Clc.

L
:
"
TTOIOTTJS,
lie
must
not
have
fourn
1
TrotorTjs
and
TTOIUV,
employe
.v/r/.).
Afitil.
b
i.
r,
24
Ft/f/.
tut
Cicero expressly says, qunl\and as oil this occasion,
hv his predecessor. Qualitie were declared to be bodies b. the Stics (cf. I hll.d. (if. Ill,
(
J J, 111).
ANTIOCIIUS.
but yet infinitely divisible elements, producing in of its forms definite bodies (the constant change
All these together form the world ; the m^qualia). eternal reason which animates and moves the world
is
95
CHAP.
called the Deity or Providence,
also Necessity
land, because of the unsearchableness of its workings,

I
sometimes even Chance.
To the man who could
so
entirely mistake the fundamental doctrines of the older systems, and mingle together earlier and later ele
ments
in so arbitrary a manner, the opposition of the Stoic system to the system of Plato and Aristotle could no longer appear specially important ; and so
1
in the
work we have so often mentioned, it is only said that Zeno discarded the fifth element of Aris totle (aether), and was likewise distinguished from the earlier philosopher in that he held bodies alone
to be real.
How
far
even this one distinction ex
He tends, the eclectic does not seem to suspect. mind with sense ; 2 and says expressly confounds of Aristotle that he represents spirits as consisting
of aether, for
which Zeno substituted
fire.
We may
Ethics.
with certainty assume that he did not enter into

special physics.
In regard to morals
true to his eclectic
Stoics,
also,
Antiochus remained
character.
He
starts, like
the
from
self-love,
and the fundamental impulse

fundamental impulse of from this starting point
suumfons
scnsus
3
of self-preservation as the human nature, and attains
Loc.
:
cit.
11, 39.
10,
est,
atque etiam
27
;
ijjsa
Acad.
ii.
says
Hens enim
30, Lucullus senipsa t

qu<B
est,
&c.
i.
Acad.
7,
11, 39.
96
ECLECTICISM,
the ground principle of the Stoics and Academics, life It is as much a according to nature. doctrine of the Stoics, however, as of the
that of
1
CHAP.
.
Academy
that that which

for
is
according to nature
is
determined
creature according to its own particular nature, and that therefore the highest good for man
each
according to human nature, per But herein the point is already indicated at which our philosopher diverges from Stoicism. Whereas the Stoics had recognised only the rational element in man as his true essence, Antiochus says that sensuousness also belongs to per fected human nature, that man consists of soul and
life
is
found in a
fected on
all sides. 2
body, and though the goods of the noblest part have the highest worth, those of the body are not on that account worthless ; they are not to be desired
merely
for the sake of another,
but in and for themselves. 3
therefore, according to him, con 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
sists in
The highest good,
mental, bodily, and external goods. These con stituents of the highest good are doubtless of unCic. Fin. v. 9, 11.
.
pltr ift
cut
ex no-mini* natura undique purfecta ct nihil reVivere

fj
per
se
c
Jfftlltlf
tit
nnu
imc-
n,itnrti
So also
later
Varro, as will be
on.
shown
1<;
utre nte (Cic.

3
I.
c. 9,
26).
Arfl.
:
i.
:U 13, 38 1G, health, strength,

;
19; Fin.v. 12, 44 17, 47. Beauty,

5,
;
Fin.v. ]? 3747.
44- 17
are
desired
for themselves Quoniam enim natura suit omnibus esplrri partibus cult, hunc xtatum cor:
,\, a,L i. 5, 19, 21 ^/., in the description of the AcademicPeripatetic philosophy
AXTIOCHUS.
>equal
97
CJIAP.
mental endowments have the highest value, and among these, moral endowments (volunthan merely natural tarice} have a higher place but although corporeal goods and evils have ;
worth
:
gifts
it would only a slight influence on our well-being, 2 be wrong to deny all importance to them ; and if
be conceded to the Stoics that virtue for itself alone suffices for happiness, yet for the highest stage
it
3 of happiness other things are likewise necessary. Through these determinations, in which he agrees
with
the old Academy, 4 our philosopher hopes to strike the true mean between the Peripatetic school which, in his opinion, ascribed too much value to
the external, 5 and the Stoic school which ascribed too little ; 6 but it is undeniable that his whole
exposition fails in exactness and consistency. The same observation applies to other particulars.
If Aristotle
had given precedence to knowledge, and
Zeno
by
to action, Antiochus placed the two ends side side, since both depend upon original impulses of
If the Stoics
v. 13,
nature. 7
1
had maintained the unity,

is recognised as an authentic source of the Peripatetic doctrine so that even here in respect to the Academic
2
8
Fin. Fin.
38; 21, 58, 60. 22

:
lion)
v. 24, 72.
\.
Acad.
6,
virtute
esfte
positam,
In una leatam
vitam, nee tamen beatissimam, nisi adjungerentur et corporis ft cetera qiue supra dicta simt ad rirtntis usnm Idonea (ii. 43, 134; Fin. v. 27, 81 24, 71). V Cf. Phil d. Gr. II. i. 881, 5. 5 Fin. v. 5, 12; 25, 75. Aristotle himself is thus separated from his school, and beside him Theophrastus only ((though with a certain limita;
j j
school,
innovations
Antiochus wishes his to be regarded merely as a resuscitation of the original doctrine of the
Academy.
6
Fin. Fin.
v. 24, 72. v. 21, 58:
Aetinnvm
autem
genera plura, lit obscurentnr etiam minora majoribvs. Maximee atftem ntnt
. .
.
prinntm coiui
ECLECTICISM.
CHAT
IV.
and the Peripatetics the plurality of
virtue, Antiochus
declares that all virtues are inseparably connected with one other, but that each of them presents itself
in an individual activity;
1
attempt, as Plato
of their difference.
did, to
he does not, however, give any deeper account

Stoic schools were not
If the
community with other quite agreed whether men were a good in the strict sense something to
or not
be desired in and for itself

seeks to mediate
;
Antiochus here again for while he most fully acknow

2
and necessity of this relation, he ledges the value double distinction among things of value makes a
in
and
for
themselves
viz.,
those which are directly
a constituent of the highest good (the endowment* of the soul and the body), and those which are to be
renim
rcrinii
.
ccelestntm,
paWcawm
. .
trnt io et aet-hmes rirtutiJuia

tcs.
i
Deitule udininisreliquffqiie ri flutes

&c.
t
<>n;/ruett-
to the Peripatetic school. Cf. P/*iZ.d.r. IL.ii. 693; 851, l;868fc viii. 1, 1155,0, and Arist. Eth.
A",
f.
Fin.
Fin.
60. 18, 48; 20, 55; 23, v. 23, 6G sq.

v.
shown in the same way as by Antiochus that

\Ctsqq.,
where
it is
i.
23, 65 sqg.
Acad.
In both passages the community of men with one another is treated as something inherent in human nature and in the former it is shown how the feeling for this, from its
5, 21.
:
nature has implanted the love of parents to children ami of members of the same race to each other, KOL /j.d\i<TTa
(<J>i\ta)
Tols avdpOCTTOLS, odfV TOVS
<pl\O.V-
OpwTTovs
firaivovju.fi
and
it
is
added
Y5oj
u>s
&v
ns
KCU fv rats
TT\dvaiS
oi/ce?oj/ auras
avQpairos
appearance in family love, ever widen spreads itself in an circle and finally becomes
first
avdpunrw Kal
is
fyi\ov.
The
saiue
ing universal
developed (by Arius Didymus) in the account of the

Peripatetic
Eel.
ii.
love
of
mankind
This (caritax f/c.neria kuniani). is essentially Stoic, and more the spirit of the particularly in
later Stoicism but the thought of a universal love of mankind,
;
250
sq.,
Stob. ethics, ap. in a discussion
which so distinctly recalls the manner of Theophrastus that

from this Peripatetic, of whom something similar is observed,
Phil. d. (ir.
II.
ii.
we may doubtless derive

851.
it
based upon the natural interde alien pendence of men, was not
SCHOOL OF ANTIOCHUS.
|j
09
I
I
i
only allow the wise to be regarded as rulers, as free, rich, and noble ; like them he declares all the unwise to
desired as an object of moral activity: only in the class does he place friends, relations, and fatherland. Like the Stoics, Antiochus would
latter
1
CHAP.
and mad; and demands from the wise a complete apathy; 2 notwithstanding that he contradicted the doctrine of the older (thereby
slaves,
be
man
Academy, and had himself no right to such un

qualified statements, considering his own opinions But when we find respecting the highest good. violently opposing the closely connected
Mm
pro
position of the equality of all faults, 3 this trait ikewise show us that he was not
ibout scientific consistency.
may
very scrupulous
Consistency, however, was not the quality on Wool of Antioch the success of a philosopher at that time |which ihiefly depended. Among the contemporaries of
Jitiochus in the
5,
Academy, who are mentioned
to
>f
only the elder seem to have held to the doctrine Carneades ; 4 among the younger generation, on
:
Fin. v. 23, 68 Itafit ut duo a propter se expetendorum iantur, unum, quod est in n quibus completur illud mremum, qua sunt aut animi
Mm
3
corpora: Juec autem, quce wnt eztrinsecus ut amid, parentes, vt liberi, ut yvopinut ipsa patria, sunt ilia uidcm sua sponte cara, sed in genere, quo ilia, non
. . .
|V>&C.
Acad.
11. 44, 135 sq. Ibid. 43, 135 sq. This is true of e r a c 1 e i-
u s of Tyre, who is known to us Cicero (Acad. ii. 4 1 1 sq.) as a disciple of long standing of Clitomachus and Philo, and a distinguished representative of the new Academy for the Academy is certainly meant by the philosophia, quff nunc prope dimissa revocatur, as will be immediately sliown. Through a misunderstanding of the expression, Zumpt (Ueberden Bestand der Pkll. Schitl. in Athen.} Abh. d JierJ. A liad. 1842; Hist. Philol
t
through
100
ECLECTICISM.
the contrary, ,
1
CHAP,
Antiochus was
so
successful, that,
of Cicero, the doctrine according to the testimony

A7. 67*7.) has been misled into considering the disciple of Clitomachus and Philo as a Peri He is perhaps the
patetic.
same person
that
lie
of
whom
it
is
said
in the Ind. Here.
A cad.
was seventy years
33, 4, old.
sophers boides his brother. Plutarch (Jiritt. 2) places his moral character higher than his D o, doubt f|ts V \6yois. Also less the .-ame who (according to Strabo, xvii. 1, 11, p. 796; Cic. Pro Ca l. 10, 23; 21, 51)
i
Among
the Romans who occu with Greek pied themselves is men philosophy, C Cotta tioned (who was consul in 76 i. 7, 16 B.C.) by Cicero (X. D.
.
,<?<7.)
perished
as
member
of
an
Alexandrian embassy to Rome in 56 Ji.c., and is the person mentioned by Plutarch as the author of table conversations
(Plut. Qn. Coin-. Pro. 3).
tiochus,
as an acquaintance of An but a disciple and adherent of Philo. He criti

cises the
gqq.)
Also,
Epicurean
(iii.
(/. c.
i.
21
and
a/0.) the Stoic
according to the Ind. Here. 34, 6 nqq. (where by auroDany other philosopher than Antiochus can scarcely be intended), Apol-
theology from the standpoint As of the new Academy.

hearers of Philo, Cicero also (Acad. ii. 4, 11) mentions P u b 1 i u s C a i u s 8 e 1 i u s, and
,
las, of Sardis;
:
Menecrates,
Tetrilius Rogus.
Diodo-
of Methyma and Mnaseas, of Tvre. Concerning Aristo and ( rat ippus, who went over to the Peripatetic school, Aristus ride infra, p. 121, 2.
rus, a partisan of Mithridates, is also mentioned in this period, who held to the Academic school but (Strabo, xiii. 1, 66, p. 614) he can scarcely be counted among the philosophers. Pre-eminent among their number is A r i s t u s t he brother of Antiochus, who succeeded
; 1
seems to have been followed by

heard in Athens (Plut. Brut.
24) in 44 tioned by
r>.c.,
Theopompus, whom
and who
I
P>rutus
is
men
h Host rat us (v. same date Soph. i. 6). At the there lived in Alexandria at the court of Ptolemy XII. (Diony
him in his position of instruc tor at Athens (Cic. liriit. 97,

332: Acad.
ii. 4, 12; i. 3, 12; 7 ttxc. v. 8, 21; Pint. Jtrul. 2; In 51 r,.c. Ind. Here. 34, 2 *q. Tusc. \. Cicero (ad Att. v. 10 met him there, and de 8,22) scribes him as the only man
;
De sus) Demetrius (Lucian, whom we of Caliimn. 16), know, however, nothing further; but, at any rate, he was a worthier member of the school than the Phi 1 ostrat u s men
tioned by Plutarch (Anton. SO).
Among
Cicero,
"the
Romans,
of
besides
Varro,
whom we
exception to unsatisfactory generally state of philosophy in Athens. According to the Ind. Here., he had heard many other philo the
who formed an
shall have to speak more par was also ticularly later on, M. a disciple of Antiochus. Brutus had been instructed 332: by Aristus (Cic. Jtruf. 97,
SCHOOL OF ANTIOCHUS.
of the
101
new Academy was

1
in his time almost entirely
CHAP.
IV.
abandoned.
Acad.
Tusc.
i.
Ênesidemus says the same thing; and

;
3,
8,
12
Fin.
v.
3,
to
1
which he was not living when
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 Tyrian Homo a follower of Antiochus with sane in ista pliilosopltia, qiuc Varro, and in Parad. Pro. 2, nunc prope dimissa revocatur, with himself. In Brvt. 31, 120 probatus et nobilis. 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 (Tttsc. I. c.} puts context. For when a disciple a proposition of Antiochus into of Clitomachus and Philo is Plutarch also (I. c., mentioned, we can but conclude his mouth. that the philosophy in whicli cf. Dio, 1) says that he was indeed well acquainted with he distinguished himself was the philosophy of these men all the Greek philosophers, but was himself an admirer of An and Cicero says expressly that tiochus and an adherent of the Heracleitus opposed Antiochus, old Academy, as opposed to the the rival of the Academy (of His Carneades, &c.), dispassionately later and new Academy. and knowledge are indeed, but zealously. The new talent
:
he re sembled both personally and in

v.
21),
whom
Cicero wrote
De
Finibiis).
praised by Cicero (ad Att. xiv. Brut. 6, ix. 14 20 ad 22 Fin. iii. 2, Q his writings Tmte. v. 1, 1 in Acad. i. 3, 12 Fin. i. 3, 8 vide also, in regard to his writings, Sen. Consul, ad Heir. 9, 4 Ep. 95, 45 Quintil.
;
Academy,
Cicero
s
therefore,
which
in
l>ir.
time had been almost universally abandoned, was by him revived. Cicero says the
same
N. D.
thing
i.
most
:
distinctly,
Nee vcro descrtarum relictannnqiie rerum pa5,
11
123; Charisius, p. 83; Diomed. Priscian, vi. p. 679 On the preceding, ride p. 378. Krische, Gott. Stud. ii. 163 gqq.) M. Piso also heard Antiochus with Cicero (according to Cic. Fin. v. 1 sqq.\ acknowledged himself his disciple (1. c. 3, 7 sq.\
x.
1,
;
trociniwni swsccpiiniis (through the defence of the doctrine of the new Academy) non enim
;
kominum
sententiff interitu quoque occidunt, sed lucem aiictoris fortasse dvsidcrant, lit lure in philosophia ratio contra omnia disserendi nullamqne rcm
and expounded his ethical prin

ciples (c. 4-25), but in
manner that he
still
such a wished to
retain his loyalty to the Peri patetic school into which his housemate Staseas, of Naples, had introduced him (/. c. 3, 8 25, 75; I)e Orat. i. 22, 104). Cf. ad Att. xiii. 19 (according
;
profccta a Arcesila, conjirmata a Carneade usque ad nostram rignit eetatem ; qnam nunc prope orbam esse in ij)sa If these evi Grceci-a intelligo. dences are considered to be dis proved by the saying of Augus vide tine, C. Acad. iii. 18, 41
apcrtc
judicandi
Socratc,
repctita ab
ECLECTICISM.
testimonies everything that we know the tendency of the Academic school until regarding Our nearly the end of the first century coincides.
with these
knowledge of
chus
xi<]>ra,
this school
2
very incomplete,
still
at that time is certainly but that the eclecticism of Antio
maintained
2),
itself there, is plain
from the
p.
7!>,
according to
which Cicero would only have had to finish suppressing the

rt liqul(C of the false doctrines of Antiochus opposed by Philo. This is to ascribe an importance
cannot be definitely fixed, but to have lived earlier than Tlirasyllus, we find from
who seems
Albinus,
Prod.
ap.
f>,
//
Inirod. Tun. 7,
Pin/*.
i//
P>.
Plat.
;
4
r
.
orph.
)(),
Sinijtl.
/54,
/A;
to
to
the Augustinian phrase which clearly does not belong
it, since it is plain that the notion of Cicero s refuting the eclecticism of Antiochus is false. Ap. Phot. Cod. 212, p. 170, 11: of 5 OTTO TT?S A/caSrj/iias, /j.d\i(TTa TTJS vvv, KCU STOH1
had composed a. on the Platonic great philosophy, from which perhaps

that
he
work
the extensive astronomical frag ment in Theo Smyrn. Axtron. c. 40 .svy., and the smaller excerpt
in
Proclus
5.
//
Plat.
Jfcnij).
<prj(T\.
(emoted from
Aitct.
p.
7-1)
KCllS
(TV/U(j)fpOVTa.L
fVLOTf
6i7T6iI/,
So^CUS,
A. Mai, Claxs. 3f)2,by Martin on I heo,
KOi ft
Yp7/
Ta.\T]dfS
5TOU-
are
his
taken.
hrasyllus
voi (paivovTai /j.axofj.voi S.Tw iito is.
icero
-iinilar
i1
1
and judged in a manner of Antiochus:

<itliers
!>2,
became acquainted
perhaps
native
Tiberius, to
in llhodes,
/It
-
sii/ini, p.
4.
Of the heads of the Athe nian school we know none between Theomnest us (rlt/c îi/tra} and Ammonius, the
lutarcli of other eacher of -mbers of the Academy, be-ides Kudonis, Nestor of TarI
:
city, with he succeeded in making himself indispen sable as an astrologer (what is related, however, as to the proofs
whom
of his art in Tacit. Ami. \\. L O; Siu-ton, Tiber. 14: and, still
more,
21.
is
in I)io
ass. lv.
Iviii.
i.
He
SKS
;
embellished with tables). then lived, from the last
Mis (Straho, xiv.

i-.xpressly
.">,
II,
p.
(175,
years of Augustus (Sueton.
in/.
this distinguishes Not or from llic pivviously:::i-nt ionel Stoic of the same name rit/r ,v/////v/, the
.".1
Dio Cass.
a
Ivii.
1.")),
in
Home,
and died
year before Tiberius,
j>.
former, according to him, was he teacher of Mareellus, son of Octavia) and the Tu hero
,
:{; A.I). (I>io, Iviii. He is 27). chielly known to us through his division of the Platonic dia logues into tetralogies (rif/t:
Phil.
(I.
dr.
II.
i.
42S).
He
is
-poken of
ii.
in
r/iif.
<l.
(, i:
1 1
IH..
7,
J
;">,
only
I)e re v
and
these
hrasyllus.
ides Kven of
little.
Of
an; told very whose Dercyllides,
we
date
mentioned as a Platonist with Pythagorean tendencies by Por ut as both phyry, Plot. 20. and Thrasyllus Dercyllides seem to have been grammaI
EUDORUS.
example of Eudorus, a philosopher of Alexandria, 3 and a contemporary of the Emperor Augustus. This philosopher is denominated a member of the Academy, 4 but he had expounded the works of 6 5 and had dis Aristotle, as well as those of Plato,
1
108
2
(
HAP.
coursed at length on the Pythagorean doctrine, which he apprehended in the sense of the later Platonising
7
Pythagorism.
rians
This many-sided
(Ar.
occupation
Did. ap.) Stob.
with
Z.
rather
it
phers,
may
than philoso here suffice to
c.:
refer, in regard to Thrasyllus, to K. F. Hermann, De Thrasyllo Schol. Getting. 1852); (Irid. Miiller, Fragm. Hist. Or. iii. 501 Martin on Theo. Astron. and in regard to 69 sq. p. Dercyllides to the work last
;
;
EvSupov rov AA.e|ai/5pews, aKaSfjft-iKov (pi\off6(f>ov. Simp. Schol. in Arist. 63, a, 43 Achil. Tat. Isag. ii. 6 (in Petar. Uoctr. Temp. iii. 96 Eudorus is also
; ;
quoted in Isag.
79).
5
i.
2,
13, p. 74,
His
commentary on
.
the
mentioned, p. 72 sqq, Concerning Eudorus, vide Koper, PMlologus, vii. 534 sq. Diels, Doxogr. 22, 81 sq. ct passim. 2 Vide in Stob. Eel. ii. 46.
1
Categories is often quoted in that of Simplicius (cf Schol. in Arist. 61, a, 25 sqq. 63, a, 43 70, b, 26 71, b, 22 66, b, 18 73, b, 18 74, b, 2, and Cat. ed.
;
Basil. 44,
e.
65, e).
That he also
fra, p. 104,
1.
3 The date of his life cannot be determined with accuracy. Strabo (xvii. i. 5, p. 790) de scribes him as his contemporary. Brandis ( Ueber die Griech. Ausleqer dex Ariftfft. Organons, Abh. derSerl Acad. 1833 Hist. Phil. XI. p. 275) infers that he was earlier than the Khodian Andronicus, from tlie manner in
;
Metaphysics does not certainly follow from Alex. Metaph. 44, 23; Bon.
Schol. 552,
6
expounded
the
&,
29.
3,
Hut. De An. Procr.
2;
which
Simplicius
;
(Schol.
in
Arist. 61, a, 26
73, b, 18)
com
on
pares him with Andronicus, and the latter passage, at any rate,
seems to
me
conclusive.
If,
the other hand, Stob. Eel. ii. 46 sqq. is taken from Arius
infra),
Didymus (on this subject, vide he must have written

before him.
1019 sq., seems also to refer to a commentary on the Tinurus. 1 In the fragment quoted in Phil. d. Gr. I. 331, 4, from Simpl. Phijs. 39, a, not only are the two Platonic principles, the One and Matter, attributed to the Pythagoreans, but these principles are themselves re ferred (in agreement with the Neo- Pythagoreans, cf. ibid. III. ii. 113 sq.) to the One or the Deity as their uniform basis.
16, 1, p. 1013,
The same theory, however, is ascribed by Eudorus even to
101
ECLECTICISM.
the older philosophers, and especially his digest of
the Aristotelian categories, would at once lead us to suppose that the Platonism of Eiulorus was riot
entirely pure ; and this is confirmed by the state ments of Stobfcus concerning an encyclopaedic work
of his, in which
we
are told
:
science problematically
i.e.
he treated the whole of he gave a summary of
with which the different parts of are concerned, and compared the answers philosophy 1 given to them by the most important philosophers.
the
questions
In
the epitome of ethics, which has been preserved

is
to us from this work, the classification
logy
Plato,
rather Stoic than Platonic

to Alex.
2
;
and termino and no doubt

t
when, according
(5,
(in Metnj)h.\.
988,
the
fffTLv
words
atria
TO.
yap
10), sifter e^S?j rov ri

, 1
Tols
lie
a\\ois, ro7s 5
Kal rf? v\7j.
etSeffi
TO V,
added
On
this
with
i:>8,
theory, in agreement the Stoic monism (on
irav concerning the question rb Ka\bv Si aurb alperbv. These extracts also, as far as p. 88, are no doubt borrowed from Eudorus by Arius Didynuis whom Stobiuus is here tran
scribing-.
Having divided the whole of philosophy into ethics, phy
\vhichcf.P//?7.d.6V.III.i.p. KU, 145 x^.) though without

its
materialistic interpretation,
sics,
and
logic,
Eudorus
dis
even the I/ATJ must have sprung from the Deity or the primal One.
1
tinguishes three parts in ethics:

n-fpl rr\v
Eel.
ii.
46
ea"rij/
of>v
Ef/5a>-
aias,
TT.
dfwpiav TTJS KO.6 tKaffTov rrjV dpa^v, TT. rr)V Trp5|ii/

opfj.rjriKbi
first
,
piw rov
(pL\o(TO(pov fyiKoffofy iav
(dfupTjriKbv,
6iaipffis
irpaK-
rov
KTTJTOV,
eV
(^
\6yov, fjifixiov iracrai (irf(\ri\vde
Kara aio-
riKov}.
The above explanation

expression
.sv/y.,
of this
p.
results
tlie
from
51
author, after he has given Eudorus division of ethics, continues, apKreov

5f
where
of these falls into two sec tions: (1) the ends of life, and (2) the means for their attain ment, and each of these into a number of subdivisions among
The
parts then
which we
titles
TTfpl
TTfpl
find the truly Stoical rH)V TTp07)yoVfJ(.fl>U>V t

TTtpl
(TVfJLTTOCriwV
i.
fpwros,
</.
r&v
Trpo^\r]fj.drwi
and then
(cf. P/iif.
(i,\ III.
2UO
*7.
gives the. views of the vari ous philosophers first concern ing the TtAos, then concern
ing
goods
and
evils,
la-fly
Even 7; 2815, 2). the doctrine of virtue, one of the sections of the second division (for this must he
241,
1
;
271!,
EUDORUS.
was the same with the details of his ethics, so that Eudorus in this respect entirely followed the precedent of Antiochus. That he did not confine
it
1
105-
CHAP.
IV.
himself to ethics appears from what has been already 2 quoted, and from certain other indications.
How
divided
rb
fj.*v
widely spread, in the second half of the last

be taken from Eudorus, espe
cially
ecrrl
by the words, p. 50, ruv apfTuv, c., before which ov or TOVTOV Se may probably have been lost)
fffTi irepl
from
d<>
p.
60
viroreXls
5*
TO irpwrov OIKCIOV rov

ov
ird6os,
primarily indicates the Stoic view, though among the four cardinal virtues, (ppovricrts takes the place of the Platonic
o-o<f>(a.
avrov,
ovirtt)
&\oyov,
fjitvov
Kara
roi/s
<f>vcriKOvs
Kal
0~TTp/U.aTLKOVS
\OJOVS
<$ov
ffVO-
The second main division of ethics treats partly of the bpu.^ generally and partly of the TraflTj, which are defined quite in the Stoic manner, into 6p/j.$i and appuo~Tr)/j.a. ir\eovdovo~a The third main division is separated by means of sub ordinate classes into eight
TOTTOL
:
(fKfiuQi] TIV\ yap TO TTO.VTUS evQvs e| apxTJs (Phil. d. Gr. Eudorus III. i. 208 sq.}.
How
was allied with Antiochus in this is shown by a comparison of the words immediately follow
ing
K?Tat 5 yap eV riôvrj ^ fv aoxA.?jaia ^ v Tols irpwTOts Kara (pvcriv) with what Cicero, Fin. v.
OITfp tffT\V VTTOT\ls,
fv TLVI
TWV Tpi&v
TI
Trapa/j.v6T]TiKbs,
iraQoXo-
yiKos, TTfpl ao~KT) crews, irepl KaQt]K6vT(av, irfpl KaropQufj-aTuv, irepl
6,
16 (ride ibid. III.

-
i.
518, 1),
quotes from Antiochus.
jfaptrw, TTfpl (Slav, irepl yd/j.ov. closely this whole classifi cation resembles that of the Stoics will be seen from Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 206 sq. Eudorus is so
How
According to Strabo, xvii. 790, Eudorus and Aristo the Peripatetic mutually ac cused each other of plagiarism in regard to a treatise on the
1, 5,
completely in agreement with what is there quoted from Sen. Ep. 84, 14, and the commence
ment
especially of his classifi cation Stobreus quoted, by bears such striking resemblance to the passage of Seneca, that either Seneca must have fol lowed Eudorus, or both must
Nile (Strabo will not decide who is in the right, but he says that the language of the treatise is more like Aristo s). Achil. Tat. Jsaff. 96 (169), mentions that Eudorus, agreeing with Panaetius, believed the torrid zone to be inhabited, and the same writer (as Diels shows, Doxogr.
have followed some common, and in that case Stoic, source. This is clear from the next
1
section of Stobreus, which, as before observed, seems also to
22) quotes something further, taken by Eudorus from Diodorus the mathematician, and from Diodorus by Posidonius.
106
ECLECTICISM.
century before Christ, was this eclecticism of which, we have seen, Antiochus was the foremost repre
is
1
as
sentative,
Didymus.
1
also clear from the example of Arius For though this philosopher is reckoned
2
with the Stoic
school,
his
views approximate so
no doubt the same ApeToy of Alexandria who is known to us (from lut. Anton. SO *q. Ajxtj/tif/t. 5, 207; Prcec. A//;/. Jft i/f. (icr. 18, !5, p. 814 Sen. Ctntsol. ad Marc. 4 ,sv/. Sueton. Oi-tar. 89: Dio Cass.
is
I
J>
<
</.
Didymus this does not justify us in distinguishing with Heine (Jahrb. f. Cla**. PJnL 18(59, flu; friend of Augustus ,i;{)
from Arius Didymus the Stoic. rather an instance of that which Diels, SlI, asserts, and of which he adduces many in this period, that the examples same man is designated some times by his own name, some times by the addition of his father s, to distinguish him from others bearing the same name, and sometimes by both names the well-known together
It is
/>r/./v///-.
:
c.</.
:>,
]>.
li.
1(5.
lii. il6
J-Ilian.
viii. :!1
:
r. //. xii.
2.j:
M. Aurel,
i;;o, h.
<)G,
Themist.
Or. x.
:>],
Pet.
;
p.
Heyl.
Julian. cf. Or.

;",
Ep.
viii.
C; Strabo, xiv. 4, p. 07**) as a teacher of philosophy, a confidant of Augustus and friend of Maecenas. He was
2(5"),
so highly este.enicd by Augustus that, as we read in Plutarch, Dio, and .Julian, lie declared to the people of Alexandria,
Rhodian rhetorician Apollonius is sometimes called AiroXXuvios 6 sometimes AiroAAtivios 6 M6\ccv and even bv his
MoAa>i>os,
;
after the rapture of that place, that lie pardoned them for the sake of their founder Alexander, their beautiful city, and their fellow citizen Arius. From a consolatory epistle of Arius to Livia, after the death of Drusus
(
disciple Cicero, Apollonius (Cic. ad Att. ii. 1 Unit. 81 91, Ora-t. i. 17, 75 316): Molo
;
M7
(D<>
.)
15.
C.),
whom
and the Stoic Musonius Rufus is called by Kjiictet us, Rufus onlv, and by others, as a rule, Mu
28,
126:
Iff Tui-eiit.
i.
5(5)
Arius
must
survived, Seneca, I. c., quotes a considerable fragment. It is true that in none of these passages is Arius railed Didv-
have
mus, while on he ot her hand of the authors who have transmitted to us fragments from Ai SfjUoy or Apeioy Ai Su/xoy, d -MTibe him as an Alexandrian or a friend of Augustus. as none of these authors had any occasion to enter into the personal circumstances of Arius
t
sonius only (ride infra, ch. vi.). As in the case of Arius some times the name and sometimes the surname stands first, we cannot be certain whether or Ai Suftos was the "Apeios
original
Hunt
sopher
to
P>ut
show more probable. 2 The Et nt. Dlo.j.

III.
i.
;>;>,
name of this philo but Diels, /. seems that the latter is the
<.,
d. fir.
(rule Phil. 2) mentions
Arius
between Antipater (the
Tvrian, concerning
whom
vide
ARIUS DIDYMUS.
closely
to those of Antiochus that
107
we should be
1
CHAP,
tempted to consider
him
his disciple,
if
there were
IV.
not express testimony as to his Stoicism. We are only acquainted, indeed, with historical expositions
of his, of the older doctrines, probably taken from
one and the same work

supra,
1
2
;
but among these there

which
(e/c
T<av
is
.) and Cornutus, p. 71, the contemporary of Nero. I myself shared this opinion (supported by the Epit. Diofj.} in the second edition of the and in con present volume nection with it the supposition that in the notice of Suidas,
;
is quoted anonymously ruv AL^V/J.^ Trtpl TWV apf<rK6vUXdruvi (rvi/Tray/j.fvuv) by

c.
Eusebius, Z.
xi. 23,
i.
Stobseus, Eel.
2 sq. and by Likewise 330.

;
AtSv/tos Arrji os
p-wriffas
(2)
"Amos)
XPV-
(4) the remarks on two maxims of the seven sages quoted by Clemens, Strom, i. 300, B, from Didymus ; and (5) a statement
(pi\6(ro(f>os
A/caSTjyUcu/cbs,
respecting Theano,
I.
c.
309, C,
the word ATTJIOS had been sub

stituted
from
AiSv/j-os eV
T<
now abandon
books
\vffis
Kal
must The Atejus Didymus who wrote two

for
"Apeios.
ptKrjs (pt\ovo(p[as.
UvdayoLastly (6) a
irepl
that theory.
Kal
TTiQavtov
ffo^Lcr/jLaTuv
passage is quoted in Stob. Floril. 103,28 (e/CTTjs AiSv/uLov eViro/x^s), concerning the Peripatetic doc
trine of evSaifj-ovia
;
&\\a iro\\a might more probably be the double of the Alexandrine grammarian
AiSvfj.os veos,
this passage,
afterwards quoted,
also iriOava are ascribed; but this too is quite uncertain. A number of fragments from this work are quoted under its name and that of its to
whom
however, is found, as Meineke discovered (Miitzell s Ztitschr. p. 563 fiir d. Gymnasialw. sqq.} in the exposition of the
185i>,
Peripatetic ethics, ap Stob. Eel.
author.
ing
Such are the follow (1) An exposition of the Stoic theories of God and the
:
world,
airb rrjs
7rtTOyu.?7s
Apeiou
(ap Eus. Pr. Er. xv. 15). (2) The Stoic psychology, from the firirop,}] Apeiov Ai5v/j.ov, ibid. c. 20, chap, xviii. sq., con cerning the conflagration and renewal of the world, seems to be taken from the same source. (3) To the same treatise no doubt belongs the account of the Platonic doctrine of ideas
Ai8vfji.ov
274 sq. and thus it is shown that not only this whole section (from p. 242-334), but also the corresponding section on the Stoic doctrine, p. 90-242, is borrowed from the epitome of Arms. From the same source Stobams has probably taken also the four preceding sections of the same (sixth) chapter, beginning at p. 32. We there fore possess very considerable fragments from the work of our philosopher, which show that it contained a comprehen sive survey of the doctrines of all the earlier philosophers.
ii.
;
The proved
or supposed frag-
10*
ECLECTICISM.
a review of the Peripatetic ethics, which approaches so nearly to the ethics of the Stoics, and so entirely agrees with the opinions of Antiochus as represented
CHAP
IV.
by Cicero, that
ultimate source
ments
it
l
is
scarcely possible to mistake its

is
and though the work

d. (lr. III.
t
ostensibly
of this treatise relating
to physics have teen collected by Diels, Doj-nfjr. 145-472, with some limitations of Meineke s
The same writer conjectures. treats of Arius and his works, /. i p. 69-88. As Antiochus, in his ac count of the Peripatetic ethics
.
Like Antio hen seeks to show that from point of view belong ings, friends, com it TV men, human society generally, are to be de sired for themselves also praise
i.
258, 3).
chus, he
thi.>
(which for him coincided with those of the Academy), pursued the double end of defending the Platonic-Aristotelian doc trine against the attacks of the
Stoics,
p. {15
health, strength, glory, beauty, corporeal advantages of all kinds: onlv the goods of the soul are incomparably more
and
and of combining
.v/c/.),
it
with
the Stoic doctrine (ride xiipra,

so do we tind with Like Antiochus, he as his basis the commonly re cognised demand of life accord
Ariu>.
take>
valuable than all others (p. 246His discussion of the natural love of all men for each other (already mentioned) es pecially reminds us of his pre decessors in the Academy. Like
264).
Antiochus (ridv su/tra-, p. i7, 1), he classes the TTO\ITIKCU KCU

KOivuviKal
TTpd^fis
and
the
6ewpi]TiKal
;
ing to nature, and this in its Stoic acceptation. The $V(TLK)) oiKeicixris is the point of view
according to which what is a good, a 8
it
1
is
decided
together as equally origi nal problems (p. 264 sq.} like him, he distinguishes two kinds those which are to be of goods considered as const ituents (ffv/u.Tr\ripuTLKa} of happiness, and such as only contribute some thing to happiness ((Tt/x/3aAAe<T0cu) corporeal goods he will
;
aiperbv (of the aiperbv itself a definition is given, p. 272, corresponding with the Stoic definition quoted
/
//;/. (/.
<ir.
cirri*
III. i.22:5,l
).
The
is
not, like
Cicero
:
Antioc.luean,
first,
i]
instinct
of self-preservation
a>
acknowledged
mental
the
impulse
cf.
funda fyvffti yap

is
reckon under the second class UTL

/jLOfia )3ios tffrlv 6
but the
fvSai-
p.tv
8e fiios fK irpd;
yKeiwcrdai irpbs tavrbv (Stob. 24(5

,<</.;
252,258;
(/.
what
i.
Phil.
tin-
fit: III.
2<H),
quoted, 1, about
1>5
cf.
266 .sv/. 274 for the distinction be tween Ka\a and avayKcua, the
ffv/j.irfir\T]pu}Tai (]).
]).
fus
and, ,vM/m/, p. about Antiochus); the/fc07j.xv/y., Kovra (this conception also is Stoic) arc reduced to the eK\oy^ TUV the a.Trei<\oyi]
Stoics,
KaTa<t>v<rivun<]
fjitpri
tv8a.iuovt.as
and
5>v
OVK &v(v}
he opposo, like Aristotle, the theory that the virtuous man is happy even in the extremity of
suffering; also the Stoic pro position concerning the aiirdp-
TUV
irapa (pvaiv (p.
250
cf. PJiiJ.
POTAMO.
and
chiefly a
109
mere reproduction
of the Peripatetic
CHAP.
TV.
doctrine,
still it is
clear that Arius could not
have
brought that doctrine so near to that of the Stoics,

or adopted an older exposition which did so (that of Antiochus), if the distinctive doctrines of the dif
1
same importance for him if he had not shared the mode of thought which inspired the exposition of Antiochus, and had not been disposed,
ferent schools had had the
as for the ancient Stoic authorities,
like Antiochus, to disregard the opposition of Stoics,
Academics, and Peripatetics, as compared with their
common
conviction. 2
iii.
With Arius and Antiochus we must connect Potamo of Alexandria, who, according to Suidas, was
Kfia of virtue,
sibility
uto.
of losing it statement that there
and the impos and the

;
KOTTT).
In his (Economics and
nothing intermediate between happi ness and unhappiness (p. 282 cf. p. 314); thus showing him
;
is
he keeps entirely to Aristotle, only that he calls the third of the right constitutions
Politics
self
in
these
particulars less
not Polity, but Democracy, and defective counterpart Ochlo cracy, and introduces, beside the
its
strict than
Antiochus (suf). p. 97, right and wrong forms of govern On the other hand (p. ment (p. 330), the mixed forms 3). compounded from the three 266), the Stoic doctrine of the efaoyos Qaywy)) (Phild.Gr. III. first (those of Dica3archus, dis is also forced upon cussed in Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 892). i. 305 For the doc Their common use of this the Peripatetics trine of virtue, Arius makes use philosopher may perhaps ex especially of Theophrastus (vide plain why Cicero and Arius ibid. II. ii. 860, 1) as well as Didynms, in expounding the Aristotle; and the disciple of ethics of the Stoics, use the very Antiochus (Cic. Fin.\. 5) quotes same words (cf. Ibid. III. i. 226, 6 227, 4; 232, 2). only from these two philo He seems at times entirely sophers (supra, 97, 5) but in expounding the doctrine (p. 314) to forget that he is merely giv he uses the Stoic distinction of ing an account of the doctrines the K&Qr^KOvra. and KaropQwâTa of others, for he passes from in direct to direct narration (cf ib. (III. i. 264 *//.), and imports into it (p. 280) the Stoic irpoIII. i. pp. 256, 270, 276, 322).
<?.)
110
ECLECTICISM.
contemporary of Arius, while Diogenes Laertius speaks as though he had lived not long before his
a
1
CHAP.
IV.
time, therefore towards the end of the second Christian century; 2 perhaps, however, he may be here merely transcribing the statement of an older
writer. 3
own
That which
his predecessors
had actually
attempted, the setting up of a system which should combine in itself the true out of all the philosophical
schools of the time,
Potamo
also
avowed
as his express
4
;
design and the

;
for
he designated his school as eclectic
little
we know
of his
doctrine
certainly
shows that he had not chosen this name without cause for it apparently combines, regardless of
;
Suid.
stub,
race
Kal
i)s, <pi\6ffO(f)os,
AvyovffTOv (probably KO.T avrbv be read).

irpb
-
/xer
is
or to reconcile them, and to discover something more about the life and circumstances of
to
her
5e
Potamo,
iii.
cf.
184
.syy.
Fabric. Jiibl. Gr. Harl. P.rucker, JJinf

;
:
Prowm.
21
eri
Crit.Phil.ii. 193,sv/y.
drif,
is
J.
Simon,
oXi-yov Kal
e /cAe/cTi/oj
TIS aip
rb Ylord/uLcnvos
TOV
apeffKOVTa
eVou
^
TO.
llistmre dc VEcolc d Alc.vani. 199 In these there xr/t/. also a review of the other
of this
eKacrrris
TWV
cupe crewf.
(The
men
name known
to us
same, but with
the omission of
the expression .-till more un suitable to him, -jrpb oAryou, is found in Suidas, oVpetns, S. II. 4S H.). 3 This theory, advanced by Xietxsche (If/u ht. J/ux. xxiv.
L
O.")
the rhetorician Potamo, of Mvtilene, who, according to Suidas,

sub.
roce
(cf.
Qe65.
Ta5.
and
taught under Tiberius in Home and the, ward of Plotinus Potamo,

;
Aeo-ôSml, where the rhetorician is called <pt\6(ro<pos),
IKoijait
Sf].; x
11,-ifr.
:.
(Jiirlli-nl-.
!)),
d.
(Porph.
r.
Plot. .),
whom, how
call
Isit
ti ux,
and ad
l>v
Diels ascribes to 4), (/Aw*//?-. SI, Dio j-i-nes Lrreat want of bought
ainonu"
vocated
ot liers
There is also the Potamo from whom some mathematical observations are
quoted, according to Alexander, in Simpl. /)/ ( rlo, 270, a 4223 K ,SVW. in Ar. 513 289,
(
<r,
ever, the; Poleino.
new
editions
on the whole, more than mi^ht be expected in him. Concerning he different attempts to decide between the ru-count-of Dio^cm-s andSuidas.
l)iit
not,
S
/>,
.")].-),
a, 42.
4
l
if/f
fireceding note.
POTAMO.
logical
Ill
ments
consistency, Platonic and Peripatetic elewith an essentially Stoic foundation. In the

]
CHAP.
.
question of the criterion, he allied himself with the Stoics, only that, instead of the intellectual notion,
6
he substituted a vaguer form of expression, the In his metaphysics he most accurate notion. added quality and space to substance and efficient
force as the highest principles ; that he reduced, like the Stoics, efficient force itself to substance is not The highest good, he thought, consisted in stated.
life, the most essential con which lay in virtue, for which, however, in agreement with Aristotle and the older Academy, cor
the perfection of the

dition of
2 poreal and external goods were found indispensable. Scarcely any original thoughts are to be found in
this
superficial
;
combination and modification of
older doctrines
for the
and so the
it
one mention of
Eclectic school, except by Diogenes and his
Byzantine followers, has

history.
According to Suidas, he wrote a treatise on the Platonic
1
left
no further trace in
Republic.
2
ApfffKfi 8
c. ),
Diog. L
-%i(affi,
elj/ai
KaOd
us
avrcf (continues (pTiffiv ev (TTOirrjs

>
6\<av tyavraaiav. apxo-s re TTJI/ re v\t]v Kal rb iroiovv, iroi6TTJTO re Kal r6irof e| ov yap Kal re Aos ov Kal Tro tcp Kal eV y.
rS>v
u</>
8e
eli/cu
f<(>
& iravra avacptpeTai,

iraffav
KpiT"fjpia
a\r)6eias
T]
fafyv
Kara
TO
jjikv
v
ov yiverai
OVK avev rcav rov

Kr6s.
o~ct>fj.aros
aptrr]v rf\fiav Kal rSov
Kpiffis,
rovrfffri TO riytu-oviKOV, ro Se us Si ov, olov r))v a.
112
ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTER
V.
THE PERIPATETIC SCHOOL IN THE FIRST CENTURY BEFORE CHRIST. SIMULTANEOUSLY with the tendency which was in Academy by Antiochus, the school o f th e Peripatetics also received a new impulse and pursued a partially altered course. As Antiochus
troduced into the
D. The
tic School,
direct io)i.
wished to bring back the Academy to the doctrine of J &

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 Neo-Platonism, their entire
strength
is
directed, and in which their principal task consists. Here also there is displayed the phenomenon so the more un characteristic of this whole period
:
and pressing is the feeling of mental lassitude, and the stronger the mistrust of its own scientific power, of which scepticism has been the formal expression, the more obvious becomes the
mistakable
necessity to return to the old masters and to lean Xo other school, however, has so upon them.
zealously and carefully carried on the work of ex position, and none has produced such a long and
connected line of commentators as that of the Peri

1
patetics.
1
Concerning
these,
fide
Zumpt (Tclcr
d.
Jiestand
der
THE PERIPATETICS.
The
scientific activity of this
113
school, since the

so far as
CHAP.
middle of the third century, had already,
we can judge from the accounts we have
received,
rilc
Vo
confined itself to the propagation, exposition, defence, and popularising of the doctrines of Aristotle and
Theophrastus
and even
Critolaus,
its
most im
portant representative in the second century, did not go beyond this. After Critolaus the school itself
seems to have
l
lost
more and more the
precise
know
ledge of the Aristotelian doctrines and writings. and Strabo 2 expressly tell us so, and the Cicero
assertion
is
confirmed by the
circumstance
that,
excepting the approximation of Diodorus to the 3 Epicurean ethics, not a single scientific propo
sition has
been handed down to us from any of

of
Critolaus,
the
successors
nearly
school.
century.
during a period of Andronicus of Ehodes first Androscientific

life
gave a new impulse to the

This distinguished
first
of his
^^{
n
third of the
the
man was, in the second before Christ, head of century His edition of Aristotle s school in Athens. 4
Scliul.
Philosopli.
;
in
Athen.)
;
Abhandl. dcr Berl. Akademie, ] 842 Hist. Phil. Kl. 93 sq. die Griech. Brandis, Ueber Ausleger des Arist. Organons, ibid. 1833, 273 sq.
1
Top. i. 3. A distinguished rhetorician had declared that the Topica of Aristotle was unknown to him Quod quidcm
:
patetics are not here mentioned, it cannot be supposed that the great mass of the philosophers of the time were unacquainted with Aristotle s writings, if they were not neglected in the Peripatetic school itself, In the passage quoted, Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 139, 2. 3 Cf. Ibid. II. ii. 934.
4
minim e
sum
pJiilosopliu
sopliis
adiniratus, rhetori non
cum
esse
Andronicus was, according
cognitum, qui ab ipsis j)Mlo-
ignwaretur.
pra tcr admodum paiicos Though the Peri-
to Plut. Sulla.25, a contemporary of Tyrannic (vide infra, p. 115, 1); and as Tyrannic appears to have only come to Rome in Gti
ECLECTICISM.
rHA
i
w<
.
>r
k s j for
wh ich Tyrinn io
his
the grammarian furnished

himself arranged the writings of Plotinus: /j.i/uLTj(rd/avos
.
v
B.C.,
and Andronicus used
transcripts of Aristotle s writ ings for his own edition of them, this must certainly be placed His invariable after GO li.C.
h.v?>poviK.ov
TCIV
TrepiTra.TriTi.Kbv,
who
TO.S
TO
(ppd<TTOv
fls
ApiffToreAouy KOI QeoTrpay/uLaTeias 8ifl\,

vTroBefffis
fls
surname
<5
PoSjoy
designates
oiKfias
TavTbi*
his birthplace; Strabo
mentions
him among the celebrated philo>ophers
This statement, as well as that of Plutarch (Xnllu,

avva.-ya.yuv.
2(5)
:
of Pdiodes (xiv. 2, 13,
Trap
O.VTOV
p.
(555).
That
lie
was head
T^V
PoSiov
[Tvpavvioovos^ AvfipoviKov evTropT]-
of
the
Athen>)
Mini, -in 42 Anmion. DC Interpret.

i>4,
Peripatetic school (in is asserted by David, (l 20 25, &, Arix*.

,
;
/.
c.
cravTa. TUV avnypafyuv (supplied with transcripts by Tyrannio) els p.t(rov OelvaL, can only be understood of an actual edition
!)4. rf,
21
->7,
</,
1!>.
He
is
here
TOV the
of Aristotle
if
called
the
fi/Sexa-ros
;
airb
we remember
Plutarch,
Scholium
Apia-TOTfXovs in
following
Wait/,,
to
works, especially that, according the Peripatetics
however,
(Aristot. Or;/, i. also ascribed to
disciple
45), which is Ammonias, his this oethus was
eleventh philosopher. Accord ing as we give the preference o tht; one or the other state ment, and reckon Aristotle him self, or omit him, there will be wanting to the number of the known heads of the school
(Aristot le, Theophrastus, Strato, Lveo, Aristo, Critolans, Dio-
before Andronicus had wan dered from the doctrine of their founder on account of their scanty acquaintance with hit* works. When the same writer adds to the words already
quoted,
/ecu
avaypaâi TOVS vvv

TrivaKas,
(})fpo[jL<=i>ous
we
must
understand by these lists of writings a supplement to the edition which probably did
not
confine
itself
to
mere
dorus, Erymneus, Andronicus) If one, two, or three names. three are found deficient, E should be inclined to insert them, not with Zumpt (P/til.d. (ir. \\.\\. 1) between Aristo
1>27,
enumeration of the works, but embraced also enquiries as to

their genuineness, contents, and arrangement. In any case, An dronicus had instituted such enquiries, as is shown by his condemnation of the so-called
and Critolaus, but in tlie evident ln tween Krvmneus and _rap me It seems to Andronicus. most probable, however, that only two are wanting, and that, ai-.cording as wo reckon, Anilronicus or Poet hns might thus be called the eleventh (counted
not
Post- prf/ dicamcnta
and the
Phil. d.
1),
.>,
book
(ir.
irepl fpju.Tiveias (cf.
II.
ii.
07,
<!
and
the reasons he gives for it. The proposition (cf. David, Sehol. in Art at. 25, ft, 41) that the
nft IT, but
from Aristotle
(
study of philosophy should begin with logic may also have been brought forward in this connection. On the other hand,
Plot. 24) says
he
what David says
(/. c.
24, a, IP)
ANDRONICUS.
him with the means,
matic study.
their
2
115
CHAP.
V.
promoting their universal diffusion
them inestimable service by and more syste At the same time by his enquiries into
1
did
3 authenticity and arrangement, and by his 4 several of them, he showed the commentaries on
on the division of the Aristo telian writings cannot be taken from Andronicus because of the quotation from the treatise and the treatise irepl K^CT/J-OV
;
ceived his copies

note,
(cf.
preceding
and Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 139). Whether Andronicus had also come to Rome, or had merely
received copies of Tyrannio s recension, is not stated.
This, at any rate, may be conceded, if even the further statement that the principal works of Aristotle were abso lutely wanting in the Peripa tetic school before the time of Andronicus cannot be main tained (PJdl. d. Gr. II. ii. 139^.). 3 Vide sitjira, 114, 1. 4 Of these his exposition of the categories is most fre
2
Divisions Ironicus De (Boot. De Divis, p. 638) cannot have dealt with the division of the books of Aristotle.
of
An
This great scholar was bom Amisus in Pontus. When the place was conquered by Lucullus, he became the slave of Murena, was then set at liberty, and taught in Rome (cf. Phil. Here he d. Gr. II. ii. 139, 1).
1
in
gained considerable property, collected a famous library, and died at a great age (Suidas,
Plut. Lucull. 19). sub voce Strabo (xii. 3, 16, p. 548) says that he had heard him lecture. That he belonged to the Peri patetic school is nowhere as serted, but his study of Aris totle s writings shows that he, like so many other gramma rians, was connected with it. He is to be distinguished from his namesake and disciple, the
;
quently quoted. It is men tioned by Dexipp. in Cat. p. 25, 25 Spcng. (Schol. in Arist.
in Cat. Schol. 23; 61, a, 25 sqq. and in about thirty other passages. At p. 6 e. 7, 5. (ScJwl. 41, b, 25 ; 42, a, 10), Simplicius seems to describe the work of Androni cus as a mere paraphrase ( irapacppdfav rb rcav
42,,30); Simpl.
40,
ft,
freedman
Suid.
Tupai>.
of
Terentia.
Cf.
J/6&JT.
Tyrannic had found oppor
making use of Apelwhich Sulla had brought to Rome and many

tunity ol
lico s library,
;
Meantime we see /3t/8\iW). from other statements, as those which are quoted below, that the paraphrase was only a part of the task which Andronicus had set himself, and that he
afterwards entered into the ex planation of words, criticism of texts, and questions as to the genuineness of particular sec
tions (cf Phil. d. Gr.ll.
.
besides himself made copies of the Aristotelian works therein

(Strabo,
xiii.
2,
54,
p.
Through him Andronicus
609). re
ii. 67, 1 ; 69, 1) :ind philosophic investiga-
110
ECLECTICISM.
Peripatetic school the way their criticism and exegesis was to proceed.
in
CHAP.
which from henceforth
He
did
not confine himself to mere explanation, but sought to maintain as a philosopher the same independence
critic he departed from tradition in This we see the treatment of weighty questions. from various and not altogether unimportant deter
with which as a
minations by which in the doctrine of categories he and still more clearly, diverged from Aristotle,
1
lion of tho contents/ Cf.

dis,
/.<.
l>ran-
273.SY/.
had
also
That Andronicus commented on the

;
Andronicus Jfermcx, ii. 212. cannot possibly have been con cerned with either of them.
Physics docs not certainly fol low from Simpl. Pliys. 101, 210, a; although it 103, b from the first of is probable these Simplicius, -passages. however, does not seem to
;
According to Himpl. (\it.1~), 47, 25), he regarded with Xenocrates (cf. P/til. d.
1
e.
(SiM.
II.
dr.
i.
805, 4)
this division,
have had this commentary in

his
however, is in the main Platonic as the funda 556, 4) (cf. /. mental categories, the KaO avrb
<?.
own
hands, or
it
lie
have quoted from

quently.
Arist.
,\v/c/.,
!)<
would more fre
and the npos rt(the Aristotelian definition of which he expounds,

ap. Simpl. Cat. 51, 0. 7. XcJiol. 66, (i, 39; {^7. e. T. orph. The KaO avrb Karriy. 4H, ((}.
I
The observations on
An. i. 4, 408, b, 32 and the Xenocratic defini
tion of the soul there discussed,
which is quoted from Androni cus by Themist. l)e An. ii. 50, 11; Speng., point to an exposition of the treatise on the
."JD,
he must then have divided still further, for (according to Simpl.

p. 67, 7. OH, a;
Schol. 73,
b,
10;
he added to the four Aristotelian kinds of quality

74, b, 2!))
(cf.
soul (ride Infra, p. 117,2). The definition of -rrdQus, ap. Aspas. in FA1(. .V. (hifw, p 1 8, 3) is taken, (.rrhaps, from a commentary
1
Phil. d. (ir.
II. ii.
26<t,
2) a
fifth
on the Kthics. Of the two treatises still in existence, bear

ing thenameof Andronicus, one, Annul Affccthe treatise f but, is the work of Andro nicus Callistus in the fifteenth century, the other, the com ment arv on the Nicomachjcan Kthic^.is writ ten bv Heliodorus, of nisa cf. Hose, (1307)
])<!<>ti
kind under which thick ness, heaviness, \ c., must fall, but which, as he observed, may itself be reckoned under tho
r
iradtiTiKal
Trou>Tr)Ts
and
it
is
only with reference to the cate from further gories arising division that he can have as sert ed (Simpl. 40 ticJiol. 5 ., -II cf. 00, ( t, 38) Relation /;, to be the ultimate category of all. Observations of his are also mentioned concerning the
: ;
ANDRONICUS.
from his view of the
soul,
117
spirit of
which in the
1
CHAP.
Aristoxenus and DicaBarchus, and consequently in 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
3 disciple Boethus of Sidon, who
of Andronicus was continued by his Boethut f Sldor is often mentioned

(
ets
Go,
(Simpl.
,
55,
e.
Schol.
and irdffx*w (Simpl. 84, 3.), and those conceptions which he called indefinite magnitudes, and de
7),
iToiflv,
59, 6 sqq. Sp.) the well-known definition of Xenocrates {Phil.

II. i. 871). While censuring Aristotle because in his objec tions to that definition he kept exclusively to the expression
d.Gr.
reckon not only under Relation, but also under Quantity (I. c. 36 5.
sired, therefore, to
;
Schol. 58, a, 37). Lastly, he wished to substitute Time and Space for the irov and TTOTC, and to reckon under these categories not only irov and TTOTC, but all
other determinations of Place and Time. Simpl. 34, 36, 0.

.
87, o. 88,
,
a.
ft.
24
;
37
I.e.
; 58, a, 80, b, 3 ;
Schol. 57, 16 79, b, 1 30, cf. also Brandis,

Dl,
j8.
; ;
Toi/Vflyua rov opi0/xoD, he himself perceived in it the thought that all living natures consist of a mixture of the elements formed Kara rii/as \6yovs Kal apidpovs so that it coincides in the main with the reduci ion of the soul to the harmony of the body. But when he adds that this number is called a self-moving
;
number
(ain-r/
TTJS Kpda-foos
yap fffriv rj ^vx?7 Taurus atria Kal TOV
273 sq. Prantl, Gesch. d. 537 sq. Gt.Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 888, 890. 2 is This maintained by Galen, Qu. Annul Mor. c. 4, As Androni vol. iv. 782 sq. K. cus, he says, was wont to speak freely and without obscure cir cumlocutions, he plainly de clares the soul to be the npaa-is or the Suj/a/xts (sc. rov In the same firojiifvr] rfj Kpdffei. sense he explains (according to
p.
;
\6yov Kal
TTJS /J.i^ws
ruv
irpwroou
Log.
1
i.
(rroixeiW), this does not agree
with Galen s statement, accord ing to which it was in the first place a product of the Kpavis and it is questionable whether Galen has not missed the mean
;
ff<4>/u.aros)
ing of Andronicus. 3 Strabo mentions that he was a native of Sidon, xvi. 2, 24, Andronicus names as 757 p. his teacher Ammon. in Catey. 5
;
(ap.
Zumpt
I.
c.
94)
that he
Thcinistius,
DC An.
ii.
56, 11;
was
also a follower of his
seems
118
with him.
He,
too, acquired considerable

:
fame
as
an expounder of the Aristotelian writings the best known of his works is a commentary on the cateo-ot5
ries
2
:
but some traces are found of commentaries on
the Physics and the Prior Analytics- perhaps also Anima and the Ethics. 3 In his on the treatise
I>e
to
result
from
the
>c/nt?!on,
Hut, in opposit ion to this theory, \ve and find that in the years 44 B.C. Cieero hi inself ((Hf. i. 1,1) and Treboniu> (in Cicero s
quoted
xtijmi,]). 11:5.4.
mentary is frequently quoted in that of Simplicius and also that of Dexippus. In it, perhaps,
4~>
was
the
statement
which
Ep. ad
FIDII.
xii.
HI)
mention
only Cratippus as teacher of the Peripatetic philosophy in Athens. Boethus is not men tioned, whereas tliis philoso
pher, whom Strabo, /. r., desig nates (^ ffVVf<pl\0!TO(t>V (Ta.U.l 11/U. lS ra ApifTToreAeia) as his own
l
Syrian, in MctajtJt. SclmL 893, ((, 7, contests, that the Platonic ideas are the same as classconceptions. A separate trea tise of his on the irpt is is
mentioned by Simplicius,
Schol.
:i
42, o,
(51,
1>,
y.
there was a com mentary on the Physics is shown bv the quotations in
That
teacher, survived this date

at
by
one decade, perhaps -e\eral. Strabo also would, no doubt, have said if he had heard him lecture in Athens. thus, therefore, must have been a eacber of philosophv elsewhere. Strabo Perhaps may have
least
;
Themistius, 23 341, 9
:
7V///.V.
145, 14; 337,
Sp.
wiiich
Sim
;
plicius,
no doubt, has borrowed

a (P1u/x. ISO, a as in the last of these
4(>,
from him
181,
/;),
P>ot
availed himself of
t
ion- in
1
Pome.
1, a.
Siinplicius (Cd Mini. 10, ",21 Cl him QavijidcTLos ar, d and on page 20!)
;
.
41 B.
passages he expressiy quotes the words of Themistius, and only in them those of I nethus and nowhere adduces anything from Boethus Physics what he linds in his pre except
;
three
a, 14) calls
f
:
\\6yi /J.QS
Sf/tuL 12,
//,
42. h
.
Cf.
prases his acutencss. Mini. 47 ti, 7.

;
2<),
An exposition of the, Analytics mav l. e con jectured from the quotations of the pseudo-(ialen Elffay. 5iaA.
decessor.
First
p. 19,
and of Ammoii.
in Arixf.
According
(t
Simplicius
Waif/, i. 45. from tliu doctrine of the svllo;_nsm an exposition of the books on the
Orij. ed.
;
(i.
a) one of TfpaLS irepl auro
tho>
which &a8vAl
i-t ot
soul
elian
but at book) eWoi cus the same time (/./. 7, 7. Seliol 12, ^, S) a continuous exposition ca0 Ae v. Thi
;
.
tKo.<TT7ii>
(though certainly) from what Simplicius An. tells us concerning his objections against immortality; an exposition of the Nicomachiean Ethics from what Alex(/A"
>9,
1>]
less
BOETHUS.
:
119
HAP.
apprehension of the Peripatetic doctrine he likewise, so far as we can judge, shows much independence, and an inclination to that naturalism which in the
immediate followers of Aristotle had already over powered the Platonic and idealistic element, and which was especially prominent in Alexander of This also appears in the fact that he Aphrodisias.
wished the study of philosophy to be commenced not with logic but with physics. When, moreover, he denied that the universal of nature was prior to the
1
2 to be regarded particular, and would not allow form as a substance in the strict sense (TT/CKWTT; ov<ria\
but only matter, and in one aspect, that which 3 and form this presup is compounded of matter poses a theory of the value and priority of matter
in things, which diverges from Aristotle, and rather approaches to the materialism of the Stoics. The
same mode of thought

of those
is
apparent in his utterances

Aristotelian doctrine
concerning immortality, which place him on the side
who understood the
ander (De An. 154, a) says of his observations on self-love
entirely
ov<ria,
and the irpurov ot/ceTov what Aspas. (Sckol. in

Classical
and
Etli.
waives the enquiry concerning J/OTJTT? and <ro)/uaTiK7/ but only because it does not belong to the same
;
Journal, xxix. 106) a&dItose(Arit0t.P*mufo-JEpigr. 109) says of his and Andronicus dennition of the irdOos. David, Schol. in Ar. 25 b,
1
41.
Gescli.
2
For what follows, der Logih, i. 640
rantl s
sqq.
has
connection. He desired (vide Themist. PJtys. 145, 14 Sp. Simpl. Phys. 46, ) that matter should be called l-Ar? only in relation to the form which it has not yet assumed, and viroKti^vov in relation to the
been gratefully made use

;
of.
Dexipp. in Cutcg. 54 Speng.

ft,
form imparted to it, but this is merely a matter of verbal

expression.
Schol. in Arist. 50,

3
15 sqq.
;
What
Simplicius
*</
20 stj. At the beginjScJwl. 50, a, 2. ning of this passage, Boethus

Simpl.
C atet/.
quotes from Boethus (24 ^ Schol. 53, a, 38-45) seems to me of small importance.
120
ECLECTICISM.
as a simple denial of it and in further agreement with these tendencies we learn that in the sphere of Ethics he maintained that the primary object of
;
desire for everyone (the Trpurov olicsiov) was naturally his own self, and everything else must be desired
only because of
its
relation to one
s self. 2
In other
to justify
instances, ISoethus the Aristotelian
now and then sought
3 determinations, and sometimes de fended them, especially 4 but against the Stoics;
1
jj.^1
Simpl. l)c An. (Jl), us 6 Bo7]8bs olr]6w/j.ev

ua-vep
uei>
\f/v-
XW,
TOV
r?>
ffjL^vxlav
e/z/cu
u>s
^vovcrav
r~bv Qa.va.Tov
avr^v /U.TJ viroeVioWa, eT<
1 155, b, 1G X qq. ix. 1KJ8, u, 35 ,sv/y. Our text names the Uth and 10th books, evidently by a confusion of
;
-V. viii. 1, 8,
i(rra.^VT]v
5e eTrioWov e/ceiVou
Tliis
favn
t"
a7roAAu<T0cu.
refers
Pluto s ontologieal proof of immortality. P.oethus con cedes to him that strictly speak ing, the soul does not die, but
,
alphabetical designations the books (0 I) with the corresponding numerical signs. 3 To these attempts belong (1) a remark, ap. Simpl. Cat.
of
;
the
tfehol.
b,
<)2,
]
<t,
Catenaries,
only the man (because death, according to the PhtfdoÂ C, consists in the separation of soul from body, and therefore denotes the dissolution of man
into his constituent parts, and not the destruction of those parts as such); but lie thinks
14, 15,
S qq.)
on the appli
opposition of to qualitative
cabilitv
of
the
in
change (2) the demonstration which Theophrastus had

;
the continuance of the soul docs not follow from this. EuM-biiis (Pr. Er. xi. 28,4; xiv. 10, !5) gives extracts from a reat isc of Porphyry, Trepl ^VXTJS, in which he defended immor tality against Koetlms. From the former of these passages it
t
already anticipated him, that the syllogisms of the first and second figure are perfect (Ammon. in Analyt. Pr. i. 1, 24, /;, 18: ap Wait/. Arht. Onj. i, 45); (. }) the doc trine evolved from the hypothetical syllogisms as
the ava-jroSeiKToi and irpuroi a.vEtVa7. 5ioA. p. M\n. ap. Prantl, p. the remarks on the 554): (4)
aTJSeiKTot (Pseudo-Galen.
!
.
i*
;i
dear
question
whether
or
it
; ,
that
"aeked
Boethus had also the proof derived
number
whether
spirit
* / /.)
from the kinship of the human with (iod (/V/Wr>, 78, B

This
time is a measure, and even existed without

reckons
:i:i7, it,
the soul that

Thernist. /
Sp.
:
ap.
////*.
23; ;U1, D
,/,
;
view
is
ascribed
,
Ahx.
in
]),
An.
of
it
ir,l,
to
bv Xrn-
1>\
Simpl. /V///x. 180, Simpl. Categ, 88, yS

40.
181, Schol.
archus and Boethus,

support
71), b,
1
who appeal
Thus he defends
/3
;
to Arist. Ktli.
4:J, a,
Sclml. C2,
(ap. Simpl. ,/, 18, 27)
ARISTO.
what has come down
his philosophy.
121
is
to us in this connection
of
CHAP
V.
little importance as affecting the special character of
interpreter of Aristotle s writings, be to the same period, is Aristo, a disciple longing of Antiochus, who afterwards went over from
third
<
the
Academy
to the Peripatetics.
i\\.
But we know
is
the Peripatetic doctrine of the irpos TI against the Stoic doc trine of the Trp6s TI trws *X ov while at the same time he tried
i
p.
277 Hild. (where he
rightlj censured for this) added to the Aristotelian syllogistic forms (perhaps in a commen
to
apprehend
finition
more
;
exactly,
Aristotle s de in the
pointed out by Andronicus Schol. 66, a, 34 (Simpl. 51, cf. Simpl. 41, 18 *q. 42, a; Scltol. 61 a, 9, 25 gqq. ft, 9). He consi dered the division of iroieiv and as two distinct catego iraffx*<-v ries (Simpl. 77 j8; Schol. 77, b, 18 sqq.\ and also the category of
way
tary on the Prior Analytics) three modi of the first and two of the second figures, and to whom, in the following pas sages (where Prantl, Gcsch. der Logik, i. 590, 23, restores the Arista of the MSS. instead of Aristotle}, an account of the
s yllogistic
t
figures is ascribed.
Having, which
he
examined
particularly (Simpl. 94 e; Schol. 81, a, 4) as well founded.

1
He
;
is
mentioned by Simpl.
likewise the Alexandrian Peripatetic Aristo whom Dio also genes mentions (vii. 164 ride supra, p. 105, 2). 2 Ind. Acad. Hcrcul. col. 35
is
;
:
He
together with Boethus, Eudorus, Andro

41, y.
ScJtol. 61, a, 25,
[Antiochus had for disciples] Apiffrcovd re /col Aiwva A\e|ay5/>e?s
nicus,
and Athenodorus among
Kal
Kparnnrov
Uepya/j.Tjvbi
the iraXaiol ruv KaryyopitoV e?j7?jTcu, and, consequently, no doubt the author of a com mentary on this book, and not of a mere treatise on the irpd$
rt,
Siv
,
Apicrrwv [/wev] Kal Kparnnros HepnraTrjTiKOi eyevovro

.
airo<TTar-f}(ra.vrfs
TTJS
A/caSTj/xetos.
Cic.
(Acad.
him and Dio

dria in
tiochus,
which Simplicius in his men tion of him in this place as well as at p. 48, a 61, jl Schol.
; ;
12) shows to us at Alexan the company of An

ii.
4,
with the observation

(Antiochus) secuntri(.fe>.
10; 66, a, 37 gqq. alone allows. In the latter passage the definition given also by Andronicus and Boethus of the
63,
ft,
dum fratrcm plwrimwn

bucbat.
If
quilus
ille
fx ov i s quoted pri from him, with the remark that Andronicus has the same. He is no doubt that Aristo of Alexandria, who, ac cording to Apul. Dogm. Plat.
irp6s ri TTCDS
Seneca 29, 6) resorted to him, he must have taught in Rome in the latter meanwhile, part of his life
;
marily
the lepidus philosophy* Aristo, of whom Seneca here relates

certain anecdotes, must another person of the
;
mean
same
name not only because Seneca
ECLECTICISM.
little
about
him, and
that
little
does not
lead
Cratijiy H.v.
us to suppose him a great philosopher. Concern ing the philosophy of the other Peripatetics of the 2 first century before Christ Staseas, Cratippus,
1
reckons this
circHidtorcs
diitit,
man among
<jni
the
CI
In
the
years
]
50-40
in
:
..e.
we
;
jrfiihwojj/riffin
honcstiuat ncnlcfissi nt yi/di/i
K-
because tlie Julius Grrecinus, from wlioni a remark on him is quoted, only died under Caligula; whereas the disciple of Antiochus, \vlio was with liim about S4 r..c.
but
also
beginning of the reign of Augustus, or at any rate cannot long have survived it. The: Aristo of Cos mentioned
the
(ride vived
xti
/>.
7(5,
4),
scarcely sur
Mytilene Jtritt. 71. 250 (( ic. Jfr f tiir. Pint. I tniijt. 75). Soon after this he must have settled in Athens, where Cicero got for him the lloman eiiixenshi]) from C ;es,ir, but at the same time induced the Areopagus to request him to remain
meet
with
him
Athens (Pint. 24). Here about this time Cicero s son heard him (Cic. OJf. i. 1, 1
in
("if.
iii. 2,
ttd
Ptnti. xii.
10; xvi.
by Strabo, xiv. 2, 1 .), ]). 058, must not be taken for our Aristo (as Zumpt supposes, Ahh.<l. JlcrL Afoul. 1842; Hint. J /ii/. Kl. OS), for the former is described as the disciple and heir of the well-known Peripa tetic, Aristo of ,!ulis (Phil.
<l
21)
and
P>rutus
(Plut. Brut. 24). the head of the school
him That he was

visited
is
not
expressly stated, but is very Cicero, who was a probable. great friend of his, speaks with the highest appreciation of his
scientific importance (Unit. 71, 250: Off. i. 1, 1; iii. 2, 5 5 Dit lu. \. l.)c I nir. 1), but
.">.
(ir.
1
II. ii.
<J25).
Staseas of Naples, the inmet or of Piso, who resided

Or/it.
2.">,
this praise
with him (Cie. J)c

Id}
;
\.
:
/V//.
10(>,
v.
:;,
,S,
7.")
22, ride
xup. p. 1. end) is also called by Cicero, nnlillix Perijtdtcticns; but is censured by him for ascribing too much importance to external fortunes and corpo
real
is scarcely altogether As to his views, impartial. nothing has been transmitted to except what we are told by Cicero, J)it tn. \. 3, 5 i!2, 70 (cf. Tertullian. l)c A//. 40):
u>
*</.
conditions (/
1
///.
v.
25,7")).
theory of his is iii ens rinns, quote< .\ tif. 14, lo. As iso heard him lecture about J2 H (/. c. Oi-dt. ) he must have been at least as old as Andronicus. This pliilosopher, born in Pergamus, was likewise origi nally a discijile of Antiochus.
(
/>/
An unimportant
.">,
tliat he admitted prophecy in dreams, and ecstasy (////w), and that he based this theory upon the Peripatetic doctrine of the
1
divine origin of spirit, and upon the numerous cases of fulfilled
s<Tt<ti(
The anthropology prophecies. presupposed by him in this is he Aristotelian an iinox Inniiiniun i Had a ni c,r jxirtc e.rinnOvpaOev, from the divine
t
:
<
spirit)
r.v.v,"
Iractos
ct
/tdiistos
NICOLAUS OF DAMASCUS.
Nicolaus of Damascus, and others, our information and too unimportant to detain us with is too
1
CHAP.
scanty,
pa/rtem, qua? seusum, haqu(B mot urn, quw adpetitiim bcat, noti esse ab actione coi porls
,
cam
sejngatam the sequel, however, sounds rather more Piatonic:

;
concerning the gods. He is of called in Athen. vi. 252 /. x. 415, e\ xii. 543, #; 266, c iv. 153 f., an adherent of the
;
-\icolaus
Damus
ratio nis quce autem pars animi
atque intettigentiee
sit
paHiceps,
TiKbs) allied
Peripatetic doctrine (riepnraTTjto which he had early
himself
(fcuid.
Ni/cÂ.;
cam
1
turn
maxime
riff ere,
cum
and
to
which he devoted a
plurimum. absit a corpore. Nicolaus (concerning whom vide Miiller, Hist. 6V. iii. 343 about sqq.}, born in Damascus 64 B.C. (therefore called 6 153 f. ct AafjLaa-KTji bs, Athen. iv.
pass.; Strabo, xv. 1, 72, p. 719), and carefully brought up by his father Antipater, a prosperous and respectable man, lived many years at the court of the Jewish King Herod, was one of his confidants and came in his
portion of his writings. Simpl. (De Cailo, tichol. in Ar. 493, a,
23) mentions his treatise vtpl A/no-TOTe Aous (f)i\o(TO(f>ias (out

of
which may perhaps be taken the quotation from his Qewpia

TOtlV
in
the
AplffTOTfAoVS fJieTO, TO. <pV(TlKa inscription to Theo-
phrastus
metaphysical
ment, work,
K0fffj.(f
I.
p. 323,
irept
frag Brand.). A second rov Uavrbs, which

iravTWV TUV eV
treated
c.
irepl
T^
Id.
KO.T
(not Kal)
6;
ffS-n
company and, some years

(8
B.C.) for the his affairs, to
later,
469, a,
a third,
irepi
second time,
on Home, where he gained the favour of Augus After the death of Herod tus. the Great he accompanied his son Archelaus thither, and from this journey he never seems to have returned, but to have
passed the latter part of his
in
life
from which statements concerning Xenophanes and Diogenes of Apollonia are re ported, is mentioned by Simpl. an (Phi/s. 6, a, b; 32, a, b ethical work vepl TWV tv rots
6ea>v,
irpaKTiKols
fj.arfia,
KO.QT]K6vT(tiv),
KaX&v ( = Trepi rcav a TTO\VffTlXOS TTpay-
(ride the references in Suidas, Avriirarpos and Nt/cdA. Nicol. Fraym. 3-6, taken from
;
Rome
the
3
;
Execrpta
;
de
irtutibits
;
as mentioned by Simpl. in Epict. Encliir. 194,6-.; here he may perhaps have said of Epicurus, what Diogenes asserts (Diog. x. 4). In none of these
Joseph. Antiqmt. xii.

9, 4
3, 2 xvi. 2, 10, 8 xvii. 5, 4 ; 9, G ; 11, ; 3, who also, like Suidas, follows
passages, however, is any phi losophical proposition quoted
Nicolaus
own statements
in
The theory that he Miiller). was a Jew, shared also by

Renan, Vie de Jesus, p. 33, is at once refuted by what we read (ap Hxiid. Avrhr.) respect ing an offering to Zeus, and
and Nicolaus was doubtless far more of a scholar Suidas than a philosopher.
from him
;
calls
him
nepLirar-rjTiKbs
$j
FIAa-
TwviKbs, which might point to his combination of the views of
Plato and Aristotle, if any de pendence could be placed upon
124
ECLECTICISM.
them.
1
"HAP.
But Xenarchus
and
his treatise against the-
_J
Aristotelian theories respecting the [ether

the passage. As an liistorian
is lie
may here be
censured by Josephus (A/ttlt/t/if. xvi. 7, 1) on account of

his
Khodian, named by Quintillian, 7nst. ii. 7, with Critolaus as the enemy of rhetoric (cf. Phil,
1
1">,
partiality for
Herod; and
his life of Augustus was no doubt only a panegyric. For the rest ridr, concerning his
historical
works, Dindorf. Jahrbiieher

vol.
Miiller
of.
filr Class.
2,
Phihtl.
sqq.
is
ii.
1
xcix.
H,
107
M cover s
he wrote the treatise

discussed
98, note.
supposition that irepl $VT)V, Phil. (L dr. II.
Gr. II. ii. 980, 2); and per haps the author of the Tlep nraToi quoted in Diog. iii. 8; v. 86 vi. 81 ix. 42. When he lived we do not know, but he seems to be later than Critolaus, whom Quintillian places before him. In Home, according to Cicero, there must already have been, about the beginning of the first
d.
;
;
Among them
the owner of
Theophrastus
library,
Ape
century, persons acquainted with the Aristotelian philo
1 -
lico, of Teos (Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 189); but though this man occasionally occupied himself with the Peripatetic philosophy (AtJn ii. v. 214, d), and com
sophy and writings, if M. An ton ins and Q. Lutatius Ca tul us really spoke as he
(Or/it, sents.
ii.
80,
152 sqq. ) repre
A\ e
however,
this
:
for
posed
treatise
on Hermias
have no warrant, supposing that
and Aristotle
Pr. Ei\ xv.
(JO!)),
(Aristocl. ap. Eus. Strabo (p. 2, 9), rightly, calls

T)
<$>i\6-
no
doubt
little
him
</uAo#i/3/\.o?
/j.a\\ov
ao(pos.
As
does
Athenio
representation is histori cally true indeed, Cicero him self implies clearly enough both here and in c. 14, that AntoniiH was not acquainted, so far as he knew, with Creek
~>9,
or Aristio (cf. Phil. d. Gr. III. ii. 984, 8) deserve a place
the philosj)liers, even supposing he really taught the
among
what
Peripatetic philosophv.
later
Some
we
have
Alex
friend of
ander ,t he teacher and
literature; and though it mav certainly have been otherwise with Catulus, we are hardly justified in ascribing to him an accurate knowledge of that literature, and particularly of
eripatetic, philosophv/ The only Roman adherent of this philosophy of whom we hear in the h r.-t century u.c. is that Pi so of whom we have spoken, supra, p. 100, I, end but, as is there shown, he also attended the instruction of Antiochus, whose eclectic principles Cicero puts into his mouth. Xenarchus, of Seleucia, in Cilicia, passed the greater part of his life as a teacher in AlexI
;
the
M. Crassus, the Triumvir (I lut. Crtixx. 8); At hen a3 us, of Seleueia in Oilicia, in the time of
<
;csar (St rabo, xiv.
.">,
4, p.
(>70)
Demetrius,
Oato,
last
who
i
the friend of was with him in his

f tifn
days
(I lut.
t
Min.
(55,
(M of
xf/.}\
D d do us, the brother Boetfms of Sidnn (Strabo,
xvi.
24, p. 7o7). 2, To the Peripatetic school belonir also,
-_
,,o
doubt, At
henodorus,
the
TREATISE ON THE COSMOS.

for this polemic against so integral a portion of the Aristotelian physics affords a further proof that the Peripatetic school was not so absolutely united
125
mentioned
CHAI>.
jr_
by the doctrine of
founder as to preclude many doctrine among its members. departures from that But there is still stronger evidence of this fact The
its
trca-
tury as the work of Aristotle
in a treatise which perhaps dates from the first cen- K before Christ, and has been transmitted to us
2 the book of the Cosmos.
I
io>iou.
The
authenticity of this work was already questioned
arious
theories as
to its
in antiquity, 3
and denied by Melanchthon

-
4
;
in
origin.
It andria, Athens, and Rome. was in the first of these cities
that him.
Strabo probably heard Befriended by Arius, and patronised by Augustus, he died in Rome at a great age
(cf. Strabo, xiv. o, 4, p. 670).
Wcisse, Aristoteles van tier Seele nnd vo-n dcr Welt, 1829, Stahr, Aristoteles p. 373 sqq. bei den Moment, 1834, p. 163 sqq. Osann, Beitrage zu Grieck. mid Ifo Hi. Literatwgesck. i. 143 1 etersen in the review of sqq.
; ;
Vide concerning this trea de tise and the objections veloped in it against the Aris Damasc. De totelian doctrine Ccclo, Scliol. in Arist. 456, a, 6 460, b, 15; Simpl. De Cmlo, Scliol. 470, b, 20; 472, a, 22; 472, b, 38 sqq. 473, a, 9 43, b, 24; (9, a, 11; 11, b, 41; 13, b, 36 14, a, 19 21, b, 32 sqq. 25, b, 4; 27, b, 20-34, a, 18 K) Julian. Orat. v. 162, A, sq. Sim1
:
this treatise, Jahrb.f. wissenscJi. Krit. 1836, 1, 550, sqq. Ideler, Aristot. Meteorol. ii. 286 sq. ;
;
F. (Jieseler,
v. d.
iib.
d. Vcrf.d. Elicits
W.
Ztsclir.f. Alterthvvisiv.
1838, Nr. 146 sq.; Spengel, De Arist. Libro X. Hist. Heidelb. 1842, p. 9 sqq. Hil-
Amw.
;
debrand, Ajndej. Opera,

tqq.
i.
44
Rose, Ordine et Avct.

;
De
p.
Arist.
36,
L ibr.
; ;
90 sqq.
Adam, DeAvetvrc
Aristotelici
IT.
JAbri PsevdoBerl. 1861

Mt>-
plicius
ire/jnTTTji
calls
it
at
irpbs
T}\V
K.
ovaiav airopiai, ra -rrpbs ovff. T$)V TT. r/7roprjfieW or yeIn the same treatise ypafj./j.eva. were perhaps to be found the
Barthelemy Saint-Hilaire, ti orologie d Aristote, Par. 18(53.

I).
88 sqq.
Goldbacher,
ZtscJtr.
f.
Oesterreicli.
;
Gymn.
xxiv.
observations against Chrysippus doctrine of empty space, 18 K. ap. Simpl. Z. c. 129, His opinion concerning the
,
(1873), 670 sq. Z. Kritili von Ajmlejiis De Mundo, &c. 3 1 rocl. in Tim. 322, E Apurf lTrep (Keivov rb irfpl
:
Trpurov olitc tov (supra, 120, 2), and his (Aristotelian) definition of the soul (Stob. Eel. i. 798) are also quoted elsewhere.
Physica, Opp. ed. Uretschn.

xiii.
213
sq.
120
ECLECTICISM.
has found some advocate.-, hut is As little, however, nevertheless quite untenable.
modern times
it
can the treatise be ascribed to any other school than

the Peripatetic, or regarded, not as a writing foisted upon Aristotle, but as the work of a younger philo sopher, whicli did not itself claim to be Aristotelian
or
even the elaboration of such a work.

its
In
modern times
authorship
has
been
assigned
sometimes to Chrysippus, 2 sometimes to Posidonius, 3 sometimes to Apuleius, 4 but against each of these In conjectures there are most important objections.
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

s
but that the

5
work claims Aristotle

1
name for itself is
incontestable,
authenticity has boon maintained most conn dently by Weisse. I am the more willing to spare myself a detailed exposure of the weaknesses of this attempt, as that has already been fully accomplished by Osann, Stahr, and
Its
against the supposition that the
finally
work \vas designedly foisted upon Aristotle. Both in manner of exposition, he says, and in
unlikeness to substance, its Aristotle is so unmistakably evident, that only a person entirely
Adam
(p.
11
sf///.
^c.),
and
as
the decisive points in the matter will be brought forward in the

following pages.
talilish this
:i
seeks to estheory at length. Ideler, /. following Aldobrandinus, Huetiu.s, and llein-
Osann,
I.
c.,
unacquainted with Aristotle, or a fool, could have indulged the fancy that it could possibly bo regarded as the work of that philosopher. But his, he only argument that he adduces, tries to prove too much. How many
t t
<.,
are
the
/r<\
forced
writings
in
sius.
4
which at the lirst glance, can detect the forgery ? From

this
it
doe>
Stahr,
I.
r.,
and, in another
not
follow
that
way, Adam.
Hilaire without,
J
Hart helemy Saintfollows tin; former,
naming him.
p.
1
Osann,
himself,
Jl,
declares indeed, very dec.idedly
they are not forgeries, but, that they are not clum>v forgeries, In the present ease, however, the forgery was not, elumsv enough
to
prevent
numerous persons
ITS ORIGIN.
and when Osann would separate its dedication to Alexander from the rest of the work, this is an 2 is wholly unjustifiable. arbitrary proceeding which
l
127
CHAP.
_
Moreover, the exposition of Chrysippus, according to the unanimous testimony of antiquity and the is distinguished as specimens in our possession,
much by
its
learned prolixity, as by
its
dialectic
3
of all rhetorical adornment ; pedantry and contempt whereas the treatise irspl KOCT/JLOV exhibits through
out the most opposite qualities, so that even on this
ground
sippus.
it is
No
it to Chry quite impossible to attribute is such a theory excluded less, however,
by
its
contents.
That
it
has adopted
many
Stoic
doctrines and definitions, and expresses some of these in the formulae which, after Chrysippus, had
been transplanted into the Stoic school, is indeed undeniable nevertheless, as will immediately be this work so entirely contradicts the most shown,
;
school important distinctive doctrines of the Stoic

and
even philosophers and our own time Weisse, for example from being deAnd would a work ceived. that was evidently not written
critics of
with his theory of the author of the book. Apart from this there is no trace either in external evidence or the internal character of the passage
that
it
by Aristotle pass more easily for his if it were anonymous than if it went forth under his
was
Even
in C.
name
1
Naturally Alexander the Great for that this Alexander was another man of the name of whom nothing further is known, no reader of Osann s
;
language is s i an empire must be supposed to be still existing, and if the

writer, in
originally absent, 398, b, 10, the such that the Per6,
merous
his necessarily nureferences to older
has carefully philosophers, avoided every definite allusion

to
book (p. 246) will easily believe, 2 Osann has no (p. 246 further proof to give than that
</.)
we
his
3
see
what is post- Aristotelian, from this that he wishes work to pass as Aristotelian,
Cf
.
the dedication
is
incompatible
p. 42.
ECLECTICISM.
as
compared with the Peripatetic, that
it
might he
ascribed to any author rather than

Lastly,
to Chrysippus.
though we
will
not here anticipate the more
the date of this hook, it particular demonstration of is sufficient for the refutation of Osann s hypothesis,
work on the Cosmos and that quotations are nowhere to be found in are made from it which The same argu the writing we are considering.
to observe that
Chrysippus
consisted of at least two books,
ments hold good

of
in
great measure
to
treatise.
against
Its
those
who conjecture Posidonius

the
have been the author

ornate
pseudo-Aristotelian
language, however, can with far more probability be attributed to him than to Chrysippus and there
;
are
many particular
to
details
which approximate much

than to that of
more
the time
:
of Posidonius
indeed, we shall find that the author in a considerable part of his work made probably direct use of this philosopher. But that Posidonius
Chrysippus
should have forged a work of Aristotle is as wholly unlikely as that Chrysippus should have done so and
;
though we can certainly remark

special points, a leaning to the
in
him concerning
patetic philosophy, this never
Academic and Peri makes him untrue (like
trines of his school
the author of jrspl K6cr/j,ov) to the fundamental doc so as to denv the substantial
pre-ence of
God
in the world, the destruction
and
conflagration of the world, or to distinguish aether

Stub.
hr.
l.
/>/.
i.
ISO:
5S,
i.
//
Alex.
Affainst
Os.-mn,
:
Anal.Pr.
<l.
f. r.
III.
(snjtra, 158, 1).
554
,sv/y.
Peterson,]). Ciesrlrr, Speniôl,

<!
Adam,
7.
<.
THEORIES RESPECTING
and
all
1
IT.
129
As to Apuelementary bodies whatever. leius this objection, it is true, would not hold good
:
CHAP.
in his treatise
on the Cosmos he has entirely appro
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, 2 in the remains of ancient literature which we possess, it does not follow from this that it
did not exist
and though Apuleius, in the introduc
tion to his Latin recension, speaks as if it were not a
an independent work on the foundations of Aristotle and Theophrastus, 3 there is no proof whatever that he was sufficiently scrupulous
translation, but
mere
about literary right of property, and sufficiently free from boastfulness, not to found a claim of original authorship on the minor alterations and additions by
which his work

1
is
distinguished
from Aristotle
s.
For these reasons the hypo;
thesis of Posidonius is opposed by Bake, Position. Eel. 237 sq.
Spengel,
2
p.
17
Adam,
in
p. 32.
Cohort,
The quotation Justin, ad Or. c. 5, cannot be
placed earlier than Apuleius, since the authenticity of this treatise, as has lately been
shown by Adam
Theophragtii/m aiictorcm secuti, cogitatlonc continyere, dleemus de omni hac coelcsti rdtione,&c. The words in parenthesis are wanting in the best MSS. but are* nevertheless to be considered genuine, Cf. Goldbacher, 1. c. p. 690. 4 Concerning these, vide Hil-
quantum jwssiimns
(p.
sqq.~)
in
debrand, Apul. Opp.
I.
xlviii. sq.
opposition to Semisch, has decisive reasons against it. 3 At the end of the dedication
The ancients, known, had much

ideas than
as is
less
well
strict
which is distinguished from .that of the pseudo- Aristotle to Alexander only by unimportant alterations and omissions Quare [nos Aristotelem pnidentisaimum ct
to Faustinus,
:
subject
we have on and many others
this
be-
sides Apuleius
behave in such
matters with a surprising laxity,

e.g., seems nowhere have said that his work on Physics was only a new
Eudemus,
to
doctissimum phUosophorwni}
ct
edition of Aristotle s nor does
130
ECLECTICISM.
Closer investigation leaves no doubt that his Latin
CHAP.
not (as Stahr and Barthelemy Saint-Hilaire assert) the model, hut only a revision of the Greek work which is to be found in our col for the latter has lection of Aristotelian writings
work on the Cosmos
is
throughout the conciser, sharper, more original form of expression, while the former has the character of a
of paraphrased translation: the flowery language in the other becomes bombast, the one too often
which
is
which cannot be regarded as a or translation of the Greek, the Greek, paraphrase on the contrary, has passages which could not possibly
from the Latin, but must evidently But have been before the eyes of the Latin writer. to admit this, and to make Apuleius the author of the Greek book which he then himself translated
have
arisen
1
a comparison with the is nothing in the Latin
sometimes hardly comprehensible without Greek text and while there

;
into Latin, 2
is
equally impossible.
For in the
first
place we thus abandon the only ground on which
lie
the hypothesis of his authorship could even plausibly maintained viz., the credibility of his own
Ho he say so of his Kthics. speaks, even where he adheres quite closely to Aristotle, as an independent author in his own name and so does the writer
;
named
the sources of a treatise
which has taken so much from Stoic authors and Stoic doctrine?
Some
are these:
5; 325,
c/,
of
at
Cicero, too, notoriously translated, or,

t
he
.}f<i//rui
Mordlla.
of the most striking Trepl K.6<T/mov 392, a, 23 400, a, 7 398,

:
1>,
any
sive
rate, transcribed extenportions in his writings
23; compared with the corresponding Apul. DC Ma ndo,

G;
I,
1, 12, 27, 33, p. 2 .)1, 317, For the rest I 3G2, 3G8 Oud. must refer to Adam, p. 38 Goldbacher, 071 .sv/.
from the Greeks, without mentioning the sources from which And would Aputhey came. leius, in his 1 rixtotcles d Thro.
c.
3.">,
,sv/<y.
plirastus
at/ctor,
have
really
Adam,
/.
c.,
41 .vyy.
APULEIUS NOT THE AUTHOR.

assertions ; we regard it as impossible that he should have represented his writing as an indepen dent work if it were merely the revision of the
131
CHAP.
work of another, but we unhesitatingly charge him with having foisted his own work in its Greek
original
upon
Aristotle. 1
In
order to clear
him
from the imputation of boasting we 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
self far better,
him
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
3 perfectly clear.
Finally, passing
over other
difficulties,
from the evidence furnished
by
we can
1
his other writings of his philosophical capacity, scarcely ascribe to Apuleius so important a
That the author of the Greek treatise asserts it to be Aristotelian has been already shown, p. 127, 2. Apuleius also designates it as such in the passage quoted supra, p. 129, 3, from the 1 rooeniium, and c. 6, p. 300 Oud., where he says, in
reference to irepl Koo-v-ov, 3, 393, 27: [Mare] Africiim, quod quldem Aristoteks Sardimense maluit dicerv.
a,
2 Nor would his forgery have answered his purpose for if he declared the Greek version of his book to be the work of
;
would
other.
3
be
nullified
by each
number of the most striking proofs, not only of the dependence of Apuleius on one Greek text, but also of the
misunderstandings which beset him in the reproduction of it,
some
of
which
arise
from
false
Latin to Aristotle, and the be his own, these statements
readings, are given by Goldbacher, p. 679 sqq. The same writer shows, p. 674 sq., how untrue is the statement of Adam, that Apuleius, according to his own assertion, was in the habit of composing the same treatise in Latin and Greek.
2
132
ECLECTICISM.
as the treatise on the Cosmos undoubtedly is and we must necessarily have expected to find in this writing, if it had emanated from him, much more
CHAP.
V.
work
distinct traces of those Platonising metaphysics imcl
theology, and especially of that demonology, which we shall presently discover in Apuleius. This third attempt, therefore, to find a definite author for the
book must also be considered unsuccessful, and the question for us can only be, not by whom it was composed, but to what period and school its author
belonged.
Its stand
point and
character.
That this author reckoned himself among the Peripatetics seems probable from the name of
Aristotle,
it
which the work bears

to
for
by that name
the
claims
be
considered one
of
genuine
records of the
is
doctrines of the school.
The same
confirmed, however, by its contents. Though the conception of 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 it approximates at least as closely to
philosophy of Antiochus, for example, The approximates to the Platonic philosophy.
it
as
the
metaphysical foundations of the Aristotelian system, the author leaves, indeed, in the spirit of his time,
unnoticed, but in his presentation of the universe
and
its
relation
to
God, he chiefly
does
so
allies
himself
with Aristotle.
He
when he
asserts the
distance of our world from
changefulness and imperfection
the higher world, its in contrast with
DOCTRINES CONTAINED IN
IT.
1
133
the purity and invariability of the heavenly spheres, and when he makes the perfection of Being gradu
ally
CHAP.
heaven
diminish with the distance from the supreme 2 and when he expressly maintains the dis ;
tinction between, the sether, of which the heavenly bodies consist, and the four elements, in unmistak
able contradiction to the Stoic doctrines. 3
Further,
divine essence, according to the Stoic doctrine, permeates the whole world even to the smallest and ugliest things, our author finds this
while the
presentation of the Divine Majesty altogether un 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,
1
effects
the
movement
of the whole,
5, sq.
?;,
closely this work adheres to Aristotle s expositions has been already observed, I. c. p. That it should speak 437, G. (392, b, 35 a, 8) of five o-Toixâ,
rather, fire, &c., is
How
400, a, b, 30 sq. 21 sqq. C. 6, 397, 27 sqq. 3 C. 2, 392,, 5, 29 sq. c. 3, 392, 35 cf Phil. d. Or. II. ii. 434, sq.
C. 6, 397,
;
1>,
the theory of the treatise irepi &6(T/j.ov concerning the sether

is
Aristotelian
it is,
therefore,
the more astonishing that he can believe Chrysippus to have also advanced the same theory for our treatise declares itself expressly against the Stoic idenall
;
tilication
unimportant,
Aristotle himself had called the aether Trpwroj/ o-Totxôi/ (cf.P/!/Z.

d. 6r? . II.
scribed
437, 7), and if he rleas eVepoj/ (ru/j.a Kal Qei6Tfpov r&v Ka\ov/j.fV(av yroi^ Kav
ii.
rather with fire 185, 2, 3) and, as we see from Cic. (Acad. i. 11, 39), this was one of the most notorious points of contest between Stoics and Peripa-
of
(1. c. III. i.
it
tetics.
(6^. J.M.ii.3,736,Z>,29)thetreatise
means the same in 392, 8, as ffroixôv ercpov rtav rerrdptav, re Kal fletoi/. Osann, p. o.K-}}pa.r6v 168,203 sq.) moreover allows that
,
The question is not unimportant, for on the discrimination of the rather from the four elements Aristotle bases the antithesis of the world below and the world above.
134
ECLECTICISM.
however manifold the forms
world.
1
CHAP
V.
it
may assume
can
in
the the
Still
less,
of course,
he admit
identification of tion
God and
its
the world: a Stoic defini
which
expresses
this
he
only
adopts
2
after
having altered
the author shows
Finally, pantheistic language. himself to be a Peripatetic by
3 expressly defending the eternity and unchangeable ness of the world (also a 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
school, such
it
any leader of the Stoic
Posidonius or Thrysippus, yet in the endeavour is very perceptible to unite the

as
This occupies the whole of
sixth chapter.
(cf.
1
ilie
Here again
is
\(\
1>,
the polemic against Stoicism
in which it shows re semblance not only to the Stoics in general, but more particu
unmistakable
.xv/y.
//,
(I
:
p.
It,
>!)"
larly to that exposition of their
:5HS,
(t.
.xff.
4-22
400,
and the theory (Osann, 207) that the divergence from

.sv/.)
it is only a concession to the popular religion is quite in admissible the popular re ligion is not at all in question here, imi the Aristotelian theo logy; if Chrysippus, however, wished to support the popular religion, he was quite able to do his, we have seen, without contradicting the fundamental
;
doctrines from which Stob. J-Jrl. i. 444 (Phil. (I. (ir. III. i. 147,1 )has given us extracts. The altera tions which are found necessary in the treatise are all the more worthy of note: K6<r/d.ov 5 we 6 Xpvread in Stob., flvai
1
<^f](nv
crnnros (rvcTTijaa e| ovpavov Kal 77}? Kal TOCV fV TOVTOIS (f)U(Tf(l}V, T)
a>
principles of his system. mav quote as a special indica tion of the Peripatetic origin of our treatise thai the passage WH, / 1*5 .vv/y. seems to have reference to Main Aiiim. 7,
,
/)<
We
Tb (K OiWV KOL avdpdoiTWV (TV(TTri/J.a KCU (K rwv (i>Ka TOVTWV yfyov6TUV. Xfyerai 8 frepus KOff/uLOS 6 debs, KaO bv T] Sia/cofTyUô-is yiverai Our treatise Kal T\6Lovrai. takes the first of these defini tions literallv, and passes over for the third it the second substit lit es these words Xfytrai
:
701,
h,
.wyy.
5e Kal frtpccs Kocruos T] rwv o\wv TOLÎS Tf Kal Sia/cofr^Tjrrts, virli Otwv
The
treatise
trepl
K.6a/jLOv,
begins, after the introduction, c. with definitions of the 1,
AFFINITY WITH STOICISM.

Stoic doctrine with the Aristotelian,
136
partially
and
CHAP.
to admit even those determinations to which an With the Stoic unqualified recognition is denied. which the author has employed, and even writings
transcribed,
he has also appiopriated Stoic doc trines to a considerable extent; and this may be
1
merely of the cosmological, astronomical, and meteorological details which Osann brings for 2 ward, but also of definitions deeply affecting the
said not
Quite at the beginning of the 3 a Chrysippean cosmological exposition, we encounter Further on it is de definition of the KOCT/JLOS.
whole system.
monstrated, in the spirit and after the precedent of the Stoic system, that it is precisely the 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, 5 and that his harmony with the Stoics sympathy
: :
shall not escape us, the
author does not hesitate to
quote, expressly
as a witness in his
own
behalf,
the great authority of this school, Heracleitus. In his theory of the elements, he allies himself with the Stoics, though he diverges from Aristotle in
making
1
7 He cold the fundamental quality of air. adopts the Stoic doctrine of the Trvsv/jia, with which
This will be proved later
on.
2 3
<>to7js
C. 2, 392, I, 5 v Kal
Page 208
sqq.
Qvfftv.
Likewise, as
is
shown
C. 2, beginning; vide siyi. p. 134, 2. 4 C. o. 5 iraOwv 6/u.oiO C. 4, end, at

ru>v
T7JT6S.
6
183, 2, the Stoics, against whom Aristotle (cf. Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 444) maintains cold to be the fundamental determination of water, and moisture that of
air.
p.
C. 5, 396,
J,
13
cf. c. 0,
end.
130
ECLECTICISM.
there are points of contact even in the Peripatetic But his approach to Stoicism is most doctrine.
1
CHAP.
While repudiating striking in regard to theology. the Stoic Pantheism as such, the diffusion of the divine substance through the world, the author quite
of its propositions as soon as they are not to the divine essence, hut the divine applied, force 2 and he accordingly teaches that the active
approves
emanating from the Deity 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 God is,
influence
therefore, the law of the whole
the order of the

classified
from Him proceeds world by means of which it is

4
;
into
the
various
species
of
;
existences,
r>
through their individual seminification

cause
bears
of
this,
and be
the
all-governing influence, God manifold names, the enumeration and

his
explanation of which in the treatise Trspl KOO-/J.OV are stamped with the most genuine Stoicism. The
name, the predicates, and the origin of Zeus are

here explained
1
quite in the Stoic sense

:i
:
dvdy/crj,
"20
Ae 7ercu 5e Kal ere pws iri tv/j.a r\ re eV (pvro is Kal {uois Kal 5ia Travrwv Si-fjKovrra
(
.
4,
o91,
.)
?>,
C.
.
(>,
OS,
/y,
(]
tqq.
,sv/.
cf.
I51M5, A,
(
.
<>,
21
.svy.
/>,
100,
S:
i
VOJJ.QS
yap
t/u.\l/vxu$
t
Kal yovLfjios oixria. Cf. In- (jiiotat ions, Pli il.tl. 1 1. i. I .l], 1 ]. i:S, :i ,7, b, !(!: Sib Kal TUV
"re
T//U?I/ lcroK\ii>r]s
6 6f6s.
The con-
<ir.
:;:>],
.">.
ccpt itui of VOJJLOS of the uni\ci-se
or tlu order is, as is well

Stoic.
t>.
<
<;,
known,
Cf. J
pre-eminently
.
uTi
nz- ev irpo iÔriffai iravra ravrd fiTTi Ofwv TrAe a

81
o<$>8a\p.uv
1/il. (I
:>()i!
(tr.
III.
i.
110
222
:>
.v-y.
ra Kal
rj/jLlf
Iv5a\\6/j.fva
ird(rrj<i
Kal 6t
TTJ
d:of;s
fjitv
Kal
alcr-
&r]<Tf<Jcs,
Truvra
l^r]v 7TJ
Karafta\\u/j.i
6fia Svvdu.fi jrpfoi \uyov ov
C. (!, 1()0, b, \M This ,vy. exposition likewise reminds us of the Stoics, in the doctrine ot the \uyoL o"rrpju.aTiKoi.
yt
ovcria..
THEOLOGY.
7TS7rpa)/j,svr),
137
Nemesis,
Moirse, are referred to

;
him by
Adrasteia, the means of Stoic etym-
CHAP.
the confirmation of philosophic ologies the sayings of the poets are interspersed, doctrines, It is clear that after the manner of Chrysippus. 1
for
and
the author wishes indeed to main tain the Peripatetic doctrine, but also to combine with it as much
Stoicism as was possible without absolute incon 2 That Plato likewise agrees with his sistency. proposition is indicated at the close of the work,
by the approving Laws (IV., 715,
from the and we are again reminded E.), of Plato, when God is extolled not merely as the Almighty and Eternal, but also as the prototype of beauty. 3 But this, like all eclecticism, was
citation of a passage
naturally only possible by the relaxation of the strictly philosophic interest and philosophic defmiteness ; and thus we see in the writing irspi KocrjjLov, side by side with the cheap erudition dis
played especially in Chapters II. to IV., the popular theological element decidedly preponderating over the purely philosophical element. In the discus
sions
on the transcendental character of the divine

this
religiosity
essence
even
assumes
mystic
exalta-
tinge
1
when the
;
dignity of
p.
God and His
C. 7
cf.
Osann.
219 sqq.
trines of the school to
That he, therefore, ceased to be a Peripatetic and conseZellerus ipse snam quently sententiam rcfellere egregie ridetur* (Adam. p. 34) is a sinAs if no gular assertion. philosopher had ever mingled foreign elements with the doc-
which he belonged and desired to

belong.
3
:
ravra xpb C. 6, 399, b, 19 deov 5iai/oe7<r0cu 8vvd/u.ei ovros Iff-xyporarov, KoAAet /JLCV Se evirpf-jreffTdrov, fay Se adavdrov, apery 5e Kpariffrov, &c.
KO.\ irepl
138
ECLECTICISM.
tion above all contact with the
CHAP
V.
chief
argument against the
divine essence in the universe.
made the immanence of the We see here how

world
is
eclecticism accomplished the transition from pure philosophy to the religious speculation of the neo-
The road of and their predecessors. and those results of enquiry being abandoned, speculation alone maintained which commended
Platonists
strict
themselves to the universal consciousness as true
and
must necessarily be in which the majority of man replaced by theology, kind satisfy their theoretical wants ; and if, at the
expedient,
metaphysics
same time
this theology were based
on the Aristotelian
doctrine of the transcendency of God, and the Stoic idea of his omnipresent influence on the world,
there resulted at once a theory of the universe in which the Peripatetic dualism and the substantial Pantheism of the Stoic school were reconciled in a
Prolalla date of
t uni.
system of dynamic Pantheism. To what period the attempt at such a reconcilia tion contained in the book we have been consider
1
be assigned, is not certain, but it The revision approximately determined.

ing,
may
may
of
be the
treatise
as
by Apuleius shows that it was in circulation an Aristotelian work about the middle of the
second century after Christ.

1
The only question
is,
The view above developed,
of the character of the treatise the Kfpl K6(T[j.ov, has also in main been advanced by Peter.-en
(/.
preparation of this work, independently of Peterson, to

first
whose book my attention was first drawn by Adam, this will

l
c.
p.
;~57
*
/</.)
AS
it
)C
i"
favour
of
its
correct-
had already been the result of my own investigation, in the
ness.
EVIDENCE AS TO DATE.
therefore,
189
posed
how long before this date it was comThat we cannot place it earlier than the first
is
CHAP.
century before Christ,
of external testimony. tence is met with in Apuleius ; if a Cicero and an Antiochus to whom, by its intermediate position be
probable from the evidence If the first trace of its exis
tween the Peripatetic and Stoic doctrine, its distinct and rhetori arrangement, general comprehensibility, have commended cal language, it would so greatly never betray by any indication that it was itself
known
tury
to them,
we can
scarcely suppose that
it
was
written earlier than the beginning of the first cen But its whole character would before Christ.
lead us
still
more
this cen definitely to assign it to
For tury or the century immediately following. before the attempt could have been made to put into the mouth of the founder of the Peripatetic
the Stoics, school, such important concessions to the individuality of both schools must already, in and the knowledge great measure, have disappeared,
of
them become obscured in a word, philosophic eclecticism must have attained a development,
;
which, according to all other traces, it did not attain before the time of Antiochus, the Academician.
When,
this
would place the date of work before the middle of the third century
therefore,
Kose
before Christ, the proof for this assertion must be very strong to counterbalance the opposite pro But this is so little the case 2 that we are bability.
1
De
Arist. lilr. Ord. et Anct.
Rose
s
:
arguments are the

(1)
36, 97 sqq.
following
The passage
140
ECLECTICISM.
V.
CHAP.
rather constrained by decisive facts to suppose that the work Trspl KOO-/J.OV must lie later than Posidonius,
one or more of whose writings the author employs,

irepl
K.6(T/j.ov
(i,
:>,
c.
(>,
r>99,
f>,
.">;>
to
tOO,
was
already tran
irepl
1
;">.">,
himself says that others even after Hipparchus set up other
scribed
tclin.ii
in
the psetido-AristoQavp-acri^v
p.
treatise
(e.
a.Kovafj.a.Tuv
846),
which cannot bo more recent than Antigonus of Carystus,

died about 220 15. C. of two the works lias borrowed from the other cannot be discovered from a comparison of the passages moreover the passage in the
J>ut
who
wliicli
computations: Artemidorus, for example, in agreement with the the length of irfpi K6(r/j.ov, the terrestrial plain as more than (58,000 stadia, and its breadth more than 39,000 (Plin. Hixt. Mtf. ii. 108, 242 .svy. Of Posidonins we know only that he reckoner! the length at
<îves
70,000 (Stralio,
tradition does
ii.
;},
(1,
p. ]()2):
what he said of the breadth

not inform
us.
treatise
Trepl
6a.vp.a.(ri.u>v
a/coixr-
juarwv, wliich Rose believes to be copied in wepl Kuaôu, belongs
How
anything concerning the
section which he himself considers to be a later addition

t
(rf.Phil.d.Gr.Il. ii. 109,1). On this argument, therefore, nothin-- can be based. (2) Rose ob serves that in Trepl KUO-/J.OV (c. :w;{, b, 18) the breadth of the habitable plain of the earth, &s ol ev yewypaâai res,
)>,
date of the treatise, therefore, is to be deduced from its di vergence from Eratosthenes and Hipparchus, it is hard to
According to c. i, as Rose asserts, between the Caspian and

(?))
.
see.
SUM
?>,
2:;,
l>lack
Seas there
is
(rrevuTaTOS
icrO/j-tis:
and
</>amy
40,000 stadia, about 70,000 stadia: and this proves that the work was written not onlv before Hipparchus, but also before Kratost henes for Kratosthenes eckoned its length at 77,SOO, and its breadth at
is
Driven as nearly
its
and
this could not be main tained after Eratosthenes had placed the breadth of this
len-th
isthmus
1,
">,
at
Posidonius
]>
1,000 (?) stadia, and 1,500 (Strabo xi. Our author, 491).
at
stadia; and Hipparchus, \vliomthelater writei-s mosily followed, counted 70.0OO for
.S.<MXI
its
len^tli
ii.
and
:!0,000
i,
JJ
for
2,
its
breadth (Strabo,
*</,/.;
4,
p.
02
5, 7, p. 11
.^/.).
But
do \ve know that our author must have kept pre

ho\v
cisely to these predecessors if lie were, later than thev Rose
.
however, does not maintain this he says, the boundaries of Kurope are /J-vxol Tlovrov 6d\aTrd re Vpnavia, Kad rrreVWTO.TOS icrd/jibs els TOV HOVTOV 5iT]Kei, I.e. the Caspian Sea at the place where the isthmus between it and the Pont us (which was also designated as the boundary between Kurope and Asia, according to Dionvs.
:
IVrieg. Orb. narrowest.

si-rvations of
l),>xcr.
v.
20)
is
The
Kose
furtlu-r
I
obventure to
LATER THAN POSIDONIUS.

and from
he has, perhaps, borrowed the greater The he imparts to us. part of the natural science
1
141
whom
CHAP.
V.
pass over, as, even supposing they are correct, they would only prove the possibility and not the probability or truth of his theory. 1 It has already struck other writers how many points of contact are presented by our treatise with the fragments of Posidonius and the phenome non deserves all consideration.
;
Kar opOas yuivias

â<r,uaTiar
/3pa<rrat,
ol
Se
(TVVlffia flS TTOiOVVTfS

ot
flS
TO
K0~i\a
8e
âcr/xaTO a.vo(-
yovTfs Kal yr)v avapp^yvvvres pyKrai KaXovvrai. Cf. Diog. vii. 154 TOUS fffiffp-ovs 5e yivt<rf)ai
:
TTvev/j-aros
els
ra
ir)
Koi\u>ju.aTa
TTJS
yrjs fvSvovros
[ai] Kadeipxdfv-
Thus we
in -n-. K. c. 4. 395, a, 32, the definition: Ipis /j.v ovv tarlv /j.(pa(Tis r/Ai ou T/rrj-
find
vorepy /UOTOS % (T\-f]vr]s, eV Kal Koi\ci} Kal o-vvexe i irpbs (pavraaiav ws eV Karo-Trrpy 9e<apov/j.vri
i/e</>ei
TOS, KaOd (prjffL TlflffftScafLos v rrj eTvai 5 avTwv rovs JAW 6y86y TOVS 5e crL(r/j.aTias, rovs 5e K\i/JLarias, rovs (jiarias, also Sen. Nat. Qu. vi. In c. 4 we read that 21, 2. there are two kinds of vapours,
Kara KVK\OV
irfpupepetav.
is
This
singular definition
vii.
quoted by with the Diogenes, same words and with only slight and unimportant differ ences from Posidonius, Mereo?152,
dry and moist from the latter arise hoar-frost, dew, fog, from the clouds, fain, &c. former, winds, thunder, light ning, &c. Compare with this, Seneca, Nat. Qu. ii. 54 Nuno
;
ad
opi iiionein Posidonii revertor : e terra tcrrenisque om,
In c. 4, 394, b, 21 our treatise maintains that, of the east winds, KaiKias is the wind that blows from the place of the sun s rising in summer, that which comes d-TTTjAicoTTjs from the la-nuepival, evpos from the x fl liie P lvaL avaroXal of the
po\oyiK>).
mbus pars hvmida cfflatw pars

sicca
ftgq.
etfumida : htscfulminibus alimentum est, ilia imfon-bits Posidonius himself (which must naturally have given much more at length). If dry
vapours are shut up in the break through clouds, they them, and this causes thunder. With this explanation of thun der our treatise also agrees (c.
4,
west winds, apyfcrrTjs blows from the flepti^ SIHTIS, {ttyvpos from the tVrj/ttepu/^, Aty from the Svo-is. These very de Xetjuepii>^ finitions are quoted by Strabo, i. 2, 21, p. 29, from Posidonius.
read: Earthquakes are occasioned by winds being pent up in the cavities of the earth and seek
In
c.
395, a, 11)
V<f>fi
ei\r)0fv 5e Trvfvfj.a
eV
Troê? re Kal vorepip Kal

Si
ew$ei/
avrov
fiiaicas
4,
395,
J,
33,
we
pi}yvvov
v*<povs,
ra (TWfx^l
7TiA?7/uaTo
rov
fip6fj.ov Kal irdrayov /jLtyav aireipydffaro, ftpovrriv \ey6/j.fi ov. With
ing to escape
oi
fj.fv
TUV
Se
(rfi<T[Mwi>
fls
irXayia ffftovTes /car
oêZas yuvias eTrj/cAiVrat Ka\ovvrai, ol 5e avw fifrrrovvTes Kal KCLTCD
the explanation of snow quoted by Diogenes (vii. 153), and no doubt abbreviated from Posi donius, the somewhat more detailed account in irepl K6ff/j.ov
142
ECLECTICISM.
work cannot, according before the middle of the
harmonises (c. 4,
definition
:-{
CHAP
V.
to this,
first
have been written

;
century before Christ
I,
a, :52).
<reAas
The
(;ij).
of
<.),
tlie,
Koff/j-ov
beyond those of the treatise -n-fpl whereas the latter book

;
Diog.
the.
/.
which
like
probably taken, meteorological portions of
most is most of
his
from
in
expositions of Stoicism, osidonius, \ve again find

1
irepl
K6ff/*ov
is
.
(4,
39;>,
b,
2).
2,
Also what
IJ
there said
592, H,
r>)
(c.
in all that it says concerning those subjects bears the charac ter of a summary, not pursuing enquiries, but only comparing results how can we then think it more credible that 1 osido nius should have taken his
;
.il,
ft,
1(1;
on the
stars and the ether, reminds us of the description of the
which Stobanis quotes 518) from 1 osidonius. That the agreement of our with Posidonius in treatise these cases is not merely acci dental is manifest. As little can we suppose that their har mony is the result of their common dependence on a third exposition, which in that case could have been nothing less than a complete meteorology; for in the first place Fosidonius in these matters enjoys great
&(TTpov,
opinions from this compendium than that the author of the compendium should have bor rowed his from the work of
1 osidonius? And if this had ever occurred, how is it ex later writers plicable that should have referred them all to 1 osidonius, without a svl-
(Eel.
\.
lable of allusion to their ancient and well-known source, attested by the name of Aristo tle ? even if we disre gard all this, the theory will not suffice to save the origi
P>ut
nality of our
and
higher
authority
that
Stoic
treatise
unless,
we cannot reputation, and ascribe such dependence to

second, it would be inexplicable that he and not his predecessor should always be named as the au
;
Rose, we exposition
assume
of the
with the
cos
him
and
in
the
mology (a]). Stob. Ed. i. 444) was likewi.se taken from it. That this exposition, however,
altogether contradicts such a theory will be shown imme Who can believe that diately. instead of the Stoic doctrines
thority,
whom
very
he must have
closely
if
followed
lie
copied
Still
him word for word. more untenable is Rose s
theory (/. c. p. JM5) that Posidonius borrowed from the trea tise the passages in which lit; resembles it. We know that osidonius wrote comprehen
1
being foisted upon Aristotle out of Stoical writings by the Peripatetic, the Stoic doctrines have been taken out of Aris totle himself? I have, how ever, dwelt too long upon this
hypothesis, which is manifestly only a device to escape from a dim culty. The passages
works on meteorology, geography, and astronomy, the

sive
roult of his own investigations, fhe contents of which went far
quoted above place
it
beyond
ABOUT THE FIRST CENTURY

probably
it is
B.C.
143
rather later
to a later date than the

a doubt
first
but we cannot assign it century after the com:
CHAP.
V.
that the author of the treatise has made abundant use of Posidonius, and even copied from him. If this is
from our treatise in it there is also wanting the second of these
we may with great probability derive all his geo graphical and meteorological dissertations (c. 3, 4) from the Stoic philosopher whose achievements in these depart ments are celebrated. To him the detailed discussion on the Posido sea especially points nius had written a separate work on the sea, and therein
certain,
;
and the third (as is shown I. o.~) is conceived in a manner which can only be ex plained by the design of the
definitions,
had
asserted,
b,
what our
treatise
20) also strongly enforces, that the whole of the inhabited earth is surrounded by the sea (Strabo, ii. 2, 1,5, p.
(c. 3, 392,
Peripatetic to bring the defini tions ready to hand in the Stoic authority into harmony with his own standpoint. Now the passage of Stobams only claims to be an account of the Stoic doctrine, and we clearly see that it is not taken literally from a Stoic work. But it is equally clear (and its agree ment with our treatise places
it
beyond a doubt) that it is abstracted from such a work.

That this was Chrysippus
KOO-/U.OV,
s irepl
94, 100;
i.
1, 9, 3, 12, p. G,
55).
as
another portion of the which I should sup pose, from its contents, to be Posidonius. from borrowed Osann (p. 211 sqq.} has already shown that the section from the beginning of c. 2 to c. 3, 392, b, 34, is almost point for point the same as the expo sition quoted ap. Stob. i. 144 no doubt sq. (which Stobreus borrowed from Arius Didymus) even though there may be slight differences in the ar rangement and the conceptions and that our treatise here also must be a copy and not an
There
is
seems to
ful.
me
Osann supposes, more than doubt
treatise
Stobreus himself ascribes the two first definitions of the

Kofffjios
this
owe
But to Chrysippus. statement he may also to a third writer, and
that it is so, and that this third writer was no other than Posidonius, is probable for three reasons first, the same
:
definitions
which Chrysippus,
according to Stobaeus, set up, are quoted in Diog. vii. 138, from the /j-frewpoXoyiK^ CTTOLXeuutm of Posidonius Posido
;
nius must, therefore, have re
peated them here
evident from what For as the is quoted p. 134, 2. names excerpt in Stobams Chrysippus as the source for the two first of its three defini tions of the KtSo-yuos, this quota
original
is
he would no doubt have mentioned Chry sippus as their author. Thus

;
the
section
of
our
is
treatise
which coincides with the pas

sage of Stobaius
in
so closely
connected with the following,
tion cannot
have been taken
which the employment of
144
ECLECTICISM.
V.
CHAP.
mencement of our era since it had already been handed down to Apuleius as a work of Aristotle, and Apuleius in his copy must have found some false
:
}
readings
which
still exist,
the probability
is
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 en
trance even into the Peripatetic school.

be proved, that j osidonius can no break i.s perceptible between what is borrowed from rosido nius and that which comes from another source. Lastly, the dissertation on the islands, and the assertion that the supposed mainland is also an
island (Stob. 446 irtpl K.6(r/j.ov, c. 3, :W2, /;, 20 xqq.) seems to Tosidonius (as we have already observed) exactly. It seems, therefore, probable that it is the same work of osido;
>uit
comprehensible transformation
name
still
of the predicate Ao|r? into the of an island, Oxe or Loxe, is accounted for bv the
variant, existing \o^ instead of Ao|^ irpis
fix
KaXov/uLfi/r),
-
To
the date of
its
com
position
more
exactly
hardly be possible. author wrote before

his description of
8,
would That the

Strabo
(c.
would seem probable, because

the sea
WW,
nius, his /j-frewpoXoyiKT] ffToiî-
from the first section of which Stolneus (i.e. Arius Didymus) Drives an excerpt, and which the author of the Trtpl has used in its whole Xtent, in winch case not much of the knowledge which ho parades (c. 2-4) can be placed
JJCTLS,
K.6<r/uLov
i
than 5, 19 $ij. p. 122 .//.). Meantime this infer ence is the more unsafe if the author in the geographical part of his work has simply followed
Posidonius.
2(i) is Strabo s (ii.
a,
less precise
The
(pp6vr)<ris
is
apportioned to the to the QvôfLSfs tlie and avSpeia, to the (Tn

the
(Twcppoffvi
ri
o
1
liis
own
account.
and
vx ia. and
As (loldbaeher shows (p. from 081 Proffiin. p.

.?</.)
to tlie
whole soul the
Aj>til.
Oud.). In the lir.st of these passages Apuleius unnatural translation is ex plained by the supposition that in TT. K. i, :?:!, a, 22 ho may have r-ad with some of our
2SS,
c. 7.
]).
:-{()2
likewise the opposite failings. Of these duties ;md faults
somewhat
are given
:
superficial definitions
lastly,
it
is
shown
MSS.
utpovs
ovs
oiKricrfifv
in
the second, the
otherwise
in
conduct they are by what manifested: and many other sub-kinds of virtues and faults are brought forward.
TREATISE ON VIRTUES.
Another remnant of that eclecticism we probably
possess in the short treatise on virtues and vices, also to be found in our Aristotelian collection. The doctrine of virtue
is
146
CHAP
v
T
here based on the Platonic discrimi- on
nation of the three faculties of the soul, and the four and chief virtues ; to these the author tries to reduce the
virtues treated of by Aristotle ; and the correspond ing 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 dif
virtues rices
ferent virtues and vices in the descriptive manner of the later ethics, as seems to have been especi ally customary in the Peripatetic school after Theo-
With Stoicism there are scarcely even phrastus. external points of harmony. But this short treatise
1
is
1
not of sufficient importance to detain us longer. 2

tetic would hardly have allied himself to Plato so unhesita tingly, as if it were a matter of course, in the way that the writer does in c. 1, 1249, a, 30
:
For instance, perhaps, the remark that the whole treatise from beginning to end is de
voted to the opposition of the
fTraivfra
2
origin is not quite certain; but, from its admis sion into the Aristotelian col lection, and its whole treat ment of the subject, it is pro bable that it emanated from
and Even its
iJ/e/CTa.
rpififpovs Se TT)S ^V^TJS A.a u./3c

/
o-
Kara Tl^druva, &c. There an indication of a later period in the mention of dae mons between the gods and
jue j/Tjs
is
also
the Peripatetic school, and not from the Academy and if its date cannot be precisely fixed,
;
we may assign it, generally speaking, to the period of Eclecticism. An earlier Peripa
c. 4, 1250, b, 20 1251, a, 31, under the head of piety and godlessness perhaps after the precedent of the Pythagorean Golden Poem
parents in
c.
7,
(v. 3).
140
ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTER
CICEKO.
CHAP.
VI.
VI.
VAKKO.
FROM
fically
in the first
the preceding chapters it will be seen how, century before Christ, the three scienti
E.
Eclecti
cism of
first
tit
century
B.C.
most important schools of philosophy had in a more or less strongly developed This mode of thought must have com eclecticism. mended itself the more readily to those who, from the outset, had concerned themselves rather with the
coincided
practically applicable fruits of philosophic studies than with strict science. Such was the case with Cicero. 1
Its practi cal cliu-
ractcr,
exempli
fied in Cicero.
Cicero s youth falls in a period in which not only the influence of Greek philosophy on Roman culture, but also the approximation and partial blending of
the philosophic schools had already begun to develop themselves strongly. 2 He himself had become ac
quainted with the most various systems, partly from he writings of their founders and representatives and
1
1
Concerning
cf.,
philosopher,
(iv.
xii.
Cicero as a besides Hitter
106-17(5). Herbart, \Verl-r,
167 v/q.
I
Ciceronix
Kiihner, M. T. in PMlosojtMam
;
Allij. Encyel. sect. i. 1 .sv/y. ernhardy, Rom. 709 sqq. and the treatises named in the passages quoted
Gr tiler s
22(>
17, Liit.
Iamb. 1825 (this is only to be regarded as a labor

Merita,
ious
collection of materials); concerning his philosophical
infra, pp. 118, 5 149, Cicero, as is well

;
"
1.
known, was born on the Hrd January, (54 S A.r.c. 106 B.C.), and (i.e.
I
works,
cf.
Hand
in
Ersch.
mid
death of
therefore sonic years after the amutius.
EDUCATION.
partly from his teachers. the Epicurean doctrine had
147
In his earliest youth,
CHAP.
commended
l
itself to
him
through
after this teaching of Phsedrus ; Philo of Larissa introduced him to the new Academy, 2
the
among whose adherents he
persistently reckoned
himself; at the same time he enjoyed the instruc tion of the Stoic Diodotus who also remained at a
later period in close proximity to
him
3
;
before the
he visited public Greece, attended the instructions of his old teacher Phaedrus and those of Zeno, the Epicurean, 5 but
of
his
commencement
career
with special eagerness those of Antiochus, 6 the chief founder of Academic eclecticism, and he entered into
a connection with Posidonius, which continued till the death of that philosopher. 7 Also in philosophical lite
rature he had taken such a wide survey that we cannot withhold from him the praise of wide reading, though
at the
same time
his
knowledge of that literature
is
neither independent nor thorough enough to warrant his being called a man of great erudition. 8 He him
self
based his fame not so

ad Fam.
antequam
xiii.
much on
his
own
enquiries
E-p.
Pliccdro, qul twbis,
cum pucri
Philonem
essemus,
. . .
cognovimus, valde let philosophus probdbatwr. 2 Vide supra, p. 76, 2, 3. 3 Vid-c supra, p. 70, 3. 4 In 78 and 77 B.C. therefore in his 29th and 30th year Plut. Cie. 3 sq. 5 Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 373, 2;
; ;
8 The writers on philosophy to whom he most commonly refers and most frequently quotes are Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle (of whom, however, he seems only to have known some popular and rhetorical
374,
6
7
1.
works), then Theophrastus and Dicsearchus, with their political Crantor, Pansetius, writings, Hecato, Fosidonins, Clitomachus, Philo, Antiochus, Philo-
Supra, Supra,
p. 87,
demus
(or Zeno).
p. 58, 4.
148
ECLECTICISM.
into philosophy as on the art with which he had clothed Greek philosophy in a Roman dress, and
CHAI>.
made
it
accessible to his countrymen.
He
only
arrived,
however, at this literary activity in his more advanced age, when he had been compelled to
renounce public service, 2 and thus his manifold and tolerably extensive philosophical works are com
3 But our pressed into the space of a few years. his work will be astonishment at the rapidity of
considerably lessened
his
when we
the
mode
of procedure in
look more closely at compilation of his
In one portion of these he philosophical works. does not directly express his own views, but allows each of the most important philosophic schools to
explain
theirs
and
to
for this
4 through one of their adherents, purpose he seems almost throughout
have made free use of the several expositions which lay ready to hand, and to have confined
himself
tion,
1
mainly to the comparison, representa and elucidation of their contents. 5 And even
bcr 3rd, 43
B.C., his activity as a philosophical writer occupies only about three years, As in the Academica, De
j
Of the merit which he claims for himself in this respect Cicero often speaks while
his defending works against
[ in.
i.
;
philosophical censure, t-.fj.

:
Finibits,
D<
Datura Deorum,
7V.SV.
[,
1
Acad. i. 3, 10 2, 4 sqq. i. I N. I), i. 4 Off. i. .sv/c/.

; ;
De
Dirinatioue.
,svy.
Acad.
1.
1.
c.
Tusc.
i.
1, 1
4,
;
:i
Ar
I).
c.
The
earliest of these (irre-
<>f
-pective of his two political the the Consolatio, works), /rorfenxhw, and lie first version the ActifJcM icff, fall in the
t
5 confesses A-rr6ypa(f)a aunt, Cicero himself in a much-quoted passage (a// Att. xii. 52), in more labor c rcrlxi tiintum Punt : ajfn o, f///ibt/s abundo and that this, in spite of Fin. i. 2, 4 (Non,
;
interprt tu-m
fungimw
A:c.). is no exaggerated is suHiciently proved
mnncrc, modesty, by the
year
70!) A. u.c. ,?
icero
45 j;.c. As was murdered on Decem.<".
recent investigations into the In sources of his expositions.
HIS
OWN
STANDPOINT.
149
where he speaks in his own name, he frequently

allies
CHAP.
VI.
own
himself so closely to older writings that his works are scarcely more than reproductions
1
of these.
Yet
this is
no great disadvantage in
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 dialogues he, as a rule, sufficiently indi cates which of the theories under discussion he
approves.
His standpoint
may
be generally described as an His

served him as a model (vide Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 63) for the ConsoGrantor s irepl irtvQovs latio,
;
scepti
cism.
the Aoademica he had borrowed from Antiochus that which, in the first version, he placed in the mouth of Lucullus, and afterwards in the mouth of Varro (vide supra, p. 86, 3) the scep
;
tical dissertations
he had pro
bably taken from Philo as well as from Clitomachus (ride Phil,
The source d. Gr. I [I. i. 501 3). of the fifth book in DC Finibtis in Antiochus is to be found (ride supra, p. 86, 3), and that the rest originated in the same way, admits of no doubt. For
,
The prin (ibid. II. i. 899, 3). cipal source of the first book of the Tusculance seems to have been the writings of Posidonius and Grantor of the second, Panaetius {vide supra, p. 41, 3 Heine, Font. Tusc. Disput. 11 sq.); of the fourth,
; ;
the
first book on the gods two Epicurean treatises (concerning

cf. Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 373, 2 374, 1) are employed for the second, probably one of Posidonius and one of Panastiiis (cf. supra, p. 41, 3) for the third, and for the second half of the first, Clitomachus
;
; ;
which
Posidonius (as Heine, 1. c. p. 13 sq., supposes), or Antiochus (ridePhil. d. Gr. III. i. 517, 1). In the treatise De Fato he appears to repeat the inferences of The books De Clitomachus. Officiis keep in substance to Panaetius work of the same
1
name
(ride supra, p. 41, 3) the substance of the Topiea has

;
(Phil. d. Gr. III.
i.
505, 3).
De
Divinatione is worked out from Posidonius, Panaetius, and Cli
tomachus (ride ibid. III. i. p. 337, 1 and supra, 41, 3). For his Hortensius, Aris
;
probably been furnished by Antiochus (vide supra, p. 86, 3). It may reasonably be supposed that it was the same with the other works whose Greek pro totypes have not hitherto been ascertained, though Cicero may not in all of them have been dependent on his predecessors
to the
totle s
IlpoTpcTrriKbs
probably
same extent.
150
ECLECTICISM.
eclecticism
CHAP.
founded upon scepticism,
The
very
habit
we have already mentioned,
of stating argu
ments
for and against, without drawing any con clusion, indicates a tendency to scepticism, for this
procedure cannot be compared with the indirect development of thought in the Platonic dialogues, or with the Soeratic conversations, from which
Cicero himself derives it ; its true analogy is with the colloquies of Carneades 2 and it can only originate in the fact that the philosopher is not satisfied with any theory, but objects to something
l
in every given system.
Cicero, however, expressly
avows himself as belonging to the new Academy, 3 and brings forward in his own name the argu ments with which it had denied the possibility of
4 For himself, one of the great reasons, knowledge. if not the greatest, for his doubt, seems to lie in the
disagreement
of the
philosophers
;
most important questions
at
pursues this subject with pressly remarks that he attaches

value to
it
concerning the any rate, he not only 5 but ex predilection,
Academy
1
much greater that has been said by the on the deception of the senses and the
than to
of
;
all
impossibility
Tiixe.
i.
any
11
;
fixed
*
definition
A<>n<l.
of
*,/q.
ideas. 6
I
4,
v. 4,
.V. 1).
ii.
20
to
think
it
i.
5, 11.
-
Cf.
Tusr.
iiiori-iii
cui
v. 4, 11: (Jur HI Cant-cadex ueutix-
specify these; arguments further iu this place, as they are not to be considered
unnecessary
shur copiosissimeque temriwt, feciimis ef iilian stejie inijier in Tuxculawo, lit ad cam consuet n dine in din/tufa renu/a.
<i
original,
/til.
<l
(, r.
and have been quoted, III. i. 500

$(/<].
Lo<\
ci1
1,
1
.]
.],
107;
1)5;
c. 156
iii.
,sv/.
.
.V. 1).
c
i.
G,
lo,
59.
Acad.
1!?;
ii.
20; 22,
r
(!!)
i.
i.
4,
Acad.
ii.
48,
147: PotttJiao
12,
iii.
Qtfie.
43, 4(5; 4, 20.
J\
D.
5,
12;
tanicn,
jiotiux
en in lt c <{ii(eremiis^ de dissensionibus tantis
ACTION BASED ON PROBABILITY.

much the Scepticism with him, therefore, is not so an independent enquiry as the consequence
placed
161
CHAP.
;
fruit of
of the uncertainty in which the strife of philosophic him ; it is only the reverse side theories has of his eclecticism, only a sign of the
dence of his
same indepen Greek predecessors which that eclecti

:
so far as the philosophers are to be the common elements from their sys reconciled, tems are co-ordinated ; so far as they are at strife,
cism expresses
knowledge respecting the debated points

spaired of, another.
is
de
because the authorities neutralise one
Thus it is that doubt in Cicero cannot have by Its limits and sigmany means the importance or significance that it ficance. had had in the new Academy and we therefore
.
see him, in fact, limiting his scepticism in two re worth to the spects : for he attributes greater
knowledge derived from probability than the Academy, and he makes hardly any use of certain from his sceptical parts of the philosophy derived
principle.
If he is within the principles of the in replying, like Carneades, to the objec Academy tion that scepticism makes all action impossible
that for action full
certainty
*
is
not necessary,
consider
but only greater probability
we cannot
him
so
in
the
explanation he gives concerning
summorum virorum
de obscuritate
disseramus, natura) deque
errore tot pMlosophorum, qui de banis contrarlisque rebus tant-
opere discrepant, ut
cum plus
possit,
uno
rerum
esse
non
jacere necesse
sit tot tarn nobilcs
quam cle oculornm sensunmque rdiquorum mendaciis et de sorite ant psendoweno, quas plagas ipsi contra se Staid texuerunt. Acad. ii. 31 c. 33, 105, 108 ^V. D. i. 5, 12.
disciplinas,
! ; ;
152
ECLECTICISM.
the aim of his method of disputation. This method was to enable him, by testing the various theories,
to find out the theory
CHAP.
which had the most in
its
therefore, only the preparation for a positive conviction and even if this conviction
is,
;
favour. 1
Doubt
does not reach the

only an
full
certainty of knowledge but
approximate certainty, it suffices, as we already know, for practical life, the end and aim of the Ciceronian philosophy. There is no mistaking
the two elements of the Academic philo sophy, the denial of knowledge, and the assertion of a knowledge of probability, stand here in a dif
the fact
:
that which they occupy with doubt itself, the suspension of him, judgment, had been the proper aim of philosophic enquiry; the theory of probability was only in the second rank, and resulted from the consideration of that which remained over from doubt but to
ferent relation from

;
Carneades
for
Cicero the discovery of the probable appears as the of philosophy, and doubt has value original problem
only as a means and a condition of the solution of Cicero himself therefore plainly de clares that his scepticism was properly only in regard to the Stoic demand for an absolute knowledge ; with the Peripatetics, on the other hand, who do not
this problem.
claim so
1
much
4,
in respect to knowledge,
r<nn
/<
he
is
fundafaciHiinf
THXI-. 1,
<lr
7:
jitlx
di**,
(ndi
r,
\ DH
(
it a
audlrc relict : (id id ant sedens aut nmbtdans d lxjn/tiibiini jii-bat ant cm
l<nn
(ji:o
tjuia
quid
niri
ri tiniill nntuii
JWSM
c,wt inrcSocrates arlitrabatur.

4,
1
Similarly (v.
ij>xi
iffi,^nf
ruin i*
1) this proce-
(ji/i
aiK/iri- n-llct
(li.risxe.t (jtiid
((/<>
xihi
rlilt
contra dircrc/n.
stria,
nl a r, him //,/r ct
dun- claims Hie advantage, ut noxlruiii xattcntiam tcf/cremutt, error,* in <nnni
dlios Icrart
iiiint,
ct
cnttn, ut
refits
,t tin-rut ica
ratio contra altering ojiinioticni
dixjHitationc quid cssrt
xunilUiiimn rcrl
OBJECTION TO DIALECTIC.
mentally agreed.
receives
still
153
But even this modified scepticism further limitations. Though our philo1
CHAP.
sopher expresses himself hesitatingly on the subject,

yet, all things considered, it is only as to purely theoretical enquiries that he is in harmony with the
on the contrary and religious convictions directly and the philosophic connected with them, he does not wish to question He objects to dialectic that it in the same way. not real knowledge but only formal guarantees rules on the construction of propositions and infer 2 his judgment on physics, exclusive of ences;
:
new Academy
practical principles
theology,
is
that
it
is
far easier for physics to say

;
what things are riot, than what they are 3 it would be presumptuous to arrogate to itself a knowledge, even of its most universal principles 4 no human eye is keen enough to penetrate the darkness with which the nature of things is concealed 5 and even if we
; ;
have to limit these expressions to the case of theo logy, we find no opposite declarations counter
balancing them in regard to natural enquiries In ethics, on the contrary, though he finds proper.
considerable
discord
among the
6
;
the most important questions

1
philosophers on and he himself,
Fin.
Gr.
v. 26, 76.
ii.
i.
ista
Acad.
III.
JD.
28,
91;
5.
:
cf.
Phil,
d.
503,
N.
in
i.
fere
rebus
Omnibus 21, 60 et maxime

i>i
flkysicis,
quid non sit quam quid sit dixerim. 4 Acad. ii. 36, 116:
citius,
omnia, Luculle, crassis occu Itat a ct circuwfusa te ncbris, ut nulla acies liutiiani ingenii tanta sit, quce penetrare in coelum, terrain intrarc pos&it. Corpora nostra non novimus, &c. 124 Satisne tandem ea nota
:
Estne
suntnobis,qufenert orumnatura
sit,
lit
quisqitam tanto inflatus crrorc, sibi sc ilia scire persuaserit ? 6 Acad. ii. 39, 122 Latent
:
Tenemusne qiuc renarum ? quid animus sit ? &c. 6 Acad. ii. 42 c. 48, 147.
;
154
ECLECTICISM.
as
CHAP,
we
shall presently discover,
cannot avoid fluctua
tion in replying to
them
yet
we soon
perceive
justifica
that here he
is far
from admitting the same
tion 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 of the new Academy, he seems
1
to have
for in
made a general rule in his moral philosophy none of his writings on this subject does 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 2 are treated of itself, the highest good and duties
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 philo
sopher bringing forward opinions about
human
soul,
which are manifestly
for
God and the him some
thing more than uncertain conjectures, though even here he despairs of absolute certainty of know
says that he is merely fol and expressing his own per lowing probability sonal opinion. 3 But that he was really a consistent
ledge.
He
constantly
Legcf.
i.
13,
trice in
aittem
H9 Pertiirlaharum, omnium
:
rerum
Academlam
lit
hane
J\
. .
al)
majrinw reri simile est et quo onniea duct natura renimua, De-os esse ; and ;it the conclu1
Arcesila ct Carneade rewrite m.

e.coremiix
ail eat.
invcisent
in
IK/ C
am, al nimio/s
c<jo
sion of the treatise, iii. 40, Ita diseexsi uix, lit Vellcjo Cottdi
J>5
filet rit iiHix.
(JiKtm
quidem
placare
(Hideo.
-
cnj>ii>,
xubmorere
non
d,isputntlo verlor, inihi Jf&llri ad reritatis sim Hit u dine tn viderein r r.s-.sv /)rof>enaior. Tuxc. iv. 4,
Proof of
.
tliis
will presently
1,
be îven. r 3 So j\
7 sent it no*
:
/>Vv/
dcfcnddt quod qiilsqite aunt enim judieia libera :

.
quid
sit,
1).
i.
Quod
ina.i
hne
jtrobabile
in qiiaque re semper re-
THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS.
adherent of Carneades
such utterances
if his
l
155
CHAP.
;
could only be inferred from
whole procedure corresponded His is not the case. convictions are not so fixed and decided that he trusts unconditionally to them, and he is never so
with them.
This, however,
sure of
them
that he does not keep before

at
him the
is
probability
of having, opinion about the same

superficial
another time, another

subjects;
indeed, he
ness. 2
enough to pride himself on his 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 Though he calls the existence of the explicitly.
adds that gods merely probable, he immediately were the belief in providence abolished, all piety,
and fear of Grod, 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 probable conjecture. Moreover, when he founds an argument for the truth of a belief in
gods on
as
its
univer^JLity,
he does so without any

This
is
limitation, in his
own name. 4
also the case,
with his development of the teleothe unity logical argument, his utterances concerning of G-od and the divine government of the universe,
shall find,
we
on the dignity of man, and the immortality of the

soul.
logical scepticism is here

;
not in question
Oldenb.
;
quiremus. V. 29, 82 sq. Acad. 20, 66: Ego rero ipse et tnagnus quidem sum opinator, non enim yum sapiens, &c. Vide
ii.
aâdemiker.
-
I860
(Gymn. progr.}.
Tusc. v. 11, 33
vide infra,
p. 157, 1.
3
infra, p. 157,
1
1.
N. D.
i.
2,
3 sq.
p. 161, 1, 167.
Burmeister,
Oic. als
Neu-
Vide infra,
156
ECLECTICISM.
the philosopher, no doubt, mistrusts human know ledge, and holds greater or less probability to be the highest thing attainable ; but he reserves to himself the power of making an exception to this rule in all
cases where a pressing moral or mental demands a more fixed conviction.
CHAP.
VI.
necessity
Practical
end of
philo-
tions has, however, with

significance,
This more confident treatment of practical ques Cicero so much the more
because,
according to his view, the
whole problem of philosophy is exclusively contained in them. Though he admits that knowledge is a good in and for itself, and further, that it secures
the purest and highest enjoyment and though he includes physics in this admission, 2 expressly yet not knowledge itself, but its effects on life
*
appear
of philosophic enquiry. Knowledge completes itself only in action ; action 3 has, therefore, a higher value than the ;
to
him the ultimate aim
knowledge
enquiry concerning the highest good is the most important of all enquiries, and determines the whole of
4 the best philosophy is that of Socrates, philosophy which does not trouble itself with things which lie
:
beyond our sphere of

of
vision, and,
being convinced
the
itself
uncertainty of human knowledge, applies 5 The proper aim entirely to moral problems.
.
l-"in
i.
7,
25
//.sv.
v. 24
.sv/.
c.
21. 71.
/
///.
i
V.
11()
I),
(
-
ii,
1,
3;
ii.
cf. tin-
following
v.
v. 0,
15:
Hoc
bono}
41,
iiii/1
cn/iKtitnto
Acad.
!
>,
(SHJHIHO in plnlo-
127: Time,
iv.
5,
so])liiu
conntitutii
tutnt
omn m,
Fin.
ii.
21,
/. -///.
<;<.);
]2;
up.
Me.
5
I-
i-di/ni.
from
-
IInncii>ius,
Acini.
Tusc.
\.
4,
15;
10
cf.
Aiurustiii. J)
;(
T/ in. xiv. ..
15;;; cf. c
.
1,1;
i,
v. 4,
Off.
i.
4:;,
28;
PHILOSOPHICAL INCONSISTENCIES.
of philosophy, therefore, may be attained in spite of the restriction of our knowledge we know nothing
:
157
CHAP.
with absolute certainty ; but we know that which is most important with as much certainty as we require
to
it ; scepticism is here merely the under base of a mode of thought, which is founded lying upon the practically useful; and because this
know
tendency towards the practical best harmonised with the disposition of the Eoman and the states man, Cicero was more susceptible to the doctrine of
Carneades than he would otherwise have been
;
be
cause purely theoretical enquiries already appeared to him worthless and transcendental, he abandons
also the scientific proof of their impossibility ; but as soon as his practical interests come in contact
with doubt he makes a retreat, and would rather content himself with a bad expedient, than admit
the inevitable
statements.
consequences of his own sceptical
whence we are to derive His cclecwe have already been told twum our positive convictions, that the probable is best discovered by the com
If
we
ask, then^from^
parison and testing of different views the positive element in Cicero s scepticism is that eclecticism, which we shall presently have an opportunity of
:
examining further.
1
But
in order to decide be33

:
It will here suffice to recall
Tu quidem
tlie
characteristic observations
:
natis agis
mccum
tabellis olsiget testificcvris

aiit
in Off. iii. 4, 20 Nolls autem nostra Academia magnam licentiti-nt dat, i(t qwodcunqwe, maxime probdbile occiirrat id nostro jure Tusc. v. 11, liceat defendere.
quid
dixerim
scripserim. Cum aliis isto modo, qui legibus impositis disputant ; nos in diem vlvimiis ; quodcunque nostros animos probabilitate
aliqnando
158
ECLECTICISM.
tween opposite opinions, we must have the standard of decision in our hands, and as philosophic enquiry
consists in this very proving of different views, such a
CHAP.
standard must be already given before every scientific Two things seem then to be directly investigation.
present the evidence of the senses and the evidence Even the first, in spite of his of consciousness.
:
complaints of the deception of the senses, is not despised by Cicero he says that it would be
many
contrary to nature, and must make all life and action impossible, if we admitted no conviction
victions
(probare, not assentiri) and that among those con which force themselves upon us with the
of the
]
probability, the assurance occupies one of the foremost places ; he employs sensible evidence as an
greatest
senses
for this reason
highest certainty
example of the and he himself in all his writ
ings appeals generally to experience and historical In accordance with his whole matters of fact.
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

his ethical
to the moral world, and even in
doctrine
percitsslt, a ir mils libcri.

*<>!/
id
dlciinus
itaque
t/t
sit
risii-ni
illiid
probabile
At dd.
ii.
31,
i/t
DO
Tali
rimm
con-
lU qiic alia re iiujtcdititiH(airfpi-
//
nil ii
m rw,
.<?/
pcrc(
]>t\o
tv
qiierct iir,
i/t
nut cm.
jtroba-tio,
/
undid.
r.wf,
1 lti nint
contra ntiturani
niJtil
.
.
i>robabili
.v.sv^,
ct
sequitur omnis rita:

Itin/iK
ct
xii
>it,
ercrxio.
scfisibiis
>^c.
probcinda
CH/H/t/i TCK
attif/<i,
Part TTI. i. 515 gq.) en im out e saxo sculjrfus aiit e robore dolatns. Jlabct cnrjHis, Jiabet aninncni : morcttir wetttc, moretur ftcnmhits: lit eimitltarera rideantur, kc. Xvque nos contra scnsns
(rircurrov, ef.
inorcbitur.
^ on
mult
c
ii
<i
(Jiif/
(ilitt.
-
r (/ichtius,
ni
\sapi-cnt eni~\
.svV
Loc.
cit. c.
ac Stoici, 37, 119.
&.C.
INNATE KNOWLEDGE.
he throughout allies himself with those philosophers who have made independence of the external and dominion over sensuality their watchword. All our
conviction, therefore, according to Cicero, depends in the last resort upon direct internal certainty, upon
159
CHAP.
the natural feeling for truth, or innate knowledge
Doctrine
and
this theory
which gained so important an

l
in-
fluence in the later, especially the Christian philo sophy, he was the first to enunciate definitely ; for
though Plato and

preceded him with
Aristotle,
Zeno and Epicurus had
similar doctrines, yet our previous enquiries have shown that none of these taught innate knowledge in the strict sense : the reminis
cence of ideas, according to Plato, must be awakened by methodical study, and their content fixed ; w e
r
the principles that are beyond proof, to Aristotle, by the scientific road of in according duction ; the rrpo\r) fyts of Epicurus and the KOIVCLI
attain
to
r
zyvoiai of the Stoics are only abstracted from ex
Here on the contrary there is an asser perience. tion of a knowledge antecedent to all experience
and
if
science,
and concerning the most important

of morality are inborn in us,
truths.
The germs
develop themselves undisturbed, science would be unnecessary; only through the perversion of our natural disposition arises the need
they could
of a teghnical training to virtue. 2

1
The
conscious-
It is possible, indeed,
that
he may herein have followed Antiochus but how far this is the case cannot now be ascer;
tained. 2 Tusc.
ingcntis nostris scmina innata virtutum; q/uce si adolescere licerct,ipsanos adbeatam vitam natura perducevet ; only the obscuring of natural consciousness through evil habits and
\\i.
1,2: Sunt enhn
160
ECLECTICISM.
ness
of
CHAP.
subsequently obscures it.

1
right a
implanted in man by nature ; tendency to evil is formed which Nature has endowed our spirit not
is
only
fundamental
with a moral disposition, but also with the notions of morality preceding any
instruction, as an original dowry ; it is only the development of these innate notions which is in
cumbent on us
2
:
with reason, those impulses are
directly given which prompt men to moral com munity with others and the investigation of truth. 3
of moral activity may, therefore, be deduced not merely from the intuition of distin guished men, but also from the universal conscious ness, with greater certainty than from any definition
The essence
of ideas
the nearer the individual
still
stands to
nature, the
more keenly
will
this be reflected in
is
him
we
learn from children what
nature. 4
Belief in the Deity rests

clioarit,
according to upon the same
false opinions
1
makes a doctrine and science necessary.

Leffff.
i. 13, 33: Atqw hoc hac disputatione s-ic intelligi rolo, jus quod dicam iiaturam rsse, tantam ante in, essc corruptelammaltvconsuetudinis, ut ab ca tanquam iyniculi e,c-
in
omni
niJiil ampli us. It-aqua -nostrum est (quod nostrum dico, art in est), ad ca princ qna
qu
accept in us consequent-id- c.rqnir ere, quod it id quoad rolumus

effect urn
3
.
Fin.
ii.
14,
4G: Eadetnque
. .
ratio
fecit
stitigiiantur
a
et
natura
dail
appetentein,
homincm hoininum X C. eadem.

.
exorianturque
ritia contraria.
2
_
conjirmentur
:
natura
lunninl
cupiditatem
reri
ingenuit &c. in-renwndi,
Fin. v. 21, 59 (Natura /tomini} dcdlt talon went em, qiK/tnnncm. rirtutem accijtcre poxsct,
ingenuitque sine doctrina n o titias parva s rcrum

et quasi instituit docere et indu.rit in ca inerant tanquani elementa ciri
qu<c
wax m arum
tied
Further evidence for these prepositions is easily to be found. 4 Loc. cit. 14, 45 [Honest um~\ quale, sit non tain definitione qua sinn units intettigi potcst
:
quam
c<nnmuni
omnium
tttti*.
rirtutem ipsam in-
judicio otque optind cujusqun studiis atquv factis. On the same subject, ride v. 22, Gl
:
CRITERION OF TRUTH.
basis
:
161
by virtue of the human
spirit s affinity
is
with
CHAP.
VI.
(rod, the consciousness of
God
with self-consciousness
his
man
immediately given has only to remember

led to his Creator.
1
own
origin in order to be
Nature, therefore, herself instructs us concerning the existence of Grod, 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 pucri in quibus tit in speculis natura cernitur. Legg. i. 8, 24 Animum esse ingen&ratum a Deo : ex quo rere, rel agnatio nobis cum ccelestibus rel genus rel stirjts appellari patent. Itaque ex tot
1
:
.
id enim vltioso more fieri __ (observe here the distinction
fjeneribus nullum est animal prater homincm quod liabcat notitiam aUquam jjGti. j.j/ffMSfU!c Dei vvii^ nu
i/t,
between mos and natura) omnes tamen esse rim ct naturam divinam arbitrantur. Nee rero id collocutio Itominum aut consensus ejfecit : non institutis ojrinio cfit conjirmata, non legibus. Omni autem in re consensio omnium gentium lex natura: irmni/u/m (icntiiim
;
inltominibusnullagenscstneque -j_mtanda cst (cf. so omnium om tarn immansiicta neqtie tarn, fera, consensus naturee rose cst\ Vide etiamsl ignorct qnalem also qucc non, note 1. If Cicero elselinllWP. /)/ -/s*. UA Deum tamen *n u\yxo makes nis Academic where iijciji.co liabendum sciat. Ex ^ quo effi- philosopher claim this proof citur illud, ut is agnoscat _... tin** iii. 4, (j\: D. i. 23, 62 11) from unde ortus sit quasi recor- the consensus qui gentium which is dctur ac noscat. put in the mouth of the Epi 2 Tusc. i. 16, 36: Deos esse curean as well as the Stoic natura opinamur. Cf i (N. D. i. 16, 43 sq. ii. 2, 5) 1,2. he implies here (i. 23, 62 iii. 3 Tusc. i. 13, 30: Firmissi 40, 95) what is placed beyond mum hoc afferri ridetur, cur a doubt by passages from his Deos esse credamus, quod nulla other works, that Cotta did not gens tarn fera, nemo omnium express his opinion on the sub tarn, sit immanis, cujus mentem ject. 4 non imbuerit Deorum THSC. i. 12 sq. ojnnio. 15, 35 sq. Multi dc Diis -prava sentiunt ;
suj>.
>//*
rff>s*/>n+
"
T),-w>,
ND
162
ECLECTICISM.
simply as an internal matter of
fact.
CHAP,
is philosophy, as well as morality, this is the fixed point from direct consciousness
:
In a word, here founded on

1
which the testing of philosophic opinions to which it returns.
sets out,
and
The material
nothing
results of Cicero
distinctive,
and
can
therefore
shortly discussed in this place.
philosophy have be only As to the chief

in
philosophic sciences, dialectic is regarded merely In the the sceptical manner already mentioned.
theological and psychological alone have any value for Cicero ; questions enquiries for instance, concerning the number of other kinds
domain
of physics,
of the elements, whether there are four or five
con
like
cerning the material and

are only touched
efficient principle
and the
upon
in cursory historical notices,
or in a sceptical comparison of different doctrines. In the estimation of this philosopher, the chief thing is
ethics.
Pr
ncc
<>f
With ethics, therefore, I commence. Cicero develops his ethical principles, as, indeed, his whole philosophic doctrine, in the criticism of
htophil>-
the f ur contemporary theories, the Epicurean, Stoic, Academic, and Peripatetic. Of these four systems,
he opposes himself definitely to the
first
alone.
The Epicurean
doctrine of pleasure appears to him so strikingly to contradict the natural destiny and 2 natural necessities of man, the facts of moral con
sciousness
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
1
l)c
r<it<>,
c.
14.
<.
i.
7,
23,
jty.
ii.
14,,Vc.
ETHICS.
Finibus, and elsewhere
generally speaking, rather
183
CHAP.
in the tone of a rhetorician than in the severer strain
of a philosopher. On the other hand, his judgments on the three remaining systems are far from being
consistent.
Even
as to the
reciprocal relation of
these systems, he is never quite clear. For though he remains true to the assertion of his master Antio-
chus 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
moral than from the original Academy doctrines of Aristotle yet he is uncertain whether he shall explain the difference between the Stoics
patetics
is
not further removed from the

l
doctrine
of the
and these two schools as essential, or unessential, as a divergence in fact or in words. While, on the one
own name,
hand, he repeatedly maintains distinctly and in his that Zeno is really at one with his pre
2
on decessors, and only changes their expressions ; the other, he gives a tolerably long list of the points in which the Stoic morality differs from that of the
Academy and
opposition, as
Peripatetics,
and he speaks of the
we
shall
acknowledgment 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 protainly
1
of
its
presently find, with a full Cicero cer importance.
Accul.
;
i.
;
6,
22
;
Fin.
;
v. 3,
26
v.
i.
sq.
2
5,
;
12
cf.
25, 75
Off.
Tuso.
4, iv.
iv.
Off.
*
8, 2, 6
22
;
25, 74
29, 88
Tusc.
10.
v. 11, 34.
3, 6
v. 30,
iii.
85
3,
iii.
;
20.
Acad.
i.
Fin.
10
sq.
20-
104
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP.
liability
1
of
that
Hut.
time without
for
([nences. in this discussion to find
even
regard to consehimself he seems unable

fixed
any
standpoint.
So
of both sides agreefar, indeed, as the statements in the universal principles of* life according to
nature,
and
is
virtue, he
theVunconditional app r eciation_j>f 2 but as soon as quite sure of himself;

in
the roads diverge he knows no longer which he shall

follow.
The grandeur,
ethics
the Stoic
to
consistency, and severity of excite his admiration ; it appears
him nobler
to
regard virtue as
sufficient
for
and the
the good happiness and not to distinguish between useful, than to assent to the opposite view
3 he finds the Stoics admis of the Peripatetics ; sion of the affections weak, and their moral prin
hazardous, since that which is faulty in its nature, like the affections, should not merely be
ciples
restricted, or, still less, regarded as a help to virtue,
but wholly eradicated. 4
He reproaches them with the inconsistency of 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 perfect and 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
1
all
circumstances, even in the bull of

xiijirti,}?.
TII xi
1.
\.
11.
>:
>;
ir>7,
2
:t
AcmL
i.
(
,,_"_>;
/Vw.iv. 10, &c.

;
Killer, iv. l:M .SY/C/., 15 7*77. 4 Tu*c. iv. 18 .sY/y. Off. i. 88 of. Actul. i. 10,
;
:>8.
L>5,
:$">,
7V/ .ST. v.
1,
L 5,
tlu:
71
*
;
Off.
]^?,
/V//.
!">
v.
27
.sv/.
Ttw.
v.
8-
iii.4,1 0; cf.
with
folhnviuir,
*</.
ETHICS OF THE STOICS.

Phalaris
l ;
165
2 tively, the famous Stoic Paradoxes.
he desires to adopt, at any rate tentaIf, however,

closely into this Stoicism, it
is
CHAP.
we enquire more
clear that our philosopher is 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

exalted for
is
much
too
men
as they are, that the Stoic wise
man
not found in reality, 3 that the Stoic morality does not admit of being transferred to daily life; 4 he
cannot possibly allow that all the wise are alike all the unwise absolutely wretched, and that there is no difference in value between the most
happy, and
hardened wickedness and the most trivial offence. 5 But he believes he can show that the severity of the
that
if
Stoics is not scientifically justifiable, and, moreover, it contradicted their own presuppositions ; for
the
first
among the
also to
principle is life according to nature, things according to human nature are
dom from
pleasure
be counted sensible well-being, health, free even pain, and an untroubled mind
is
according to nature
not to be wholly despised. To live is not to separate oneself from

5
encourage and sustain it. These arguments draw our eclectic philosopher so strongly to the side of the Peripatetics, that he declares himself to be of their number. 7 The truth,
1
nature, but rather to
Titsc. v. 26.
Fin.
Tusc.
iv.
ii.
11-15;
13, 30.
Cato,
14,
2
3
4
Paradoxa.
46
of. Off. iii. 4, 16.
Led 5,
18
t In.
1
Fin.
iv. 9, 21. iv. 9, 21

i.
77
sq. Cf. Off.
8.
19, 55 27.
28,
In the fourth book of DC Flnibus, it is Cicero himself who brings forward the Peri7
patetic view.
IGO
ECLECTICISM.
only finally expressed in his confession that sometimes the consideration of his own weak
CHAP,
however,
is
nesses,
clines
and of human weaknesses generally,
in
him
to the laxer doctrine, and, at other times,
the thought of the majesty of virtue inclines him to the stricter ; he comforts himself therefore for his
l
by the conviction that it can exercise no essential influence on practical conduct, since even
vacillation,
on the Peripatetic theory, a far higher value must be assigned to virtue than to all else. 2
It
would be
difficult to discover
in these propo
principle, and in the Ciceronian ethics generally any other characteristic than that of an eclectic and popular philosopher for even the 3 trait on which Ritter lays stress, viz. that with
sitions
;
any new
Cicero, the honourable (honestu^n) takes the place of the beautiful (ica\ov) and that in connection there with he ascribes greater value to glory than the
Greeks
did,
even this
is
partly a
mere
difference of
language, having no influence on the content of the and partly it is a concession to the moral principle
;
which, being devoid of any scientific foundation, can only be regarded as a further proof of the uncertainty of Cicero s manner of philosophis
spirit,
Roman
All the less reason is there to enter further ing. into the details of Cicero s ethical and political prin
ciples
than has already been done. 4 Striking as on these subjects maybe, they many of his remarks show too little connection with definite philosophic
1
TI/KC. v. 1,
3
:?.
Off.
iii.
11.
IV. 1(52 .sv/r/. PJriL d. (Jr. III.
i.
p.
276
sq.
THEOLOGY.
principles
167
to
in
allow us to
attribute to
them any
His
CHAP.
importance
theories
history philosophy. concerning the Deity and the essential nature of the soul must, however, be shortly men
tioned.
the
of
The
pears
belief in a Deity, as already observed, ap-
ffi*
to
our
philosopher
to
be
required,
not
merely by immediate consciousness, but also by moral and political interest. Without religion, he
and justice, and all human social But the other argu would be at an end. ments for the existence of God are not entirely repudiated by him, and he brings forward the
thinks, truth
life
1
teleological argument especially, in spite of the criticism of the Academy which meets it in its
In regard to form, with full conviction. the nature of God, Cicero is, no doubt, in earnest
Stoic
in
his
the remark which he places in the mouth of Academic philosopher, viz. that nothing can
be asserted with perfect certainty, about it ; 4 but, so far as the probable may be determined, he
thinks he
unity of
N. D.
may venture to presuppose not only the God 5 but also His spirituality 6 this, how;
i.
2,
cf.
2,
ii.
61, 153.
7,
3,
22
6
Stmm. Scip. (Rep.

i.
:
vi.
17)
5; Legg. ii. 7, 15) the observations on the political necessity of religiii.
Hence (N. D.
8 et pass.
Titsc.
ion.
2
3
N. D.
Dirin.
sq.
iii.
ii.
10, 24; 11, 37. 72, 148 ; Tusc.

21, 60 sq.
cf.
Devs ipse nobis olio nisi metis
Nee vero 27, 66 qid intelligitur a

intelllgi potest, soluta qiuedwni et
modo
i.
28
*
libera, segregata ab omni concretione mortali, oinnia sentiens

et nwrens ipsaque prtedita motu sempitertw. Rep. vi. 17, 8; Legg. ii. 4, 10, &c.
N. D.
Tusc.
i.
iii.
40,95.
5
i.
23; 27;
Legg.
i.
168
ECLECTICISM.
ever
f es 110 t apprehend in a very strict sense. admits the possibility thai the Divine Spirit be conceived, to the Stoic as
n(1
for lie
may
air or fire
according view, or with Aristotle, so far as Cicero under stood him, 2 as {ethereal essence in the dream of
;
:
supreme heaven, agreement with this misconception of Aristotle is declared to be itself

the highest god. 3 But this closer definition of the conception of Deity had scarcely much value for Cicero himself. For him the belief in Providence
is
Scipio, the
in
of far greater importance, though he allows even
this to be
doubted by
liis
Academic philosopher.
chiefly regards religion from the practical of view, the whole point significance of it is in his
Since
lie
From this standpoint only a negative or external relation was possible to the popular religion, unless, indeed, the violent methods of the Stoic orthodoxy
were to be followed
that
1
T
opinion comprehended in a belief in a divine govern ment of the world the law of justice and morals is for him the type of the divine world-ruling wisdom. 6
:>
the existing religion

i.
i. \.
when, therefore, Cicero desires and even the existing

for wo arc not justified, in the face of so immy
7 //,sy.
fnxe.
2(5, 6.-
cf. c. 20.
.Y. J).
i.
10,
22;
-1.
IX,
Acud.
:i
1
7, 21
Jff/f. vi. 17,
N.
1). iii.
10:
2.->-3!>.
Hitter
147, 150) deduces from these passages that Cicero disbelieved in Providence, and opposed the Natural to the Divine, setting on the one side God without Nature, and, on the other, Nature without Cod; but I cannot agree with this,
(iv.
contradictory explanations (ride X. I), iii. 40), in identifying C ieero s own opinion with that here brought forward.
Many passages in which Cicero treats of Providence are

quoted by Kiihner, Z. c-. p. 191). merely refer in this place to
I
Tiitr.
/,r<///.
"
i.
4!),
US;
iii.
-I,
iY.
]
J).
i.
*>
;;
i.
1,
/,ryy.
ii.
VIEWS OF
HUMAN NATURE.
he
is
]
169
superstitions shall be maintained in the State,
CHAP.
speaking entirely from political considerations ; personally, he not only makes no attempt to justify polytheism and its myths after the manner of the
Stoics,
but he
above
all,
shows by many utterances, and, the sharp criticism to which he subjects by
the popular belief in gods in his third book De Natura Deorum ; and soothsaying in his second
book De Divinatione, how far he himself stands from the national religion. Reverence for the Deity,
which
is consistent with a true view of nature, and coincides with true morality, is to be required ; the existing religion is to be maintained for the good
of the
commonwealth;
is
superstition,
roots
on the other
2
hand,
word,
to be torn
is
Cicero
With
such, in a confession of faith. theological the belief in G-od, according to Cicero s

s
up by the
view, as we have already seen, the conviction of Anthrothe dignity of human nature is intimately con-
This conviction also depends far more with him upon inner experience and moral selfconsciousness than on any philosophic theory con If we cerning the essential nature of the soul.
nected.
consider the
number
of our endowments, the lofti
ness of our vocation, the high prerogative which reason confers upon us, we shall become conscious
of our higher
nature
and descent. 3
Accordingly
Gr.
3,
2
N. D. iii. 2, 5 Legg. 32 Dirln. ii. 12, 28

;
;
ii.
;
7 gq.
ii.
28, 71 (Phil. d.
1
III.
i.
p.
33, 70
311,
3
).
i.
72, 148.
Legg.
sq.,
22
sq.
Rep.
Divin.
ii.
72, 148 sq.
N. D.
vi. 17, 8.
170
ECLECTICISM.
agreement with the Stoic and Platonic doctrine, regards the soul as an emanation of the
Deity, an essence of supernatural origin troubling himself to develop this notion
ticularly, or
]
CHAP.
_
Cicero, in
without
to
define the
relation
more par between this
supernatural origin of the soul, and the material origin of the body. But, as he is uncertain about the nature of God, so he expresses himself hesi his tatingly about that of the soul, and
though
inclination unmistakably tends to explain it as an immaterial substance, or, at any rate, as a substance
he will not alto gether exclude the possibility that it consists of air or fire; it is only the coarser materiality of the
differing
from
terrestrial matter, 2
body that he unconditionally denies in respect to the soul. 3 The immortality of the soul he defends
at length, partly on the
ground of direct conscious 4 ness and universal agreement, and partly by the 5 Platonic arguments if he 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 practical

Time. i. 27 Aniinorum nulla in terris origo inrenirl jtotest, ^c. Loe. cit. 25, GO; Legg. i. Eu stltisw qua it dam nut8, 24 turitatcm serend-i generis IniJ :
man who would
Tuse-<\. 27; 29,70. Tune. i. 25, GO Noil at certe neccordisiiec sangmnisnec errebri nee atonwrum. An/ma,
muni, quod sparsiim in terms

(ttf/ue Saturn-
dirt -no
auetum
sit
(inlmoruin muitere. ( unique alia qtiibus e^Kereni lunnines e

timrtdll yenere suiHjmerint, rof/i/ia t sxent et caduea, tuiltaincn esse ingencratinn a
JJeo.
qu<e
sit animus ignisve nescio ; nee me jmdet, lit ixtog,fateri me nescire quod neseiam I. c. 26, 65; 29, 70. Tuse. i. 2 c. 4; * \
,sv/<y.
L<el.
(\t~to, c.
21
.svyc/.
;
mum
Tuse. i. 22 sqq. 17,8; Cato, 21, 78.

i;
Ren.
;
vi.
Tune.
i.
34
sqq.
Cf. Cato, 21, 77.
Ep. ad
Famil.
v. 1G.
VARRO.
171
make
the moral effect of his discourses as far as
CHAP.
possible independent of all theoretic presuppositions. He tries to prove free will as generally understood in the same manner as immortality, but the treatise
which he devoted to the

transmitted to us
subject,
full of lacunae,
and which has been contains no inde
pendent psychological enquiry. These traits will suffice to justify the position which we have assigned to Cicero, and to prove him,
together with his teacher Antiochus, the truest re presentative of philosophic eclecticism in the last
century before our era. But that he was far from standing alone in respect to this kind of philosophy among his countrymen and contemporaries will be
clear
from our previous examination of the school of
Antiochus. 2
of thought,
Among the Roman adherents of this mode

M. Terentius Varro, 3 the
learned friend of
Cicero was, after Cicero himself, the
most important.
Vwro,
His principal achievements lie indeed in another Roman 4 as a philosopher he did not exercise anysphere
;
thing
like his
the
widespread
influence
of
Cicero, friend of
Greek philo though was perhaps more thorough and complete. sophy
historical
knowledge of
1 De Fcdo. The principal propositions of this treatise (c. 11) are taken from Carneades.
ties
Kritsche, 172 sq. Ritschl, Die Sclirlftstellerel des
there
quoted,
1845,
Gott. Stud.
Ter.
ii.
2
3
Supra,
p. 99.
The life of Varro between 116 and 27 B.C.
falls
For
the rest, ride concerning him the histories of Roman literature Biihr, in Pauly s Real.encyc.
d.
sqq.,
Varro ? Rhein. Mus. 481-560; Mommsen, Rom.Gesch. iii. 602 sqq., 624 4 As Cicero (Acad. i. 2, 4 sqq.) represents him as saying of himself, though he has prej\
r
.
M.
F.
vi.
Klass.
1688
and
the
Alterth. vi. authori-
viously praised his knowledge of philosophy.
ECLECTICISM.
CM A
VI.
i*
Yet the philosophical direction taken by so famous scholar and so well known an author must neces
l
This direction was, sarily have been influential. Cicero assures us, 2 that of Antiochus, whose lec tures Varro had attended in Athens and Varro
:J
in
his
treatise
on philosophy, so
1
far
as
we can
gather from Augustine, expressed himself quite in the sense of Antiochus. 5 The sole aim of
//?
,<?
new
philosophy, he
of j)h ilosoj)hy an the rari-
man
OU&
.SYff.v.
among
tells us, is the happiness of those distinctions of doctrine consequently the schools of philosophy are alone to be
here
considered important which relate to the definition of the highest good. 6 Great, therefore, as is the
1
Doct tssintus
airain very
Ho tnanoTum ho
:i
Cic, Acafl.
/}//>/
i.
H,
;
is
called in Sen.
Ad
and
JIclc. 8, justly, rir llo1
A<l
tl.
ix. 8
:
12; 1, 1, ii August. Cir.
x. 1, 5)5.
nidnornin cTudltlsslnnis (Quint il. Cicero (Ann/. Fr. :!( .). says of him Augustine, Cir.
(a]>.
1). xix. H, 2 Yurro (isserit, <mc~ tore A ntlocho, maijlstro Ciceronis it SHO.
1
Cir. 1). xix. 1-3.
Homine omnium facile dcutixxi mo (1 vine -nJld ilubitdtionc doctissimo; and Augustine
I), vi. 2),
(/.
<.*)
says
In: is iloct r lnn
scntt ntiix
itd
dtijoe re fc ft ox that in
matters of fact he has achieved as much as Cicero did as a st vlist.

respect to
-
Ad Att.
.
xiii.
.
12
Krqo
\
iUtint
a/caSrj/xi/cr?!/
(id
transferaitnis.
J- ti
d rroni ni /ihn mint Av;
what follows, the of Antiochus .sv/yy/v/, Tn regard to this it is p. to he observed that Varro s book, according to Cic. Acdil. i. 2, 4 Kf/t/., is later than the of Cicero there expositions made use of, only mie of whicli is pul into the mouth of Varro. I,oc cU. 1, \\ ^cifiic cn int
Of. with
t.
account
i
nêm,
I.
(/iiu"
ixtc rtihli- jtrolmt

c.
c.
l!i
/.
25.
In Varro
is placed, as \ve know, the doctrine of Antiochus. in the second edition of the Aca-
mouth
plul osoplil ic wcinin cunt dict inliun, nine no co dinti t it cifc/ /tt, i] nod dlvcTSOS Inibcitt tint * bo no ct niIoin.
t
j istiiimt nlltini
//////.
Qnnndoqiiidem nulld
ciiuxii
i-
cxt
Jtoinini
jrttilosojrtmndi,
KII/>.
demica (.(cad. i. Ii xyc/.). what isijiioted from Antiochus, p. SM, with whicli Acini, i.
-1
I /
nixi t In-fit us x lt : (jiiod tintcin beat n in j ncit i JIM- rut fittix boni :
,
niillii
cut
i</it
nr cuiigu
boni
jiJiiloxo:
-.
<I,
aLfrees
:
Xoxt ru
tti
i
phi/sica
nt diit
ii
phund i,
ob/
i
n tx
finix
noxf/
i
.
fjh
ijutf cf in/tf
>
cum
<f
(/innnfi
cont
1
in
<[u<t
nil] I n ni
bitni
nt
c.i
n/iiti;riit
cii,
xcctdtor, nulla pliHosophiu- xccta

dici inld cut.
quant Ji in/it
forma
THE HIGHEST GOOD.

Varro, sometimes indeed adopting very superficial grounds of distinction, enumerates no fewer than 288 they may all
173
number
of possible sects
CHAP.
VI.
all
be reduced to a few chief classes, if putting aside that does not relate to the conception of the
to the main ques highest good we confine ourselves 2 But this concerns the relation of virtue to the tion.
first
3 thing according to nature, on which again de pends its relation to all included herein, and therefore
especially to pleasure
and freedom from pain.
Is
the
first
the
thing according to nature to be desired for sake of virtue, or virtue for the sake of the
/// x
thing according to nature, or both for their own sakes? This, according to Varro, is the funda1
etJlw8
In their derivation, Varro

:
c.l, 2) proceeds thus There are, he says, four natural objects

(I.
of desire: sensual pleasure, ab sence of pain, the combina tion of these two, and, as a fourth, the prima nature, which beside these include all other natural advantages of Each of the soul and body. four can be desired for the sake of virtue (the excellence superadded to nature by the instru mentality of teaching) or virtue may be desired for its own sake, or both may be desired
dogmatic philoso as merely new Academy. Since, moreover, each of them can adopt the ordinary, or the
phers
;
like all other
the
other
probable, like the
Cynic, manner of life (habitus result consuetude} there ninety-six divisions instead of forty- eight. Lastly, because in each of these sections, regard may be had to the theoretical
et
(otiosus),
sus), or to
the practical (nc f/otioa life compounded of

thus
treble this num we arrive at
both,
ber,
we must
and
288.)
That this is the case with the majority of the divisions named by him, Varro himself shows, I. c. i. 3, c. 2, begin
independently. Thus we obtain four possible divisions. These
become twenty-four,
so far as
a man desires each of them merely for his own welfare or for that of others. The twentyagain divided into forty-eight, of which the one half pursue their end as true,
four are
ning.
3
The jtrima natime, priminaturcc =

TO.
TrpuTa
Kara
i.
(cf. Phil. d.
Gr.
III.
p.
309, 1; 257, 2; 258, 1).
174
ECLECTICISM.
For a reply to mental question of all philosophy. of man, as it to the conception it, he goes back is only on this basis we can decide what is the
1
CHAP,
man is neither body highest good for man. But nor soul exclusively, but consists of both together.
His highest good must, therefore, consist of goods of the body as well as goods of the soul ; and he consequently must desire for himself the first things
2 But the highest according to nature and virtue. of these goods is virtue, the art of life acquired by As it includes in itself that which is instruction. 3
before according to nature, which also was present the existence of virtue virtue now desires all for
its
own
sake,
and in considering
also all
itself as
the princi
pal good, it enjoys to each the value belonging to
other goods, and ascribes

it
according to its relation to the others ; but equally does not hesitate, on this account, to sacrifice the lesser, if so it must
to the greater.
be,
matter how
be, they
many
When virtue is wanting, no other kinds of goods there may

their possessor,
do not
profit
they are
not his goods, because he makes a bad use of them. In the possession of virtue and of the bodily and
this increases
mental advantages conditioning it, lies happiness ; when other goods with which virtue it is perfected in itself could dispense, are added
;
1
Loc.
C.
cit. c. 2.
1.
3,
nature
in
That the prim a which Varro has

included
natural
an inaccuracy is must ascribe to Varro himself, and not merely to Augustine,

3
\
previously
i/-ti(t<it)t,
advantages and dispositions of mind, is here identified with

the totality of corporeal goods,
Uiserit
rt-lut
i. r.
virtux,
I.
quam doctrina art cm rivendi ars afjendce rit",
c.
HAPPINESS.
when
all goods of soul and body are found together But to this happiness also belongs and complete. and to virtue the disposition which sociability, wishes for others for their sakes the same goods as itself; and this disposition must 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
1
175
CHAP.
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 concerning goods and evils must not be considered merely probable by us as by the philo
sophers of the Academy, they must be unquestion This is the doctrine of the old Academy able.
which Varro, like his master Antiochus, professes. 3 In this discussion we find no remarkable philosophic peculiarity it contains no new thoughts, and what
:
belongs to Varro 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 Varro had arrived at
these views by his
own
reflection,
and that the
1 Hccc ergo vita hominis, qiifc rirtute et aliis animi et corporis bonis, sine qulbus virtus essc
sima (c. 3, 1, I. c. further on). Varro is therefore quite at one with the Stoic cosmopolitannon.potest (to these belong, as ism; but he deduces from it the is afterwards explained, life, proposition that man can feel reason, memory), fruitur, beata himself at home everywhere: esse dicitur : si vero et aliis, exile, he says, (ap. Sen. Ad Helv. 8, 1) is not in itself an sine quibus esse virtus potest, : rcl ii His vcl pluribus, beatior evil, quod quocumque venimus ut cadem reruwi natura utendum si autem prorsus omnibus, nullnm omnino bonum desit est. 3 rel animi vel corporis, beatisAug. L c. 3 2.
170
ECLECTICISM.
whole tendency of Antioehus corresponded to his way of thinking: that which must have recom
it to him and to his countrymen, was no doubt the practical aim of this chiefly philosophy, and that regard to the necessities of life which is
CHAP.
mended
prominent in its theories concerning the various constituents of the highest good, and the relative value of them.
2**!and %
theulvgy.
But the greater the influence allowed by AntiolStoic doctrine, the less can we wonder if Varro approached it in regard to some other ques 2 tion still more If he closely than in his ethics.
chus to the
1
explained the soul to be air which is breathed in through the mouth and warmed in the in
breast,
order to
spread
it
by reducing
3 thence through the body, to the Pneuma he allied himself with
itself
the Stoic materialism, to which Antioehus also is no stranger. 4 He further discriminated with the Stoics the well-known three gradations and forms of soul-life. 5 But his connection with the Stoic
In agreement theology is of especial importance. with it, he explained the universe or, more pre cisely, the soul of the universe as the Deity: only the parts of this world-soul, the souls ruling in the
1
Cf.
x<i]>.
p. !)2.
tnone,
innj><-r<itux
He
himself,
/>(>,
Cicero (Jirut. 2, S) had the disciple of Tamrtins, L. yKlius Stilo p.

(XHJ>.
according to 205; Aed. i.
fi/xi/x
in
v. 5l
Lt.
tl II
1
eorjtus.
:
.v/ir,
in eorde, difCf. Varro, L, nt Citius,
Zow
(ini)ii(iliinn
I
semen
it.
i<jnis
is
qitl
I/HI (1C )HCIIX.
11,4), for his instructor. 3 Lactant. Ojiif. J).\l: Varro

itti
Vide
atfit.
;5
ftt/ft.
dt jinit
diilrini
ext tier etni-
Augustine, Mr following note.
J).
vii.
ecpttiK ore, deferrefacf.KS in jnil-
THEOLOGY.
different parts of the world, are they
177
who
are wor
CHAP.
VI.
the gods of polytheism, down to the and heroes. But, like Panaetius and Scaevola, genii he drew a marked distinction between natural and
shipped in
philosophical, mythical
1
and
:
civil
theology,
and
if
Augustin. Civ. D. iv. 31 Varro says Quod hi soli ei videantur animadrertisse quid esset Deus, qui crediderunt cum csse animam motu ac ratione mun
:
dum
vii.
gubernantem.
(c.
.
Loc.
:
.
cit.
9 repeatedly)
,
Didt
Deum se ergo idem Varro arbitrari esse animam mundi

.
et
hunc
:
ipsum
sit
mundum
hominem
esse
Deum
sed sicut
into heaven and earth, the heavens into aether and air, the earth into water and earth quam [quas~] omnes quatuor partes animarum esse pie nas, in d therc et acre immortalium, in aqua et terra mortalium from the outermost circle of heaven, as far as to the sphere of the moon, extend the heavenly gods; between this and the
: ;
sapientem,,
cum
ex corpore et
region
animo, tamen ab animo did sapientem ; ita mundum Deum did ab animo, cum Kit ex animo Loc. cit. vii. 23 et corpore. (Varro in the book concerning the Dii selecti) tres esse affirmat animcc gradus in omni universaque natt<ra,those discussed in Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 192 Nature, the irrational soul, and reason.
: :
animas
clouds aereas esse et vocari heroas et lares et f/enios. Also in Z. c.

of
.
. .
c. 9, he (for only Varro can be intended) calls Jupiter, Deus habcns potestatem causarum, quibus aliquid Jit in mundo ; in c. 11, and c. 13, he appro priates to himself (for Augus tine must have taken this from him) the verses of Soranus
Hanc partem aninifs mundi (their rational part, their ijyeIJLoviKbv) didt Deum, in nobis autem genium rocari. Esse autem in mundo lapides ac terram
tit ungues Dei. lunam, Stellas, quce sentimus quibusque ipse sent it, JRthera porro sensus esse ejus. aiiimum esse ejus : ex cujus ri
.
(sup. p. 74, n. end), in
which
tit
ossa,
Solem
vero,
in astra ipsam quoque facere Deos (it makes into Gods) ; et per ea quod in terram permeat, Deam Tellurem , quod autem inde permeat in mare atque oceanum, Deum esse Neptunwrn. Simi larly in c. 6, the world is divided
qua pervenit
Jupiter is called progenitor genitrixque Deum ; and in c. 28 he derives the male divini ties from heaven or Jupiter as the active principle, and the female divinities from the earth or Juno as the passive principle, while Minerva denotes the ideas That all these as prototypes. propositions are either directly
is
with Stoicism, evident from the proofs ad duced in Phil. d. Gr. III. i. p. 138 315 sqq. 325. sqq. 146, 6 2 Aug. I. o. vi. 5 Tria genera didt esse (in the last books of the Antiquities, cf. c. 3) . .
Stoic, or allied
; ;
:
178
ECLECTICISM.
he censured the mythology of the poets for relating the most absurd and unworthy things about the
gods, he did not conceal that he had also much to blame in the public religion for example, he de
1 :
CHAP.
VI.
clared that the worship of images was a defilement of the true worship of God ; 2 that, for his part, the
3 philosophic doctrine of the Deity would suffice, and the religion of the State merely that he regarded
as a civil institution, which, in the interest of the
commonwealth, must make the most important con

4 cessions to the weakness of the masses.
In
all this
there
nothing which goes beyond the Stoic doc trine as taught by Pansetius, but nothing on the
is
eontmque umim mj/thicon appellari, alteri/m physicon, ter-
The first includes civile. the poets, the second the philo sophers, the third states (jjoIn the first there is 2)idi}. much that is opposed (vide following note) to the nature and dignity of the Deity to the second belong Dil qiti sittt,
tium
;
tribuuntur, qnce non modo in etiani in contemptissimitm ho mine in cadere pos-
hominem sed
sttnt.
Loc. cit. iv. 31. The ancient Romans, says Varro, wor shipped the gods for 170 years,
"
without images
line
Quod,
si
ad-
inquit,
si cut
mansisset,
cast ins
Dii ohservarentur
tetur
ita
itbi,
nam
quod genus, quale, a quotempo-re an a sempiterno
Pa(vi. 7). forma hum ana Deos
an ex slut if/tie fuerint ; ut credit Heraditus, an ex numeris ut Pythagoras, an ex Sic atomis ut alt E/rieurus. alias, qiifc facillus infra parietes in schola, qitatn extra in foro fe rre possnnt a ti res. LOG. cit. (ride the previous note) with the addition In hoc cnim est, lit Deus all us ex capite alius ex fe more sit alias ex guttls sanf/tilnis natus ; in hoc, vt Diifuratl tint, ut adultera1
:
ens delectari hufecerunt, inanis rolxptatibus credidisse. 3 Loc. cit. iv. ;51. Varro him self confesses that if lie had to found a State anew, ex nature
potius formula Deos nominaque eoriifn se fid-use dedieaturum. 4 That he regarded the re ligion of the State as a political institution, is evident from I. c.
vi. 4, where Varro says, if he had to treat de omni natura .Deoru/n, he would first have to speak of the gods, and then of men but as he has only to do with the gods of the State he
;
verint,
itt
serrierint
homini
deni q tie In hoc oinnia JJiis at-
THEOLOGY.
other hand that
is
170
incompatible with the Stoicising
CHAP.
VI.
eclecticism of an Antiochus. 1
follows
the
contrary
vst,
order.
f
a
inquit, p let or quant tabula picta, prior aber quam crdificiiim, ita prio res sunt elmtaies quam ea qua;
civitatibiis
little
For siout prior
tamen ex ntroque gcnere ad clvilcs rationes assumpta sint non pauca. The philosophers, indeed, desire to teach by their it enquiries, and so far (I.
<?.)
stint
instituta.
the real philoso phical doctrine of the gods was worth as a public religion, we have already seen (sup.
p. 177, 2).
is
How
be said, physicos utilitatis causa, scripsissc, poetas delectaBut this teaching is tionis. only for those who understand it, not for the masses.
may
public
in it
religion
As Krische
(I.
c.
172
must include
mythological.
that Ait enim, ea
much
sq.}
qua scribunt poetcc minus esse quam ut populi sequi debeant ; quce autem pJvilosopld plus quam
ut ea v digits scrutarl expediat. Qiuc sic abhorrent, inquit^ ut
rightly maintains, against O. Miiller s assertion (Varro, L. Lat. s. v.) that Cicero incor rectly makes Varro a follower of Antiochus, whereas he went over to the Stoics.
ISO
ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTER
VII.
SEXTII.
THE SCHOOL OF THE

CHAP.
VII. F. School
of
////
THE
school of the Sextii occupies a peculiar position among the Roman philosophers. But even tin s school
Scxtii.
independent of the contemporary Greek philosophy, nor were its achievements so important,
was not
so
as to obtain for it
any extensive influence or long
Its founder, Quintus Sextius, was a Roman, History of duration. tllc sc hl of good family, a somewhat later contemporary of
Augustus, who had rejected a political career in order to devote himself wholly to philosophy. 2 After
1
1
Sen. Ep.
jxitt
/
J>8,
13
Honore*
t
quoted by Ott,
:
r>4,
p.
>
2, 10,
rather
"/.>,
repp it lit
natiis,
tf ,rtiirs, (/n
\ta
1/t
i
rempulilieam
Idttnn
unit
i
i
(h^n-ri t
indicate the contrary. 2 sqif. f) Tni, 7

t
;
Up.
ii.
eapt xxrrt Julio

this
chin/in
ci /iit.
diva
f/(/t>ff
As
must
have
B.C.,
latest in 43
occurred at and Sextius
3C, 1, refer only to his treatise. DC Jrtt, iii. 30, 1, may either have been taken from a written work
or from oral tradition,

12,
lip. 73,
must have been

years old
inid,
(of.
at least 25-27 Ott, Clnirnldcr

d<
may have been taken from
what earlier. When Kusebius, 1 (1 Chron. /u ()1. A.D.), of Sextus dates the prime the Pythagorean j)liilosopher at that period, he is too late if our Sexlius be meant. That was personally ac Seneca quainted with the older Sextius the passages js not probable
!.)">,
s Spriiche ,SV,/-////,v, p. 1), his birth must be placed in 70 I5.C. or even some
<ler
I rxpr.
such a tradition. In Ep. 108, 17, Seneca trives an account of the doctrines of Sextius, after Sot ion, as he himself says. the preceding note, and lut. J / of. in T |i.
Yi<l<
"irt.
">,
^,t^rtov Tt)v Pw/^.a. iov atpeiKSra ras eV rfj -no* Aei TI/J.O.S Ka.1 apxas tiia. </)tAo<ro(/)iaj/,
:
77
Ka.9a.iTfp
fya.(T\
vi
Ta
Kal
^pu/^Lfvov
TrpcDrof,
Tty
a\fTrc^ rb
Sef/crai
Ka,Tafta\f7i>
6\iyov
e/c
tavrbv
TWOS
MEMBERS OF THE
his death his
SCHOOL.
181
son appears to have undertaken the
CHAP.
VII.
1 Among its adherents we guidance of the school. find mention of Sotion of Alexandria, whose enthusi
Seneca had been in his early youth ; a Cornelius Celsus, a prolific writer ; 3 Lucius Crassitius
astic disciple
of Tarentum, 4 and Fabianus Papirius. 5

Si-fjpovs.
It
became,
This transition from
practical activity to philosophy seems to be referred to in Plin. Hist. Nat. xviii. 28, 274. Pliny here relates how Dernocritus had enriched himself with his traffic (this is also related of Thales) in oil (vide Phil. d. Gr. I. 766) but had returned his gains to those who had shared in it and he adds Hoc postca Sextius e lioinanis sapiential ad* seotatoribus Athenis fecit eadeni ratione : which does not mean that he carried on the same
;
:
Tac. Ann. ii. 85. For the dis tinction between this Sotion and the Peripatetic of the same name, ride Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 3, and infra ch. xi. note 2. In support of the theory that the teacher of Seneca, and not the Peripatetic, was the author of
but merely that he si lenced those who blamed him for devoting himself to philo sophy, in a similar manner, and
traffic,
the treatise -n-epl o/j-yf/s, Diels, Doxogr. 255 sq., rightly appeals to the similarity between a fragment from Sotion s -n-epl opyys (ap. Stob. Flor d. 20, 53) and Seneca, De Ira, ii. 10, 5. Also the repeated quotation of utterances of Sextius, De Ira,
ii. 3
36, 1, points to this source. Quintil. x. 1, 124 Scripsit

:
non parum
mult a
Cornelius
for
1
his
part
is
;
renounced
all
profits.
There
no express tradi
Celsus, Sextios sccutus, non sine cult ii ac nitore. For further details concerning this phy
tion of this
is
but as the school universally described as the school of the Sextii (see the following note), and the elder Sextius as a philosopher is dis tinguished from his son by the addition of Pater (Sen. Ep. 98, 13 64, 2), it is extremely
;
sician
4
and
polyhistor, vide Bern-
hardy, Rom. Litt. 848.
grammarian,
who had
already won for himself con siderable fame as a teacher,

especially in Smyrna, when he dimissa rcpente selwla transiit ad Quinti Sej}timii [1. Sextii]
2>hilus<iphi
probable. 2 Sen. Ep. 108, 17 sqq. ; 49, 2. The age at which he heard
Sotion, Seneca designated by the word jiirenis, in Ep. 108 in Ep. 49, by puer. It may, therefore, have occurred in 1820 A.D. This date is also in dicated by Ep. 108, 22; cf.
;
sectani. 18.
Sueton.
De
Illustr.
5
Gramm.
This philosopher (of whom Seneca, Urevit. Vit. 10, 1 Ep. 11, 4 40, 12 100, 12, speaks as of a deceased contemporary whom he had himself known
;
; ;
and heard) was, according

these passages, a
man
to of excel-
182
ECLECTICISM.
however, extinct with these
applause which at
years
it
CHAP.
VII.
men
lively as
was the
s
first
greeted
it,
in
Seneca
1
later
had already long since died out, The of this school, too, have all been writings lost, with the exception of some scattered utterances of the
elder Sextius, of Sotion, and Fabian us. 2
lent character,
mm ex In* eathedrariis j>hilosoj>hi$, sed ex veris

et atttiquis (Urcvit. Vit. 10).
His
by Seneca, and of Sotion also, by fcjtobaeus in the Floril< ()hnn.

Moreover, a collection of maxims exists in the Latin translation
of Kufinus, which was first quoted by Grig. c. Ceh. xiii. 30, with the designation Se frou yvwâi, is often used by orphyry, Ad Marcellain, without mention of the writer, and of which there is a Syrian edition,
I
and expositions are also greatly praised by Seneca {Ep. 40, 12; 58, 6; 100); and in
lectures
described as Ep. 100, 1), an author to whom, in regard to style, only Cicero, Pollio, and
is
he
are to be preferred, though certain deficiencies in him are admitted. Seneca also says in the same place that he wrote nearly as much on philosophy as Cicero and ho mentions besides (I. c. 1) his Lilri Artium Cinliutn. The ectures to the people which are alluded to in Ep. 52, 11, seem to have been of a philo sophical character. The older Seneca, Controvers. ii. Pra-f^ says that he was a disciple of Sextius (the elder) by whom he
;
Livius
ap. La.garde,Analecta Stjr. Lpz. 1858. (On the two Latin re censions of this and the later editions, cf. Gildemeister in the preface to his edition from
which
now
cite
Se.rti
Scntcntiarvm rccrnsiones Latinam Gra-cam Syriaeas conjutietlm

or
,r/<.Bonn.
1873).
This col
sometimes called fvufjuu se-nteiit ur, sometimes enchi ridion, and, since the time of
lection,
was persuaded
self
Kufinus,
to devote him to philosophy instead of rhetoric. To his manner of
much
tians.
also annulun, was in use among the Chris

Its
author
is
sometimes
writing, Seneca
to be
named Sextus, sometimes Sixtus,

or^Xystus;
writers describe
is
Some utterances
Marc.
115,
less partial.
of
\
his
it.
are
found ap. Sen. Cons, ad

23, 5
;
and while most him as a Pytha
Jtrerit.
10, 1
Rat. Qu. hi. 27, 3. Sen. Nat. Qn. vii. 82, 2 St xtiorum nor a at Itomani
S);
1
:
gorean philosopher, others see in him the Ixoman bishop Sixtus (or Xystus, about 120 A.D). Of
more recent
J
writers, many (e.fj. Lasteyrie, ti Mtmcrs de St*.rtiHx

ar.
roboris secta inter inltia smi, cum wot/no impctu cvepisset, exstln at a est.
2 Of these three philosophers something has been preserved
1842
ii.
and Mullach, Fru#m.
31 .s-fl*.) regarded the maxims as the work of a heathen philosopher, and more especially of one of the two
PJtilost.
DOCTRINES.
Whatever can be deduced from these utterances respecting the doctrine of the school, serves
Sextii.
first
183
CHAP
(How
this
Ott,
1.
c.
i.
10,
discovers
opinion in
my
do not under the other hand, stand.) Eitter (iv. 178) believes them to be the Christian rehabilita tion of a work belonging to a Sextus, and possibly to our Sextius, but in which so much that is Christian is interwoven that it has become entirely use less as an historical authority. Ewald (tfott. Any. 1859, 1, 261 sqq. ; Gesch. d. V. Isr. vii. 321 sqq.) on his side declares the Syrian recension of the collec tion of sayings to be the true translation of a Christian ori ginal, the value of which he
edition, I
On
terated, his own hypothesis is nevertheless untenable. In the first place the presupposition that one of the two Sextii was the author of the collected sen tences, would be most uncertain
if
Its char-
this
work
itself
it
claimed such
only
authorship, for
made
its
appearance in the third century. But we have no reason to think that the writer of the sentences wished to appear as one of the
two
Sextii.
The most ancient
authorities always call him Sextus later writers, subse quent to Rutinus, as we have seen, also Sixtus, or Xystus, but never Sextius (cf. Gildemeister, I. c. lii. sqq. ) ; so likewise Latin
;
cannot sufficiently exalt, and the authorship of which he

Sixtus. in three discourses (Ckarakter iind Ur-
ascribes to the
Roman
Meinrad Ott,
lastly,
sprung der Spruche dcs PhilosopJien Sextius, Rottweil, 1861

;
Auserlesenen Die Spriittliej &c., ibid. 1862 Syriselie Auserlesenen Spruche, ibid. 1863), maintains that the sentences were composed by the younger Sextius, in whom the original tendency of the Sextian school is said to have been essentially modified
Syrische
;
Die
(I. c. xiv. sqq.) and the Syrian revisers (1. c. xxx. sq.), who both say Xystus. We can, therefore, only suppose that the author called himself Sex Ott s Sextius. tus, and not theory would oblige us to sup pose a radical difference to have existed between the doc trine of the elder Sextius (who,
MSS.
to quote only this one passage, was so opposed to, the strict monotheism of the sentences,
infra, p. 186, 4, that
he
calls
partly by Pythagorean, partly and especially by Jewish in fluencesand placed on a purely
monotheistic basis. But com pletely as he has proved against Ewald that the Syrian recen sion is a later rechauffe, in which the original, translated
by Rufinus, is watered down, and its original character obli-
the highest god Jupiter) and that of his son, whereas all the ancient authorities, without ex ception, speak only of one school of the Sextii and equal vio lence must be done to the sense and the expression of the pas sage in Seneca, Nat. Qu. vii. 32 (vide preceding note) in order to find in the Nova Sextwrnm Schola the school of the younger Sextius as distinct
;
184
ECLECTICISM.
to confirm the
CHAP.
VII.
judgment
of Seneca that
it
possessed
indeed great ethical

cially as the predicate
importance and the vig our

GO (cf. p. 58) to John, Less certain, but never theless probable, is the connec tion between pp. 233 and Matt. v. 28 pp. ] 3, 273, and Matt. v. 29 *q. xviii. 8 ,sv/. p. 30 and 1 John, i. 5. Also the homo Del, p. 2, 133 (Rufinus translation first introduces him at p. 3) belongs to the Christian nomenclature 2 Tim., iii. (ride 1 Tim. vi. 11 17) likewise filius Dei (pp. 58,
]
philo sophic xtandpoint.
from that of his father, espe

Jtomani roboris harmonises entirely with what Seneca elsewhere says of the elder Sextius (tip. Sexthim 59, 7) rirum acrem, Greeds rerbis, Itomanis
: .
p.
i.
12.
niorlbus philosophanteni), and would, on the contrary, be little applicable to a mixture of Stoic-
Pythagorean philosophy with Jewish dogmas. Lastly, and

this
makes further argument
unnecessary, the references to Christian conceptions and to New Testament passages are so unmistakable in the sentences, that we cannot suppose their to have been either origin purely Roman, or Judaic and lloman. For though many echoes of Christian expression and modes of thought (as Gil-
60, 135, 221, 439); verlum Dai (pp. 264, 277, 396, ll fyjudici.um
20); elect
(p. 32)
;
(pp. 14, 347); S(ecidum(pp. 15, 19, (p. 1); salrandi (p. Note further, the angels 143).
i.
the prophet of truth the strong emphasising of faith (p. 196 In etpass.). many passages (cf. Gildemeister, I. c.} the Christian revisers
(p. 44 1 )
;
demeister shows, p. xlii.) are merely apparent, or intro
have substituted/^* andjidelis for other expressions. At pages

200, 349 sq., 387, the persecu tions of Christians, and at p. 331 the falling away from Chris tianity seems to be alluded to. The book of sentences, as it
duced by Christian translators and revisers, yet in the aise of others, as the same writer ad
mits, the reference to definite expressions in the New Testa ment is undoubted. At p. 39 the prospect is held out to those who live wickedly that
they shall be plagued after their death by the evil spirit, vsque quo exigat ab eis ctiam norisstimum quadrant em. This can only be explained as a reminiscence of Matt. v. 2(! p. 20 refers to Matt. xxii. 21 p. 110 to Matt. xv. 11 10 p. 193 to Matt. xix. 23 p. 242 to Matt. x. 8 336 to Matt. xx.
;
*<jq.
stands, therefore, can only have been composed by a Christian and as it refers to some of the latest writings of our New Tes
;
tament canon, and there
is
no
p.
28,
where the
5taicoi>7j0f}i/ai
cor
responds to the minlstrari ab
proof of its own existence until about the middle of the third century, it cannot in any case have been written long before the end of the second century, and possibly not until the third. If the doctrines peculiar to Christianity are thoroughly ab sent from it, and the name of Christ is not once mentioned, this only proves that the author
PREDOMINANCE OF ETHICS.
of ancient
185
Kome, but that
it
contained nothing
1
CHAP.
VII.
different from the doctrines of Stoicism.
The only
thing that distinguishes the Sextians from the Stoics is the exclusiveness with which they confined them selves to ethics ; but even in this they agree with
times.
the later Stoicism and with the Cynics of Imperial Though they do not seem to have absolutely
elsewhere.
condemned physical enquiry, 2 they sought and found

their strength
Fabianus, were
influence
men who
A Sextius, a Sotion, a exercised a wide moral

3
;
by
their personality
and to their peris
did not intend his work only for Christians, but for non-Chris tians as well, and wishes by
more ingenuity than

;
the case
means of
it
chiefly to
recom
mend
the universal principles of monotheism and of Christian

morality. Whether he himself was called Sextus, or whether he falsely prefixed the name of an imaginary philosopher Sextus (who in that case no doubt was already described by himself as a Pythagorean), cannot be as certained. As before observed, the work does not seem to an nounce itself as the composi tion of one of the Sextii. Still, it is certainly probable that the author borrowed the greater part of his sentences from
with the attempt of J. R. Tobler (Annulus Itvfini, i. Sent. Sext. Tub. 1878). Nat. Qa. vii. 32; Ep. 59,
1
7 (vide p. 677, 4 ; 679) ; Ep. Liber Qu. Sextii patrig, 64, 2

:
magniy
et, licet
2
si
quid mihi credis, viri, neyet, Stoici.
In regard to Fabianus at any rate, we see from Sen. Nat. Qu. iii. 27, 3, that his opinion about the diluvium (Phil. d. Cfr. III. ii. 156 sq.~) was somewhat different from that of Seneca.
He must, therefore, have held the general Stoic theory on the

subject.
philosophers; but as he never tells us whence he derived any of them, his collection, as Hitter rightly decides, is wholly use less as an authority for the The history of philosophy.
Cf concerning Sextius, be sides the quotation supra, p. 182, 1 (Sen. Ep. 64, 3) Quantus in illo, JJi bo ni t vigor est, quantum animi ! Other philosophers in.
stituunt, disputant, cavillantur,
non faciunt animum, quia non

Jiabent : cum legeris Sextium, dices : vivit,riget, liber est, supra, hominem, eat, dimittit me plenum
attempt to separate from it a genuine substratum, to be re garded as the work of the two bextii, would be purposeless, even if it were undertaken with
Jiducite ; concerning Fabianus sup. 181, 5 concern ing Sotion, Sen. Ep. 108, 17.
itiffeiitis
;
183
ECLECTICISM.
sonal influence they attached
CHAP,
much
greater value
enquiry fight against emotions, says Fabianus, not with subtleties but with enthusiasm ; and concerning learned labours which have no moral purpose in view, his
:
than to
scientific
we must
the
judgment
is
that
it
would perhaps be better to

sciences of such a kind. 2
pursue no science, than
The
life
of
man,
is,
as Sextius argues. 3 a constant
battle with folly; only he in readiness to strike can
who
perpetually stands
successfully encounter round him on all sides. If press this reminds us of Stoicism and especially of the
the enemies
who
Stoicism of the
still
Roman
in
period, the resemblance
is
the proposition of Sextius that Jupiter could achieve nothing more than a virtuous man. 4 With this Stoical character, two
striking
more
other traits, which Sextius seems to have borrowed from the Pythagorean school, are quite in harmony viz., the principle of rendering account to oneself 5 at the end of every day of the moral and profit
:
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
1
it
only
on the ground
that
by the
Sen. Brerit.Vit. 10,1: Solebat dice re I<}ibi/tn ux r.on1rn (idfectns ini petti -non sub.
tilitate
i
pugnandiim,
e,e
iniiiutix
olneribng) sed inenrsii areraciein -non, jirobain : carillationcs enim contundi de-
tendam
heir,
2 3
* Sen. Ep. 73, 12: Sohbat Xcxtins dice re, Jorem -non jwxna, fjuani Ion inn, rinim, which Seneca carries farther in the sense discussed, PJiil, d. 6fr.
]>lus
III.
5
i.
p.
252, 1,2.
titni
rellieari.
0.
Vide Sen. I)e Ira, iii. 36, 1, with which cf. the Pythagorean
Ibid. 13, Ap. Sen.
Golden
59, 7.
oem,
v.
40 sqn.
Ep.
ARGUMENT AGAINST ANIMAL

slaughter of
FOOD.
to
187
animals
we accustom
ourselves
CHAP.
VII.
cruelty, and by devouring their flesh to enjoyments that are superfluous and incompatible with health. Nothing else that has been handed down respect
1
ing the ethics of Sextius displays any important 2 It was a more remarkable devia individuality.
tion
from Stoicism
3
if
the
Sextii,
as
has
been
stated, maintained the incorporeality of the soul ; but this, after all, would only show that, while
following the eclectic tendency of their time, they were able to combine, with the ethics of the Stoics,
The Sen. Ep. 108, 17 sqq. discussions of Sotion, by which Seneca for a time was per suaded to abstain from eating meat, are here expounded more Of Sextius it is at length. said Hie Jiomini satis oilmento-rum eitra sanguinem esse credebat et crndelitatis conmetudinem fieri, ttbi in rolup1 :
of these contain anything by which we can recognise the school to which their author belonged. Our collection of sentences, however, it may be
incidentally remarked, brings
forward nothing which
is
not
equally to be found in many other writers. 8 Claudian. MameTt.DeStatu
totem
esfsct
adducta
laceratlo.
Animcf,
est
ii.
Adicicbat, co-ntraliendam
ma
Inoorporalii, inSextii),
qttivnt (the
two
omnis
ter I am esse luxuries, Colligebat, bonce valltudlni contraria esse alimenta varia et nostris alien a With this the pas corjwribus. sage in the sayings of Sextus,
anima
et illocalis
atqne in-
109, agrees (ap. p. Cels. viii. 30) fytyvx

:
Orig.
Se
c.
deprelivnsa, vis qucedam ; qua? sine sj>atio capax corjws hanrit The last clause et continet. reminds us of the Stoic doc trine, that the soul holds the
body together.
not, indeed,
;
Mamertus
is
irofy
Ktarepov.
2
Vide the utterances of So tion in the Florilegium of Stobrcus, which no doubt be long to our Sotion the recom mendation of brotherly love (84, 6-8; 17, 18); the say
;
an altogether trust worthy witness he also tries to prove (I. c.) that Chrysippus regarded the soul as immortal, because he required the con
quest of sensuality by reason. 13ut his utterances about the so definite that Sextii are
ings against flattery (14, 10), anger (20, 53 sq.\ about grief
59), and on consolatory exhortations (113, 15). None
we must
(108,
necessarily refer them to tradition rather than to any inference of this kind.
88
ECLECTICISM.
definitions
CHAP,
We
new
from the Platonic-Aristotelian doctrine. therefore find nothing in their school that is and scientifically noticeable ; it is a branch of
is
Stoicism, which doubtless
indebted merely to the

it had an indepen but we can see in its
personality of its founder that
dent existence
for
a time
points of contact with Pythagoreanism and Platonism 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
consequence than similar 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
tical
doctrines of less
their
anthropology.
PHILOSOPHY IN THE IMPERIAL ERA.
189
CHAPTEE
VIII.
THE FIRST CENTURIES AFTER CHRIST. OF THE STOICS. SENECA.
THE SCHOOL
thought which had become predominant during the first century before Christ in the Greco-Eoman philosophy, maintained itself
of
THE mode
CHAP.
Section II
likewise in the succeeding centuries. By far the ~ of its representatives, indeed, were ad- &** centu greater part
into which the
herents of one or other of the four great schools domain of Greek science was divided
Christ.
A. The
after the third
The separation of these century. , a schools had, indeed, been confirmed afresh by two character
:
circumstances
study of the writings of their founders, to which the imperial

Peripatetics especially had devoted themselves with such zeal since the time of Andronicus ; on the Zeal for
*
on the one hand by the learned p
by the institution of public chairs for the four ^fâi chief sects which took place in the second century dent phiS P after the of our
other,
era. This learned beginning activity must have tended to make the special cha racteristics of the different systems more distinctly
1
1
Cf. O. Muller,
.
Quam curam
Rom.
literis
rcsp. ap. Greec. et

. .
impenderit (Gott. Mnladungssohrift, 1837), p. 14 sqq.;
Alt ad. 1842,; Schr. 44 sqq.
Hist. -Phil.
;
Kl.
Weber, De Aca-
demia Literaria Atht iiienxium

seculo sccundop. Chr. cotistituta (Marb. 1858), and the quotations at p. 1.
Zumpt, Ucb.d.Bestandd.philos. Schuleti in Athen.Abh. d. Borl.
190
ECLECTICISM.
perceived, and to refute the idea upon which the eclecticism of an Antiochus and Cicero had fallen
CHAP.
VIII.
Endow
ment of
public
chairs of
that the divergences between them were founded rather upon differences of words, than mat
back, viz
:
ters of fact
and
it
philo
sophy.
it
eclectic tendencies of the time the
might form a counterpoise to the more easily, since
was directed as much to the defence, as to the explanation, of the heads of the ancient schools and
of their doctrines.
In Rome, where in the
first
cen
tury not only Stoicism, but philosophy in general,
trust,
was regarded in many quarters with political mis and had had to suffer repeated persecution,
first
public teachers of philosophy were

The banishment of Attains the Stoic from Rome under Tiberius (Sen. Suasor. 2), and that of Seneca under Claudius, were not the result of a dislike
1
established
1
Nero)
sqq.
;
and Seneca (Ep.

15
;
5,
14,
103,
5) finds
it
necessary to warn the disciple of philosophy against coming
philosophy. On the other hand, under Nero, laws were multiplied against men who had acquired or strengthened their indepen dence of mind in the school of
Stoics Thrasea Paitus, Seneca, Lucanus, and Rubellius Plautus were put to death Musonius, Priscus Cornutus, Helvidius were banished (further details later on) and though these persecutions may have had in
. ; ;
upon principle
to
forward in any manner at all conspicuous or calculated to
been many, and philo sophy was regarded with mis trust. The political dissatis faction displayed by the Stoic and Cynic philosophers after
prejudicial to
cause offence and so the more as this had

;
much
the execution of Helvidius Priscus occasioned Vespasian to banish from Rome all teachers of philosophy, with the excep
tion of Musonius
;
two
of
them
instance political or personal reasons, a general dis trust had already manifested itself against the Stoic philo
tirst
the
sophy especially, which Stoicornni adrogantia sectaqnc quas turbidox et negotiorum adpetentes faciat (as Tigellinus, ap. Tac. Ann. xiv. 57, whispers to
he even caused to be trans ported (I)io Cass. Ixiv. 13); and this precedent was after wards followed by Domitian. Being irritated by the pane gyrics of Junius Rusticus on Tlirasea and Helvidius, he cot only caused Rusticus and the son of Helvidius to be executed,
IMPERIAL PATRONAGE OF PHILOSOPHY.

as
191
and in the provinces, by seems by Hadrian Antoninus Pius 2 rhetoric had already been simi
it
!
CHAP.
VIII.
provided for by some of their predecessors, and the ancient institution of the Alexandrian Mu
larly
seum, and
of learned
its
maintenances designed
for the support
of the most various sorts, had also continued to exist in the Eoman period. 4 Public
but ordered
all philosophers out of Rome (Gell. N.A. xv. 11, 3; Suet on. Dontit. 10; Plin.
men
good absolutely
e/Vcu
3
Sict
rb
a-iraviovs
rovs
<pt\o(TO<t)ovvras.
Thus we hear of Vespasian,
Ep.
iii.
11
Dio Cass.
Ixvii. 13).
But these isolated and tempo rary measures do not seem to have done any lasting injury to philosophic studies. 1 Of. Spartian. Hadr. 16
Doctores, inhabiles
*it,
especially (Sueton. Vesp. 18), that he primus e fisco latiyiis (p d cisque rhetoribus (perhaps in the first place only to one rhetorician for each speech)
annua
cente.na (100,000 sestert.)
qui profesifioni sute ditatot videbantur, Tionoratosque aprofcssione dimi-
constitute.
torician
so
The first Latin rhe endowed, in the
would only have been possible if they had before

which
possessed them. Still less is proved by the previous con text Ornnes professores et hotwravit et divites fecit. That these statements relate not merely to grammarians, rhetoricians, &c., but also to philosophers, is shown by the connection. 2 Capitolin.^^. P. 11 Rlie: :
year 69, was, according to Hieron, Eus. Chrcm. 89 A.D., a second under Quintilian Hadrian, Castricius (Gell. N. A
;
.
xiii.
4
22). Cf.
Zumpt,
1.
c.
Parthey,
Das Alexandria. Museum

p.
(Berl. 1838), p. 91 sqq.; 0. Miiller, I. c.
toribus et philosopliis per omnes provincias et honores et solaria detulit. Moreover, teachers of sciences and physicians were exempted from taxation. This
29 sq. From the statement (Dio Cass. Ixxvii. 7) that Caracalla took from the Peripatetics of Alexandria (out of hatred to Aristotle, on account of the supposed poisoning of Alexan
der) their Syssitia and other privileges, Parthey (p. 52) in fers with probability that there also (though perhaps only in the time of Hadrian or one of his successors) the philosophers
favour, however, in a rescript of Antoninus to the Commune Asia; (quoted from Modestin.
Excus,
6,
ii.
Digest,
xxvii.
1,
2)
was restricted in regard
belonging to the museum had been divided into schools. A

similar institution to the
to the physicians to a certain number according to the size of the city but in regard to the philosophers it was to hold
;
mu
was
Dio
seum, the founded in
Athenaeum,
Rome by Hadrian
(Aurel. Victor. Cats.
cf.
102
ECLECTICISM.
teachers from the four most important Schools of philosophy were settled by Marcus Aurelius in
1
CHAP,
VIII.
^1_
th/.
Capitolin. Per Gord. 3; Lamprid. 11; Sever. 35), That maintenance for the learned man admitted
Cass. Ixxiii. 17
;
was also attached to it, is not expressly stated whether the words of Tertullian (Apol-oyet. 4(5), statins ft salaribus reiniicrnntur (the pliilosophers), relate to Rome or to the pro vinces, we do not know, but they probably refer to the
;
but that if the existing scholarch of a school was not in need of such assistance, a second teacher was named side by side with him, so that a
school
may
have
had
two
western countries. That Marcus Aurelius ap pointed alike for the four schools
1
simultaneously one chosen by the school, and one nominated by the Emperor. The passage in Lucian, however, is not favourable in this view. As the philosophers whom the Emperor endowed with the
salary of 10,000
first
spoken
KCti
of,
drachmas are and we are then

O.VTWV (vay-
and Epicurean
is
the Stoic,Platonic,Peripatetic, teachers with a salary of 10,000 drachmas each,

plain from Philostr.
1
told
Ttvd
<pa.fTiv
r.
:
Lucian, JJn Hitch. 3
Soph. ii. accord
ing to Dio Cass. Ixxi. 3, it was while he was in Athens, after the suppression of the insurrec tion of Avidius Cassias (17(5
Xos airodave iv, rwvTlepnrarririKwi oljj.a.1 r})v frepov, this manifestly presupposes that among those who were paid by the Emperor there were two Peripatetics, in which case the other schools must each have had two repre
sentatives in this reign. The choice of these salaried philo Marcus Aurelius, ac sophers, cording to Philostr., I.e., gave over to Herodes Atticus accord ing to Lucian, l-lun. c. 2 .s//., the candidates brought forward their claims before the &PKTTOL
;
Marcus gave all Athens instructors, whom he endowed with a yearly At this time, or soon stipend. after, Tatian may have written the \6yos Trpbs in which (p. .)) he mentions philosophers who receive from the Emperor an annual salary of (JOO xp vff0 êach According to Lucian, I. of the schools mentioned seems to have had two public instruc tors, for we are there told how, after the death of one of the two candidates Peripatetics,
A.D.)
that
mankind
in
"E\\rii>as
Kul
ruiv
Trpf(T/3vraroi eV rfj Tro Aei
Ktil
(TcxpuTaTOL
(bv which
either
we
<.,
may
understand
disputed before the electing as the vacant place with its drachmas, 10,000 /umpt (1. c. p. 50) offers the suggestion that onlv four im
sembly for
perial salaries
had been given
Areopagus, the POV\TI, separate elective council, per haps with the participation of the schools concerned, and under the presidency of an im perial ollicial); but if an agree ment could not be arrived at, the affair was sent to Home to be decided. The imperial ra tification was, doubtless, neces sary in all cases and in par;
the or a
PAID TEACHERS OF PHILOSOPHY.

Athens,
1
103
which was thus declared anew the chief
CHAP.
seat of philosophic studies ; and thus the division 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
In the appointment of the office of teacher, the express avowal of the system for which he desired to be employed was required from
slight advantage.
the candidate. 2
Externally, therefore, the schools
remained sharply separated in this period as hereto

fore.
As
it
this separation, however,
little to
hinder the rise
had previously done of eclectic tendencies, so was

7
Continued
Lclec *i ~
cism.
little in
the way of their continuance.

all
The
dif
ferent schools, in spite of

internally to
divisions
and feuds,
approximated They did not actually abandon their distinctive doctrines, but they propagated many of them, and these the most
striking,
each other.
merely historically as a learned tradition,
without concerning themselves more deeply with them ; or they postponed them to the essentially
ticular instances
the teacher
was probably directly named by the Emperor; the words of Alexander of Aphrodisias ma} be taken in either sense, when,
in the dedication of his treatise
of the second century, cf. also Philostr. V. Soph. ii. 1, 6, who in the time of Herodes Atticus speaks of the QpaKia ical UovTLKO.
fj.fipd.Kia
/ccif
&\\<av
tQviav
fiap&a.p<avvvfppvt]K6Ta,
whom the
:
timius
he thanks SepSeverus and his son, Cnracalla, v-jrb rys fyuerepas /*apO.VTTJS Tvpias 8i5a<TKa\os (the Aristotelian philosophy) KCKTJirepl fl/j.ap/jifvrts,
Athenians received for money, 2 Cf Lucian, I. c. 4 TO ^fv ovv TWV \6yajv irpo^yuviffro auro?s Kal r^jv f/J.-rrfipiav fKarfpos ruv
.
Soy/^druv
SOKOVVTCDV
t-TrfSftieiKTO Kal
on
rov
pvyfj.evos.
1
Apto"TOT\ovs
Kal
TUV
^Keivcf)
On the
larity of
repute and popuAthens in the middle
104
ECLECTICISM.
practical aims
CHAP,
and principles, in which the different
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 originally grown up on
another
soil,
compatible School alone persistently held aloof from this move ment ; but it also refrained from all scientific activity
1
were, strictly speaking, not altogether with that character. The Epicurean
worthy of mention. 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
Peripatetics
it
is
their
restriction to criticism
and explanation of the Aris totelian writings, in which the want of independent scientific creative activity is chiefly shown with the
;
the restriction to a morality in which the asperities of the original system are for the most
Stoics, it
is
part
set aside and the former severity gradually in the gives place to a gentler and milder spirit it is the adoption of Stoic and Academy, Peripatetic
:
elements, with which is combined an increasing in 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.
Sclmol
////
<>f
M<rii-t
If we begin with the Stoics we find that from the beginning of the first, till towards the middle of the
1
from
Hie
Cf.
PMl.
d.
Gr. III.
i.
p.
:-J7S,
an<l,<??^.
p.
24 sqq.
STOICS OF THE IMPERIAL ERA.

third century, we are acquainted with a considerable of men belonging to this school. 1 The
1
195
CHAP.
VIII.
number
to
Of the Stoics that are known Heracleitus must us, first be mentioned in connec tion with those named supra,
This learned man (con cerning whose Homeric allego ries cf Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 322 sqq.} seems to have lived at the time of Augustus, as the latest of the many authors whom he
p. 71.
.
mo
deeply than Seneca into the superstition and soothsaying of the school. On the instigation of Sejanus, he was forced to leave Rome (Sen. Rh-et. Suasor. Somewhat later is C has re2). n, the teacher of Nero (Suid.
AAe |.
school
Ary.),
we must
3
subsequent!} (as suppose) head of a in Alexandria (ibid.

.)
is mentions Alexander of Ephesus (Alley. Horn. c. 12, p. 26) who is reckoned by Strabo
Aiovvcr. AA.e
and an Egyptian
%>o-
priest of the order of the
(xiv. 1, 25, p. 642) among the veuTfpoL, is apparently alluded to
quoted by
Att. ii. 22, and Aurel. Victor, De Orif/. Gent. Rom. 9, 1, as author of a history of the Marsian
by
Cicero,
Ad
War
(91 sqq. B.C.)
and must
That he was so, ypa/m./jiaTe is. and that the Stoic Chferemon, mentioned by Suidas, Origen (c. Cels. i. 51), Porphyry (De Abstinen. iv. 6, 8) and Apollonius in Bekker s Anecdota, is not distinct from the lepoypa/uifji,arfvs mentioned bv Por
v. 10 4 and Tzetz. Hist. v. 403 in Iliad, p. 123, Her?n.,as fil ler maintains (Hist. Gr. iii. 495), but that they are one and the same person as Bernays considers (Tkeophr. von, der
iii.
;
have flourished in the first half or about the middle of the first
century before Christ.
Tiberius,
phyry, ap. Eus. Pr. Ev.
Under
in
Attalus taught
he
is
Rome
mentioned
by
Seneca (Ep. 108, 3, 13 gq., 23) as his Stoic teacher whom he

zealously employed and ad mired, and from whom he quotes in this and other places (vide Index) sayings which especially insist, in the spirit of the Stoic ethics, on simplicity of life and independence of With this moral character. doctrine we shall also find his declamations as to the faults and follies of men and the ills
of life in his
(I. c.
Frommiglteit, explained in 403 sq. In his (fragments of
21,
150), I
have
xi.
the Hermes,
Egyptian history
which are given

c.}
he explains, according to Fr. 2 (ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. iii. 4), the Egyptian
by
Mfiller,
I.
gods and their mythical histo in a Stoic manner with reference to the sun, moon, and stars, the sky, and the Nile,
ries
Ko.1
108, 13) reproduced
ftXws Trdvra els
<f>vffLKa
and
disciple
Seneca
what
Seneca, however (Nat. Qti. ii. 48 to us 2, 50, 1) imports from his enquiries concerning the portents of lightning, shows that he plunged much more
;
in his SiSdy/uiara rwv Itp&v ypa/j.IJLa.Tti)v (ap. Suid. Xoup. lepoyXvtyIKO.) he declares, in agreement
with this, that the hieroglyphics were symbols in which the an cients laid down the
<pvo-iKbs
100
ECLECTICISM.
most important of them, and those who represent to us most clearly the character of this later Stoicism
\6yos TTfpl 123 cf.l:
;
CHAP.
VIII.
6e<av
c.
146
(Tzctz. in Jl p. Hi*t.\. 403).

.
bouring Thcstis (Steph. Byz.

&f(TTis)
in
Africa,
who was
He
tise
is
also in
harmony with the
Stoic theology
when
in a trea
on comets (according to he explained how Origen, I. it came about that these phe nomena sometimes foretell
<.)
banished (according to the in correct statement of Suidas, to death) by Xero, on ])ut account of an objection he made to the poetical projects of the Emperor, in 68 A.D., according
to Hieron. in Citron (Cf., how ever, Eeimarus on the passage in Dio he conjectures 66 A.D.) In the epitome of Diogenes
.
happy
events.
iv. 8,
(TT(t>iKo7s
Porphyry,
in
ev
DC
rot s
Al>st.
end, calls
him
irpayfj.aTiKCt>rara
<f)L\offo<p-f](ras.
He was succeeded
in
Alexandria by his disciple
Dionysius, who is called by Suidas Aiovvcr. AA. ypa/a/uiarLK^s,
and was probably, therefore, more of a learned man than a
(Part III. i. 3)5, 2) Cornutus closes the series of the Stoics mentioned by this writer. Of the theoretical and philosoph ical works attributed to him
Seneca will be philosopher. fully treated of later on. Other members of the Stoic school were the following: C la ra il us (Sen. Ep. 66, 1, 5: he has
been conjectured, though pro bably erroneously, to be identi cal with the Greek philo sopher C oc ran us, Tac. Ann.
xiv. 59
by Suidas, one on the gods has been preserved (sup. Part III.
i.
301 sqq.}: this
is
doubtless
treatise and not a mere abstract of it. He is described in the Vita Per.ni Suetnn. as trftqicns, to which
his
own
Osann (on Corn.
I)c Xat. Dror.
xxv.) rightly objects.
Further
the latter was also a Stoic), most likely Seneca s re lative Anna} us Serenus (Sen. 63, 14; De Const, i. 1 Tranqn. An. I DC Of in}, his
;
details concerning him and his works will be found in Martini (T)e L. Ann. Cornuto, Lugd. Bat.
A>.
D<>
friend
(Xtit.
i.
1
Or
;
is
pus
Passienus
1825, a work with which I am only acquainted at third hand), L c. Villoison, and Osann,
;
Qi/.iv.; Prt/f. 6; Jtenef. cf. Ep xjr. Sujt. Kt-il. 6), 5, 5 and his adherent tr on ax
Prtff. xvii. sqq. Persius,
().
Jahn on
viii.
Me
]>rolt>(jfj.
sqq.
in
Xaples (Ep.
76,
1-1).
He
Among the disciples of Cornutus

were (vide Vita Pcrxu) Clau dius A g a t h n u s of Sparta (Osann,/. c. xviii., differing from
i
include Lucilius also among the Stoics, in the letters dedicated to him. Contempo rary with hi m is Sera p i o, from the Syrian Ilierapolis (Sen. Ep. 10, 2 Urb. Steph. Byz.
tries to
;
D<>
Jahn,
1
j).
xxvii., writes
the
name
thus, following Galen, Drfinit.
lepaTr.);
and
Lucius
of or
An
Leptis neigh
na} us
(Suid.
Cor nut us
Ropy.)
the
353 K), a celebrated and Petronius physician, A ris toe rates of Magnesia, duo (loctisximi ct sanctissimi ??//, and the two Roman poets
4, vol. xix.
SENECA, EPICTETUS.
Musonius, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. Heracleitus, on the other hand, is rather a
are
11)7
Seneca,
CHAP.
VIII.
A.
in
Persius Flaccus (born

vide
c. iii.
without some reason, by order
34, died in 62 A.D., Vita Persii, and Jahn, I.
sqq.)
Lucanus
and Marcus Annaeus the nephew of
Rubellius Vespasian. also (Tac. Ann. xiv. 22, 57-59) who was also put to death by Nero, is described as
of
Plautus
Seneca, born 39 A.D., died 65 A.D., both put to death for having joined in Piso s con spiracy (vide concerning Lu canus the two lives which Weber has edited, Marb. 1856 sq. the Vita Persii, Tacit. Ann. xv. 49, 56 sq. 70, and other statements compared by We ber), of whom Flaccus espe cially, as he says himself in
;
a Stoic. Lastly, under Nero and his successors, there lived Musonius Rufus and his disciple Epictetus, who, to gether with Musonius disciples, Pollio and Artemidorus, and Arrianus, the pupil of Epictetus, will come before us
later
on. Euphrates, the teacher of the younger Pliny, who equally admired him on account of his discourses and his character, was a contempo
first
master v., regarded his with the highest veneration. To the Stoic school belonged
Sat.
further, besides the contemp tible P. Egnatius Celer (Tac. Ann. xvi. 32; Hint. iv. 10, 40; Dio Cass. Ixii. 26;
rary of Epictetus and lived in Syria and afterwards in Rome (Plin. Ep. i. 10 Euseb.
;
Juvenal,
iii.
114
sq.),
the
two magnanimous Republicans Thrasea Pajtus (Tac. Ann.

xiv. cf. xiii. 49 xvi. 21 sqq. 48 sq. xv. 23 ; Dio Cass. Ixi.
; ; ;
Hwrocl. c. 33). He is the same person whom Philostratus, in the life of Apollonius of Tyana, and the author of the
c.
20; Ixii. 26; Ixvi. 12; Sueton. Nero, 37; Domit. 10;
15,
vii.
vi. 29, 1 ; Plin. EJJ. viii. 22, 3 19, 3; Plut. Prcee. Ger. Reip. 14, 10, p. 810 Goto Min.
; ;
of Apollonius, repre sents as the chief opponent of this miracle -worker. Epictetus quotes an expression of his (Diss. iv. 8, 1 7 sqq.) and praises his discourses (I. c. iii. 15, 8 ; Encliir. 29, 4). Marcus Aure
letters
25, 37; Juvenal, v. 36; Epict. Diss. i. 1, 26 et pass. , Jahn,

I.
31) also mentions him. His passionate hostility to Apol

lius (x.
lonius
V.
is
alluded to by Philostr.
c.
xxxviii.
sq.\
and
his
son-in-law
Helvidius Pris;
cus
(Tac. Ann. xvi. 28-25; Hist. iv. 5 sq. 9, 53 Dial, de Orat. 5; Sueton. Vesp. 15; Dio Cass. Ixvi. 12 Ixv. 7), of
;
Soph. i. 7, 2. The same writer calls him here and I. c. i. 25, 5, a Tyrian, whereas, ac cording to Steph. Byz. De Urb. he was a Syrian of
Ein<f>di/.,
whom
Epiphania,
and according
Philos.
p.
6,
to
the
first
by Nero s
order,
was executed and the second
Eunap.
V.
an
already banished by Nero, was put to death, not
who had been
Egyptian. Having fallen sick in his old age, he took poison 118 A.D. (Dio Cass. Ixix. 8).
103
ECLECTICISM.
collector
CHAP.
VIII.
the
and arranger of traditional material, and same holds good of Cleomedes. Concerning
for in Ku/cAi/CTj dfupia fj-erewpuv this treatise he mentions several earlier astronomers, but not
;
One of liis pupils was Ti mocrates of Heraclea in Pontus (Philostr. V. Soph. i. 25, 5) ac cording to Lucian (Demon. 3, Ah j.-. 57, Salt at. 6 J), who speaks with great respect of
Dt>
Ptolemy; he follows in
as he says Posidonius.
it chiefly, at the conclusion,
him and was himself a teacher

;
Demonax the cynic, and an opponent of the famous con juror, Alexander of Abonuteiof
hos.
disciple of
is
Demonax,
Under
Lesbonax,
him (De
hit
mentioned by
6 ,.).
Salt.
Within the same the Stoic instruc tors of Marcus Aurelius Apol lo ni us (M. Aurel. i. 8, 17; Dio Cass. Ixxi. 35 Capitolin. Ant. Philox. 2, 3; Ant. Pi. 10; Eutrop. viii. 12 Lucian. Demon. 31 Hieron. Ckron. ZH 01. 232
period
fall
: ;
Domitian and Trajan we rind the following names given by

J
Syncell.
p.
351.
Whether he
arch (Qu.
Cotiv.
i.
i, 1
vii.
lippus,
Themistocles, Phiand Diogenianus, to whom we may add the two called Grin is philosophers
7,
1):
came from Chalcis or Chalcedon or Nicomedia we need not here enquire). Junius Kusticus,
to
whom
i.
his
imperial
;
pupil
always gave his confidence (M.

Aur.
7.
17
(Epict. Diss.
L.
vii.
iii.
62, 68, 76).
Diog. Also J u n i us
2,
;
15
A /it. Pit II. 3) C imus (M. Aur.

;
Dio, I. c Capitol. 1 a u d i u s a x-
i.
15,
<?.);
17;
viii.
Kusticus, executed by Do
mitian (Tacit. Agric. 2 Sueton. 2)ont. 10 Dio Cass. Ixvii. 13
; ;
;
25;
tol.
Capitol.
I. i.
Cinna
Catulus (M. Aur. 13: Capi I.e.); among them was
/. c. Pint. Cttriosit. 15, 522), whose trial gave oc casion to the persecution of
1 lin.
p.
i o prol iably also g n e t u s (ac cording to Capitol, c. 4, where
the same
man
is
most likely
the philosophers, was doubtless
The two Plinys, on the other hand, cannot be reckoned under this school, though they have points of re semblance with the Stoics, and the younger had Euphrates for his teacher. Under Hadrian
a Stoic.
Philopator
(
I>],il.
probably
i. 1
lived
d.
Gr.
III.
66,
s
),
whose
disciple
4
1
was
Galen
teacher
8, vol. v.
meant, his teacher in painting; but according to M. Aur. i. 6, the first who gave him an in clination to philosophy) lides of Scythopolis (described by Hieron. (liron. on Ol. 232, and Sync.]). 351, as a teacher of Marcus Aurelius and probably the same who is quoted by Sext. J\fatJi.\\\i. 25S, vide Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 87, but not the person
P>asi;
((ialcii, Cof/n. tin
^[<>/b.
mentioned tup.
others
(
I ,
p. 54),
and sonic
i
K)
in the
same
reign, or that
a c c h i u s,
Tandas
s,
of Antoninus Pius,
Hieroeles
in
may have taught

(Gell.
X. A.
ix. 5, 8),
Athens and Cleohis
rnedes may have written
M. Aurelius heard them, as he says, i. 6, at the instance of Diognetus) must be added. To these Mar-
Marcianus;
CORNUTUS.
Cornutus
chiefly
also,
191)
we
to
know
that
his
activity
was
CHAP.
VIIT.
devoted
allied
grammatical
that no
104,
and
a),
historical
is
cus Aurelius
subsequently
Antoninus
himself
ffirovdaios
<pav\os
(Simpl. 102,
a)
and that
(I. c.
Under his reign (vide infra). Lucius, the disciple of Musonius the Tyrian, is said to have lived, whom Philostratus, V. Soph. ii. 1, 8 sq., describes as
the friend of Herodes Atticus,
an a.8id<popov avrtKfirai, and similarly an ayaira.Tt)ffis is
a.$ia.<p6py
Qbv ayadip, e.g. the ^povi/iTj irepiopposed to the ffrdais (cf. Phil. d. Gr. III. i.
<f>poi>i/j.r)
and represents as meeting with Marcus Aurelius in Rome when the latter was already emperor he was the same person, doubtless, from whom Stobseus (Floril. Jo. Damasc. 7, 46, vol.
;
as also in the terms belonging to the Stoic nomencla
213, note)
ture, \6yoi
9avfj.a<TTiKol,
6/J.oriKol,
airo/JLOTiKol,
(I.
tyeitTiKol
i.
c.
103
a) vide ibid. III.
103,
is
4.
But
called
the
Musonius who
iv.
162, Mem.) quotes an account of a conversation with Musonius
conversations with Mu sonius are also mentioned by

(his
Lucius teacher must be either distinct from Musonius Rufus, or we must suppose, even irre spectively of the Tvptos of
Philostratus) for though he is called AVKIOS in our text of Stobaeus, that is of little con sequence. Here, as well as in Philostratus, he appears as a Stoic or Cynic, and he was no doubt the same Lucius who is mentioned Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 48, note, with Nicostratus. Brandis tiber d. Auslef/er d. Arist. ( Org., Abh. d. JBerl. A had. 1833 Hist. Phil. Kl. p. 270) and Prantl (Gesch. d. Log. i. 618) consider both to have belonged to the Academy, from the way in which they are named by
;
be inexact
Philostratus, his narrative to for as Musonius

;
scarcely survived the first cen tury, it is not conceivable that to

his disciple should have come Rome after 161 A.D. It seems to me most probable that the teacher of Lucius is no
other than Musonius Rufus, and that the anecdote, ap. Gell. N.*A. ix. 2, 8, refers to him; while the predicate Tvpios arose through a
Simplicius (Categ. 7, 5, 1, a) Atticus and together with Plotinus but it seems to me that this cannot be proved on that evidence there is more foundation for the statement,
; ;
in their objections quoted by Prantl, I. c., from Simplicius, against the Aristotelian cate gories of the Stoic type, namely in the assertions of Nicostratus
mistake from Tupprjj/bs (suppos ing even that Philostratus him self made the mistake) and that the meeting of Lucius with Marcus Aurelius either did not take place at all, or occurred before he became em peror partly because when we hear of Musonius we naturally think of the most celebrated man of the name, and the only Musonius known to us in that
;
period; partly and especially because that which Lucius puts into the mouth of his Musonius entirely agrees with the quota-
L OO
ECLECTICISM.
works, and he therefore .seems to have occupied himself with philosophy more as a scholar than an in
CHAP.
VIII.
His work on the gods contents with reproducing the doctrine of his school and if, in a treatise on the categories, he has con tradicted 2 not only Aristotle, but also his Stoic rival
dependent thinker.
itself
tion from Musonius Rufus (ap. Stob. Fiord. 29, 78). In the first half of the third century
know nothing
of the
as to the dates
we
hear, through Longinus (ap.

T".
Plot. 20, of a number Porph. of philosophers, contemporary
men: Aristocl es of Lampsacus (Suidas, tub roce, mentions an exposition of his, of a logical treatise of
following
with this writer, and somewhat

earlier, and among them are a good many Stoics. He men tions as Stoics who were also
whom
Chrysippus), the two namesakes Theodorus (Diog. ii. 104), of
one probably composed
the abstract of the writings of Teles, from which Stob. Fieri I.

gives
known for their literary activity Themistocles (according to

Chronvgr. p. 361 I!, 228 A.D.), Phcebion, and two who had not long
Syncell.
Jo.Uam.i. 7,47,T.iv. 104Mein. a fragment; Prota

;
about
goras (Diog. ix. 50); Antibins andEubius, of Ascalon

Hierapolis (H6irl)e L rli. Steph. If pair the two name sakes, Proclus of Mallos in Cilicia (ap. Suid. UpoK\.~ one of these latter is mentioned by Pn.clus In Tim. 100 15, with Philonides among the apxa toi if the pupil of Zeno is here intended (Part III. i. 8f), 8), Proclus himself may be placed further back; but he cannot in any case be older than PanK>tius,as Suidas mentionsan
Atos) ap. A(TKa\.
P>yz.
;
Publius
of
died
(/ue x/
Annius and Medins

Plat,
lieinj). p.
~2.vfj.lj.LKT a
irpyriv aK/udaai Tts),
(Por phyry, according to Proclus In

415, note, in his
Hpoft\rj/j.ara,
mentions
a conversation with Longinus, in which he defended against
Longinus the Stoic doctrine of

the eight parts of the soul). Among those who confined themselves to giving instruction are PI ermi n u s,Ly si machu s,
(according to Porphyry, /. c. 3, probably in Kome), A theme us, and M u son i us. At the same period as Plotinus, Trypho (described by Porphyry, v.
Plat. 17, as STOUKOS re Kal ITAaTUJVLK^S}
vTTu/j.i rjiu.a
TUV Aioytvovs
aotyia-
The Athenian
/
/
.
was residing in Home. Stoic, Calli et es, mentioned by Porph. ap Euseb.

/>.
to his rhetorical writings, his expo sition of the Virgilian poems, and a grammatical work in
,1
fj.druv,no doubt written Of. the references

1
by him.
a) in s
Kf/fj.
Prolef/y.
:
in
/.
Pentium,
xxiii.
i.
xiii.
-
Osann.
(I.
c.
x. 8, 1,
came somewhat
200 A.D.
.f/t/.
earlier,
about
We
Cf. Phil. note.
Gr.
III.
520,
CORNUTU8.
we can see from the fragments prethat this treatise regarded its object princip served, 2 It is ally from the standpoint of the grammarian.
Athenodorus,
1
-201
CHAP.
an important divergence from the Stoic tradition, if he really taught that the soul dies simultaneously 4 with the body; 3 this, however, is not certain, though it is possible that in his views of the subject he
allied himself with Panaetius.
If,
lastly, his ethical
5 by Persius on account of their good influence on those who heard them, we can hardly venture to ascribe to him in this sphere
discourses are praised
any important individuality, or striking

Simpl. Categ. 5, o 15, 5 47 C; 91. o (Scliol. in Arist. 30, b, note; 47, b, 22; 57, a, 16; 80, a, 22); Porph. in Categ.
1
; ;
effect
on
form of expression is different in the one case from the other.

3
Iambi, ap. Stob.
Ed.
i.
922.
lie
Does the cause of death
in Arist. 48, b, 12); Brandis, Ueler die Griech.Ausl. d. Arist. Org. Abh. d. Berl. Akad. 1883, Hist. Phil. Kl. p. 275. In this treatise was probably to be found the
4, b (Schol. I. c. 21 ; cf.
in the withholding of the ani mating air, the extinction of the vital power (r6vos), or the cessation of vital warmth ?
aAA.
i
ovrcas yiyvfrai 6
6dvaros,
77
statement quoted by Syrian in 9, MetapJi. Schol. in Ar. 893,

,
irpoa.va.iptl Ta.i ^ avvavatpt iTai ffU/JLttTl, ^VX^J T( KO.dd.Trfp
K.OVp-
VOVTOS
4
ottTO.1.
from Cornutus, that
he,
like
Boethus the Peripatetic, re duced the ideas to general con

ceptions.
-
For though it is probably this Cornutus to whom the statement of lamblichus refers,
it is
nevertheless possible that
Porph.
4,
b,
:
says of
him
Trepl T&V Ttt KVplO. KO.I
and Athenodorus TO ^rov^va. \((av KaQb Ae|eis, olo

TO TpOTTLKO. Kttl OffO. ra roiavra ovv wpo(pfpovTfs KOI Troias fffrl Kcmiyopias
.
what he said may relate to the animal soul and not to the rational and human soul. The theories from which lamblichus
derives his assertion agree with the doctrine of the Stoic school, according to which death en sues &TO.V vavrfXus ytvyrai 77 Hveffis rov alffQi^riKOv iri/ev/jLa,Tos (Plut. Plac. i. 23, 4).
5
ToiavTa
airopovvres
Kal
Similarly Simpl. 5, o, cf. 91, o, where Cornutus would separate the place from iroC, and the time from iroTe, because the
Sat. v. 34 gqq., 62
sq(j.
20-2
ECLECTICISM.
philosophy
left
:
CHAP.
VIII.
had
this
been the
case,
he would have
1
Seneca.
stronger traces of it behind him. The case is different with Seneca.

The
extensive
literature
This philo-
concerning Senecais to be found in Biihr, sub wee, in Pauly s

Itealcnci/kl.
d.
whicli Sot ion, the disciple of Sextius (vide supra, 181 2), and the Stoic Attalus (ride supra,
,
Klass. Alterth.
vi. a, 1037 sqq. Cf. likewise, respecting Seneca s philosophy, 181) Hitter, iv. Uaur, sqq. Seneca und Paulns (1858, now
;
sqq.~)
in JJrei Abhandl. &c., p. 377 Dorgens, Seneccc Disci

;
He 1) introduced him. finally embraced the calling of an advocate(A>. 41), 2), attained to the oflice of qiuestor (ad Hclv. 11), 2), married (cf. Dr
11)5,
pline Moralis cum Antoniniana

Contentio ct Comparatlo Leip 1857 Holzherr, Der PhiHast unrl losoph. L. A. Seneca
:
Ira, iii. 3G, 3 Ep. 50, 2 and concerning a child, Marcus, Epigr. 3 ad Ifelr.lS, 4 *qq.; and another who had died shortly
;
; ;
zig,
before,
Tub. 1858, \M(Gymn.progr.}. Concerning Seneca s life and

writings, besides older works, Biihr,
happy
stances
lix.
1. 5 18, G), and was in his external circum

c."2,
;
(I.
c.
5,
4;
14,
3).
Threatened by Caligula (Dio,

19),
the
1.
many
;
and banished
to Cor
c.
l>ern-
hardy, Grundriss der Horn. Liter. 4, //, p. 81 I sqq.; Teuffel, Gesch. der Ho in. Liter. 2, a, p. GIG sqq, l .()m at Corduba, of the eques trian order, the second son of the
sica under Claudius in 41 A.D. in consequence of the affair of
Messalina (Dio,
Ix. 8
Ixi.
10;
</.),
Sen. Epiijr. S. Exilio

;////<</<.
ad Poh/b.
famous
;
rhetorician, M. Ann;eus Seneca (Sen. Eplijr. S. A .ril. 8, Fr. 88 ad Heir. 18, 1 nqq. 1) Tacit. Ann. xiv. 53 -t pus*.),
; ;
13, 2; 18, 9 15, 2 he was only recalled after her fall by Agrippina in 50 A.D. He was immediately made pnutor, and the education of
Lucius Annaius Seneca came as a child with his parents to Home (ad JTelc. ID, 2). His birth must have occurred, ac cording to the statements in Nat. Qu. i. 1, 3: Ep. 108,22,
in the first years of the Chris In his early years tian era.
Xero was confided to him (Tac. Ann. xii. 8). After Nero s ac
cession
to
the throne,
lie,
to
gether with Imrrhus, was for a long time the guide of the
lioman empire and of the young

sovereign (Tac. xiii. 2). Further details as to Seneca s public life and character will be found
infra, p. 232, 3). death of Burrhus,
his
and even afterwards ho con

stantly suffered from ill health (ad Heli\ ID, 2; Ep. 54, 1 Go,
:
With
the however,
influence
;
1 78, 1 qq.\ 104, 1), and he devoted himself with threat ar dour to the sciences (Ep. 78, 3
;
end
sellor
came to an Nero discarded the coun who had long become

xiv.
first
of.
58,
5),
and especially
(Ep.
108,
7),
to to
burdensome to him (Tac. 52 -sv/y.), and seized the
philosophy
opportunity of ridding himself
SENECA.
with his sopher not only enjoys a high reputation and possesses for contemporaries, and with posterity,
]
CHAP.
us,
the Stoical writings considering that most of
have been destroyed, an especial importance, but he is in himself a really great representative of his leaders of the school, and one of the most influential
in the Koman tendency which this school took the of times in the and especially world, as its be regarded Emperors. He is not, indeed, to as the history of Roman first founder imperfectly Stoicism is known to us, we can clearly perceive that
:
from the time of Pansetius, with the growing re

striction to ethics, the
tendency also to the soften and the approximation to ing of the Stoic severity other systems is on the increase and if the moral doctrine of Stoicism on the other hand was again
;
rendered more stringent in the code of the Sextians, and of the revived Cynicism (vide infra), the neg lect of school theories and the emphasising of all
of the man whom he hated (cf. xv. 45, 46) and, perhaps, The conspiracy of also feared. Piso in the year 65 A.D. furnished a pretext for the bloody mandate, to which the philo-
many things as an author and philosopher, but at the same time testifies to his great merits ingenium facile ct copiotvm,
plurimwm
cognitio
studii, mvlta rerum and the extraordinary
;
sopher submitted with manly His second wife fortitude. Paulina (Up. 104, 1 sqq.}, who wished to die with him, was hindered in her purpose after she had already opened her
reputation he enjoyed) Plinius (H. Nat. adv. 5, 51) Tacitus (Ann. xiii. 3) Columella (R.
;
;
R.
iii.
3)
Dio Cass.
(lix.
19)
Ann. xv. 56-64). Concerning the favourable verdicts of antiquity of Quintilian (who, indeed, censures
arteries (Tac.
11
and the Christian writers (cf. Others, inHolzherr, i. 1 *#.). deed, as Gell. N.A. xii. 2, and Fronto, ad Anton. 4, 1 sq., 123
sqq., speak of little appreciation.
him with very
Seneca, Inst.
x. 1,
125
sqq., for
ECLECTICISM.
that
l]1 y human, based upon immediate and important for moral life the universalistic development of ethics the endeavour
iS
univers
consciousness
more generally comprehensible and more practicably efficient was demanded from this side also. These traits, however, are still more thoroughly developed in Seneca and his followers, and little as they wished to give up the doctrines of
after a system
their school, boldly as 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, forbearance towards human weakness, sub mission to the Divine appointments have a promin ent place.
In Seneca, the freer position in regard to the doctrine of his school which he claimed for himself,
!
That Seneca is and professes to be a Stoic requires no proof, Of. the use of nos&nd nostri,Ep. and the 113, 1 ; 117, 6 et-jnixg.
1
;
school, and unreservedly to appropriate anything that he finds *
serviceable, limits (Ep.

5).
even
1(5,
beyond
its
i.
DC
Ira,
panegyrics he bestows on StoicConx. ad Jfclr. ism, DC Const. 1 12,14; Clement, ii. 5, 3 Kp. 83, 0. He expresses himself, however, very decidedly on the right of
; ;
in this
whom lie j udges in regard to his personal merits witli a fairness that is most
curus,
He very frequently applies manner sayings of Epi-
6,
independent judgment, and on

the task of augmenting by our own enquiries the inheritance we have derived from our predeOtio, 3, 1; Kp. 33, 11; 45, 4; 80, 1; 7 *qq.). He does not hesitate, as we shall find, to oppose
;
f>4,
from a Stoic (rifle Phil. d. Gr. III. 440, 5); and if in this lie may] perhaps, be influenced, by the
i.
surprising
predilectionof hisfriendLucilius
for Epicurus, it
is,
ccssors
( V.
B.
3, 2
De
nevertheless,
unmistakable that he wishes to
tenets
and
show his own impartiality by this appreciative treatment of a

much-abused opponent.
customs
of
his
SENECA.
is
2C5
shown
of philosophy.
in his views concerning the end and problem If in the original tendencies of
CHAP.
Stoicism there already lay a preponderance of the His practical interest over the theoretical, with Seneca
this
doc-
was
so greatly increased that
he regarded many
the pro-
things considered by the older teachers of the school philoto be essential constituents of philosophy, as un- *!/%
necessary and superfluous. Though he repeats in a manner the Stoic determinations respecting general
the conception and parts of philosophy, he lays even greater stress than his predecessors on its moral end
1
and aim
2
ity,
the philosopher is a pedagogue of human philosophy is the art of life, the doctrine of
;
:
3 in philosophy morals, the endeavour after virtue we are concerned not with a game of quick-wittedness and skill, but with the cure of grave evils ; 4 it
teaches us not to talk, but to act, 5 and man learns is only useful when he applies
all
it
that a
to his
moral condition.
ultimate end
to be
According to its relation to this the value of every scientific activity is

that which does not effect our moral
Ep. 117, 33: Adice mine. quod adsiiescit animus delectare
se potiu-s
judged
1 Cf. in regard to the latter Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 51, 2, and to
the former, 1. c. 61, 1 67, 2 207 and Ep. 94

;
64,
47
sq.
quam sanare et philosopldam. oblcctamentum facere,

cum remedium
sit.
:
95, 10.
2
Ep. 89,
13.
Aristo
main-
tained that the parsenetic part of Ethics is the affair of the pedagogue, and not of the philo-
Facere docet Ep. 20, 2 pMlosophia, non dicere, &c., 24,

15.
Ep.
89,
18:
Qnicqmd
.
lc~
sopher Tamquam quicqnam aliud sit sapiens quam generis

:
humani
8
p(fdagogiis. Phil. d. Gr. III. l,pp. 51,2; 54, 1 ; Ep. 117, 12 ; 94, 39.
geris ad mores statim re/eras. LOG. tit. 23 : Heec aliis die oinnia ad mores ft ad sedan.
dam rabiem adfectuum referent.

Similarly 117, 33.
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP,
is useless, and the philosopher cannot find adequate words to express his sense of the folly of those who meddle with^such things though even in the warmth of his zeal he cannot help showing how
condition
conversant he himself
profited, he asks, by
is
with them.
What
are
we
Usekssness
theoretic
enquiries,
the enquiries with which the antiquarians occupy themselves ? Who has ever become the better and the juster for them ? How
all
!
when we remember that

important, that
that
is it
small appears the value of the so-called liberal arts, it is virtue alone that is
claims our whole soul, and that

2
!
philosophy only leads to virtue
But how much
superfluous has even philosophy admitted into
itself,
able
how much trifling word-catching and unprofit Even in the Stoic School, 3 how many subtlety
! !
Seneca things of this kind have found entrance for his part will have nothing to do with them, even
in cases
where the subtleties of which he complains

where
after
his-
Jlrrrtf. Tit. 13,
the citation of numerous ex-
Iwnornm ac malortnn immut(i hili,qu(e soli philosophic

seientia
amples of antiquarian and
com pet It
alin
<li>
nih.il
autem
mal\s
nil a
<irs
torical enquiries he concludes thus: Ciijus ista erroren mini/ent,cnjus cnpiditates prement? Quern fortiorem,qncm jutfiorem, quern liberalioreni facient ? 2 This is disc.usscd at leng tli in Ef). 88. Seneca here shows that grammar, music, creometry, arithmetic, and astronomy are at most a prejiaration for 1 lie
bmi is ac
qu<cr\t
et spatiom res (p. 28). cut stipienfin. Tacuo Hit lo,-o opusest : tic (Jirinis hnmanisque
Magna
discendum
futurit,
,vc.
tic
H<rc
r.</,
dc,
e<t<luc,is,
preterit is, de fct-crnis,

mvltfi,
<le
turn
tarn-
higher instruction, but in themselves are of subordinate value

(p. 20)
:
habere possint libennn hospitht.m, snperi acna ex aninio tollentla mint. JYtni dalitseiii has fnif/uxtias rirttis : la.rum
niar/na
tit
spatiutn
tu*
3
/vx
intigna
desidcrat.
Scis
([U(f
recta sitlinea:
Expellantnr omnia.
illi
Totum pec-
quid
tiln
red inn
Una
*t, xi qirid !n rita. sit,ifjnorns ? \-c.(p. 18). re consnmmatnr aninnis,

/>ro<tt
meet
Ep.
Cf.
(p. 33-3o). 88, 42,
SENECA.
are evidently connected with the presuppositions of the Stoic doctrine, 1 and in the same way he
easily disposes of the dialectical
:
1>07
CHAP.
VIII.
objections of their
opponents trifling juggleries not worth the trouble of investigating, not only the fallacies which so readily occupy the ingenuity of a
2 Chrysippus and his followers, but also those compre hensive discussions of the sceptics, which gave the
he considers as
ancient Stoa so
much employment and the eclectic arguments against the sensible phenomenon are simply reckoned by him among the superfluous and trifling enquiries which merely serve to divert us from the things that are necessary for us to know. 3
;
Superflu-
Ep. 117, 13; ^.113,1 gqq. In both cases he embarks on the exposition and refutation of the Stoic definitions of the long and the broad in order to accuse their authors and himself of having wasted their time with such useless questions in stead of employing themselves in something necessary and profitable. Similarly in Ep. 106
et
rance of which does not harm, nor knowledge of them profit

:
us Quid me defines in eo, quern tu ipse \l/fvS6fj.ei/ov adpellas .? Ecce tota mihi vita mentitur, &c. 49 Similarly Ep. 48
.
.
5, sqq.
Ep. 88, 43 Audi, quantum, mali faciat nimia subtilitas et quam infesta reritati sit. Pro tagoras says we can dispute for
:
passim ride infra, p. 208, 1. 2 His predeces Ep. 45, 4 sors, the great men, have left many problems Et invenissent
;
:
and against everything; Nausiphanes,
that
not, just as
much
;
everything
as it is
;
is
Par-
forsltan neccssaria, nisiet super-
vacua
qufrsissent.
Multum
illis
temporis
verborum
.
carillatio
menides, that nothing is except the universe Zeno, of Elea, nihil esse. Circa eademfere Pyrrlionci veraantur et Megarici et
eripuit et oaptioscB disputation es, exerqua? acumen inritum

,
.
cent.
should search out not the meaning of words, but the good and the evil things and not fence with sophisms the acetabula prcpstigiatorum fcf. the 4/rjôirar/crat of Arcesilaus, Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 495, 4) igno
;
We
vam induxerunt scienttnm,

scire
Jicec
Eretrici et Academici, qui nonihil
vacuum studiorum
gregem
cornice, &c.
omnia in ilium super

liberalium
Nan
facile
dixerim, utris magis irascar, illis qui won nihil scire voluerunt, an illis, qui ne hoc qmdem nobis reUquerunt, nihil scire.
208
CHAP.
ECLECTICISM.
Wisdom, he says, is a simple thing and requires no great learning it is only our want of moderation which so extends the sphere of philosophy for life, the School questions are for the most part worthless
:
they injure, indeed, rather than benefit, for they render

the
We
mind small and weakly, instead of elevating it. 2 certainly cannot, as we have already seen and
Seneca exactly at his word in
;
shall see later on, take
regard to such declarations but it is undeniable that he wishes to limit philosophy in principle to
as
moral problems, and only admits other things so for they stand in manifest connection with those
problems. This principle must inevitably separate our phi

losopher from that portion of philosophy to which the older Stoics had originally paid great attention, but which they had ultimately regarded as a mere
outwork of their system viz., Logic. If, therefore, Seneca includes it under the three chief divisions of
3 philosophy, the subject
is
only cursorily and occaEp. 47, 4 sq.\ 87, 38 sq.; 88, 36 Pin* scire relic qua in sit
:
11. After a Ep. 106, thorough discussion of the proposition thatthe good is a body
1
satis,
intemperantite tjenus
est.
110, 1) (Part III. i. 120, 1, 3 Latrwnciilis Ixdlnnts, in super;
raca.nels subtilitas teritur
non,
faciunt bonos ista, sed doctor, apertwr res cat sap ere, inunn Ptiiicix est ad mensiniplicwr.
tein
117, 18, after discussing the statement that sanot napere, is a good: pie;itia,i\ru\ Oinniaista circa sapientinm, nan in ipxa snnt : at obis in ijfxti
-In Ep.
cninmorandum
est
Jiffc
rent,
ut
bnnatn cetera
uti In
literis
sed no*
itiiperraeanenni
di tTtindinnix,
ipxain.
ita
plillowpTilam
de qnibus paulo ante diccbtn/i, mininint rt. deprinuint, nee, ut jjutatit, exacuunt,sed extcnuant.
Similarly, Ep. 82, 22. 3 Vide Phil. d. Gr. III.
04, 1; 67, 2.
i.
reruni,
sic
Quemadmodum omnium lite, ram m quoque
61,
intemperantia laboramus : non rita- sed scliolcc discinius. Cf.
Elsewhere, however {Ep. 95, 10), philosophy is di-
LOGIC AND PHYSICS.

sionally touched
209
upon
in his writings.
He
expresses
CHAP.
himself at times in agreement with his school respecting the origin of conceptions, and the demon
he speaks of opinion ; the highest conception and of the most universal 2 conceptions subordinated to it ; he shows generally that he is well acquainted with the logical defini
strative
force
of general
tions of his school
3
;
but he himself has no inclin
ation to enter into

his opinion this
them more
lies
whole region
deeply, because in 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 writings also he has devoted to
it
He praises Physics for imparting to greater space. the mind the elevation of the subjects with which
it
4
occupies itself;
in the preface, indeed, to

far
his
5 writings on Natural History, he goes so
as to
vided, as with the Peripatetics, into theoretical and practical philosophy; and in Ep. 94, 45, virtue is similarly divided (as with Pansetius, vide supra, p. This division was all the 48). more obvious to a philosopher who ascribed no independent value to logic.
3); the animate is partly mortal and partly immortal (cf. En.
124, 14).
3
Besides the quotations

;
<??/-
j>ra,pp.
Phil.d.Gr.UI.i.7,3;75,2. Ep. 58, 8 sqq. Phil.d. Gr. III. i. 92. The highest conception is that of Being this is
2
; ;
207, 1 208, 1, 2, cf. in regard to this, Ep. 113, 4 *q. t and Phil. d. fir. III. i. 97, 2 Ep. 102, 6 sq. JYat. Qn. II. 2, 2, and Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 96, 2 118, 4. 4 Ep. 117, 19: DC Deorum
; ;
;
natura qutframn.
de siderum
alimento, de liis tain rariis stelItirum discursibus, &c. 1sta,
partly corporeal, partly incorporeal the corporeal is partly living, and partly lifeless the living is partly animated with a soul and partly inanimate (xf/u%^ and (pvais, vide ibid. III. i. 192,
; ;
jam a formatione morum recessennit : sed levant animum et

ad ipsanim quas tractant rerum magnitudinem adtollunt.
3
^ a ?2
:
Q"-
i-
Prol.
Cf. vi.
erit
4,
Qm>d,
inquis,
pre~
210
CHAP,
ECLECTICISM.
maintain that Physics are higher than Ethics, in proportion as the Divine with which they are concerned
is
us from eart
higher than tin? Human; they alone lead 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
;
while to
us.
live, if
Where
physical investigations were forbidden would be the greatness of combating
our passions, of freeing ourselves from evils, if the for the know spirit were not prepared by Physics of the heavenly, and brought into communica ledge
tion with (rod
external,
if
we were only
raised above the
while,
and not also above ourselves, &c. ^leanwe soon perceive that these declamations express rather a passing mood than the personal
Seneca elsewhere reckons
physical enquiries,
to
opinion of the philosopher.
which we have just heard
him
assign so high a position, among the things which go beyond the essential and necessary, and are
rather an affair of recreation than of philosophical work proper; though he docs not overlook their
morally elevating effect on the mind;

Hunt
opcr<f
he declares
<le
?
n<t
nut iix fxt,

<_Tc;itest
n.ottxv
tit
Quo nulliun d in. The

I
nntnra /H (iHwr/tto,
G~>,
tunnx,
x nlirnm
/>.
train
of this enquiry
nunjniji-ceniia
nii
/
is, f/tt/if/
lunitiiu in
in C
Similarly in ! In, n discussion on ultimate onuses is defended as follows:

\"c.
d</t>
xni
<letiitet,
ccilc,
V~),
,vv-c7
niii iicnlo
colitnr
1
(J
f.
/>.
10,
ct EIJO //unit in jiriard ilUi trdi-t, tjiiilnix jKicntiir aniiniai,

ft nir ftrhnsscrutor^ (Jfinrfr hum*. in n nil a in ^\ r mine (jiiidt in
.
^c.
1
).
Eft. 117,
.
(<
su/>.
]x I OH,
Dialectic is only concerned with the out works of wisdom. I Anini xl i/n iii eragari libft,
ani/iUm liahct ill/i \_ssa-jricnti fi~\ ytatiusogfuc atccsaus : de Deorum
4V
//
////>//*,
ut
r,r!xfii//(in,
jicrdo.
e>>i/<
Ixta i-nim oninin, xi non idd/iti/r nee in Intne xnhti!it<iti/iL

iniiHh-tn
ct Iccant
(Hxtrahantur,adtUunt
aninium.
In the con-
PHYSICS.
ETHICS.
211
the essential problem of man to be the moral problem, and only admits natural enquiries as a
CHAP.
VIJI.
and he considers it a duty from time to time his expositions of natural history by moral reflections and practical must have reference applications, because all things
means and help
to this
to interrupt
to our welfare. 2
theoretical
The interconnection between the

practical
and
doctrines
of
the
Stoic
not abandoned by him, but it seems to be laxer than with Chrysippus and his followers.
system
is
In those of his writings that have come down to us, Seneca has treated in detail only that part of Physics which the ancients were accustomed to call
3 Meteorology. To this in the last years of his life he devoted seven books of enquiries into natural
templation of the world and its author, man raises himself above the burden of the flesh,
Cf.
Nat. Qu.
;
v. 15,
18
ii.
vi.
2,
cially
59.
18; iv. 13; 32 but espe After he has

iii.
;
learns to know his high origin treated of lightning at length, and destiny, to despise the body he remarks that it is much and the corporeal, and to free more necessary to remove the himself from it. Lofty as is fear of it, and proceeds to do the position here assigned to so in these words Sequar quo speculative enquiries, Seneca vocas : omnibus enim rebus omniin the last resort can only b usque sermonibns aliquid salutare ini.W ndum t st. Cum imus justify them by their moral effect on men. per occvlta nature?, cum dit-ina 1 18: tractamus, vindicandus est a Mat. Qu. iii. Prof. 10, Quid prfecipunm in rebus Jiu- malis suis animus ao siibinde Vltia domuixse Jirmandus, &c. manis est? 3 This appears from iii. Prof., er iff ere anim/um supra minas Hoc and from the description of the et promisia fortwrue, &c. nobis prodcrit inspicere rerum earthquake which in the year natnram. because we thereby 63 A.D. destroyed Pompeii and loose the spirit from the body Herculaneum, vi. i. 26, 5. Seneca and from all that is base and had already composed a treatise low, a,nd because the habit of on earthquakes in his earlier thought thus engendered is years (Nat. Qu. vi. 4, 2). favourable to moral convictions.
:
p2
21 2
ECLECTICISM.
HAP.
history.
Meanwhile
the
1
contents
of
the
work
answer very imperfectly to the lofty promises 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 standpoint is little affected by
them, and would
suffer
no material alteration
if
even
the greater part of their results were totally different from what they are. For us they are of the less im
portance, since their subject-matter seems mostly to have been taken from Posidonius and other prede
cessors. 2
It is the
same with other writings on natural
His mrtaandth"i>-
3 The metahistory which are attributed to Seneca. and theological opinions which he occasion physical
ally enunciates, are of

doctrlites.
more value
in regard to philo-
sophy. But even here, no important deviations from the Stoic traditions are to be found. Like the Stoics,
Seneca presupposes the corporeality of

In proof of this let anyone read the beginning of the treatise, and he will scarcely be able to resist the feeling of an almost comic disappointment, when the author, after the above-mentioned declamations
1
all
the Real
4
;
According to Hin. 77. X. i. ix. 53. lie consulted Seneca about his statements on water animids and stones, liny, vi. 17, 60, and Servius on
.,
:;<;
lf>7,
Jin.
ix. 31,
mention a
<t
DC
1 .14
,
ittn
D<:
ldl<c;
on the dignity of natural enqnirv, after the concluding senSi niJill aliud, hoc wrte tence
:
xifn
treatise, Serv. Jin. vi. xucrix

])c
Jl</i//>-
tnrinn.
Cassiodorus,
7,
Art.
JJh.
c.
speaks of
\
another
4
;
St-!f//,
(i/nn xi
inrnxtis
a<l
Dt
tiin,
an i list a r.s .-v, continues: Xniic

>
treatise,
]]:
DC forma nnnxU.
1
CLJ^>.
.">
7,
;
"2
!()(>,
10r>,
projtosituni
fit
(!
>
rariani
<>//x.
.sv/y.
Audi quid
quo*
)
iynibns tranxcrrsox
.
si
.
.
ittmni,
indeed,
sioiis
oj^j/ost S
where Seneca, some conclu-
of
this subject, and the content of Xut. ^M., Phil. d. r.

Cf.
on
but
self.
expres.-ly
Stoic materialism, teaches it him-
111.
i.
Jl, 2, 3.
GOD AND MATTER.

like
213
them he
working in
does this
matter from the force and the Deity from matter and he in exactly the same sense as they do the
discriminates
l
CHAP.
VI
I
it,
the spiritus, the breath, which forms and holds together material substances. 2 Even the
active force
is
Deity
the Spirit, not as an incorporeal essence, but as the TTvsvfjba permeating the whole universe, 3 cor
is
So also he poreally and in an extended manner. follows the Stoic doctrine of the relation between
God and
the world
God
is
not merely the reason of
the world, but the world itself, the whole of the 4 Seneca, however, visible, as of the invisible things. brings forward much more emphatically the moral
and
spiritual side of the Stoic idea of
God
and in
accordance with this he prefers to place the efficient

Ct.Pkil.d. 6V. III. i. 131, Proofs 4 also 177, 1. 134, 1 of the existence of God, 134, 3;
1 ; ;
161,2; 135,5.
-
Ibid. III.
i.
118, 4.
Seneca s
that even visible things are described as parts of the Deity (Pldl.d. Gr.lll.i. 146, 6); that only a corporeal god can take back into himself the
rialistically
;
conception of spirit us will be discussed infra, p. 219, in connection with his psychology. 3 Seneca is not very explicit here, but, from the fact that everything efficient must be a
corporeal world by means of the world s conflagration (Z. c.

If, therefore, Seneca 144, 1). {ad Heir. 8, 3) places the Platonic conception of Deity as the reason, and incorporeal Stoic conception, according to which the Deity is the univer-
body (Ep. 117, 2), it follows that what he says {Ep. 102, 7) must hold good even of the
world
that the unity of everything depends upon the toit spiritu-s which holds gether that the soul which he represents to be of the same
viz.,
;
sally ditVused spirit us, side
by
side
without discriminating them, the second only correspends with his o\vn opinion, 4 Cf. Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 146, 6
;
148,
i.
substance with Deity in fact, as a part of Deity is, as we shall presently find, conceived by Seneca, in agreement with the whole Stoic school, mate-
jalso.fr. 16(ap. Lact. lust. 5, 27) guaniris ipse per tottim

1
:
se
and
corpus (sc. uwndfyintenderat also the Stoic doctrine of

;
Pneuma and
r6vos.
14
ECLECTICISM.
activity of
.
CHAP.
God
in the world
under the idea of Provi-
dence, and the order and arrangement of the world under the teleological aspect. God is the highest reason, the perfect Spirit, whose wisdom, omni
science, holiness, and, above
all,
1
His beneficent good
He loves us as a ness, are continually extolled. and desires to be loved by us, and not feared ; 2 father,
and therefore the world, whose Creator and ruler 3 He is, is so perfect and beautiful, and the course of the
which Seneca proves in many Since his general theory of the universe has ways. its centre in the moral life of man, so in his con
world so blameless
4
;
ception of
for
the physical element is less promi nent than the ethical it is the care of the Deity
:
God
men, His goodness and wisdom,

is
is
in
which His
perfection therefore it
principally revealed to Seneca; and inevitable that the personal aspect of
the Deity, in which, as reason forming and govern ing the world and working according to moral ends,
distinguished from the world itself, should preponderate, as compared with the Pantheistic
is
He
aspect, in which the Deity the substance of the, world.

ever, to say
5
is
It
not only the soul, but

is
going too
far,
how
and thus
that Seneca abandoned the Stoic idea, gave to ethics a new direction ; that
whereas in true Stoicism God and matter are in

1
7V///.
Authorities arc jrivon dr. III. i. 13!),

</.
in
1;
3
/>.
LT>;
1).
Lact.
f/txt.
i.
~>,
2(5;
7>V.
S, 4.
<1
14S,
-
1.
Others
may
15
easily
i.
i) .)
be
171,
3
Cf.
! ,
:
7V//7.
dr.
13f>,
III.
5.
;
i.
p.
found.
])>
Cf. Holzhcrr,
*#.
(5;
178, 2
Pnn\
ii.
Jt,-in
D>
f.
<),
4-0;
;
KIJ.iv.
2.
1!),
Hol/.herr,
5
.-v^.
i.
33
3G
91 ayy.
1;
ii.
Ira,
ii.
11, 1
cf. p. oi:5, 1.
FORCE AND MATTER.

their essential nature one, in Seneca they appear as is to him the incoressentially different ; that God who has formed the world by His free
215
poreal nature, no longer the god of the will, and that his god is but of the Platonists. Our previous argu Stoics, ments will rather have shown that the conception of
God, which according to this exposition is peculiar to Seneca, is in no way foreign to the elder Stoics that they, too, laid great stress on the goodness and
;
wisdom of God, and on His benevolence to man; they,

too,
all regarded Him as the Spirit that guides the reason that has ordered and adapted all things, them also the belief things for the wisest ends ; by in Providence is regarded as of the highest value, and is most vigorously defended ; and the law of
the universe and of morality coincides with the will of God. They will also have shown that Seneca, on the other hand, is far from abandoning those
1
definitions of his
according to which the distinction between efficient force and matter is only a derived distinction, and consequently is often an
school
nulled in the course of the world

that he,
1
too>
development
2
;
seeks
1
God
171
g.
in the irvsvpa conceived as

;
159,
the doctrine of the Stoic school, to which Seneca, indeed, exand when in 505 sq. pressly appeals mere quesEp.b, 16, where Seneca says De Prav. 5,9 (the i. can exactly the same as is. quoted tions in Nat. Qu. Prtef. 16, from Chrysippus, Phil. d. Gr. prove nothing) he brings forward the proposiIII. i. 143, 2. Similarly Holz- for the Theodicee herr s chief proof for the essen- tion that the Divine artist is tial difference between God and dependent on his material, he matter (Ep. 65), as will be seen follows herein not only Plato, from Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 131, 4 but also Chrysippus.asis shown Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 177, 1. syq., entirely corresponds with
Cf. Phil. d. 6?7vIH.i. 130, 1
1
;
161
163,
- 10
ECLECTICISM.
declares incorporeal Spirit the parts of the world to be parts of the Deity, and God and the world to be the same; 2 identifies
l
n<
>
vYll*
C01 l )0roal antl not in
3 nature, fate, and God, and reduces the will of God to the law of the universe, and Providence to the
unalterable concatenation
therefore, a
of natural
exists
causes. 4
If,
certain
difference
between his
theology and that of the elder Stoics, this does not

consist in
theirs,
his giving
up any
essential definition of
;
it is introducing any new definition merely that among the constituents of the Stoic conception of God he lays greater emphasis on the
or
ethical aspects,
and therefore brings that conception
nearer, sometimes to the ordinary presentation, sometimes to the Socratic-Platonic doctrine. This
is
primarily a consequence of the relation in which the moral and speculative elements stand with him
:
as the latter
subordinate to the former, so the metaphysical and physical determinations of the

is
in his exposition less theology prominent than the ethical. Pmt it was all the easier on this account for the dualism of the Stoic ethics to react
Stoic
are
upon
1
his
theology, and
213,
III.
3.
i.
:
it
is
undeniable that the
Vide
Phil.
1
;
*tij>rfi,
<l.
(ir.
:
Mfi,
(}
Ihl nomina
/.,,<.
fat tun. ffirtunam.oniniaejutfJrm uttt raric utcntis
48,
40
//IT. i/tin
in Kp. .12, MO Tot inn en nil uc in u i\ ct UHI///I cat
SIKI potextntc, c ,t.
and
HM, 2
Pli iL
:
d.
dr.
1,
ft
Ileus: ct socii
:!
sumus
III.
i.
cjus ct
;//.
HI.
1
.
I."7,1
ef.
HIS,
wt-mbra.
The same
i
results
Phil
1 :
d.
dr.
110
vi. 1
,.
tli.ni-h
from Jt, \,cf. Seiuca at first ex-
Jicm-f. iv. S, 2: A cc uatura tine Leo rxt nee Den* sine

1
I.".,
iiattiru,
.NYY/
idem
. .
raf
utruiiitjtic,
liimself as if the will of the -ods were tlie author of the laws of the universe.
]>resses
distut v(hcio
nuturdin cuca,
NATURE. THE WORLD.

opposition of God and matter, in direct connection with the ethical opposition of sense and reason, is
217
CHAP.
more strongly asserted by him than

1
their original
however, on this side he has reached the unity. limits of the Stoic doctrine, he did not really over
If,
step them.
theory of the world Thcmiesof and of nature anything that contradicts the prinHis utterances concerning the nature. clples of the Stoics.
find in Seneca
s
j
Nor do we
origin, the end,

its
and the new formation of the world

itself
2
;
form
3
;
its
unity establishing
out of contra
the
ceaseless
dictions,
and maintaining
itself in
5 change of things ; its beauty asserting itself in the multiplicity of its productions ; the perfect adapta 6 tion of means to ends in its arrangement, as to
which even the

doubt
7
evil in it should
not cause us any
these serve to complete and verify the ; accounts we have from other sources respecting the doctrines of his school. To the littleness and superall
1
Vide Ep. 65, especially 2

23.
and
2
Phil d. Gr. III. i. 149, 3; 144, 1; 152,2; 154, 1; 155; 156,

In Seneca these doctrines 3. are connected with the theory that mankind and the world in
in
general had been uncorrupted proportion as they were nearer their first beginnings. He opposes, however, the exaggerated notions of Posidonius on this subject. Cf Ep.
.
3 sq. V. Be. 8, 4 sq. Ep. 107, 8 and Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 179, 3 183, 1. 5 Loc.cit.lH, 3 \Senef. iv.23. 6 Prucid. i. 1, Ep. 113, 16 ; 2-4 J\7/f. (Ju. i. Proann. 14 sq. with these passages Sen. Cf. ad Marc. 18. The licnef. iv. 5 conception of the world as an
27,
: ; ;
l>e
<urlnt
munis,
is d.
especially from s. 36, and P/iil d. Gr. III. i. 269, 6. 3 Fr. 13, andP/aZ. d. Gr. III. i. 146, 6, end.
1)0,
4
hominibuiqwe cointhe latter passage eminently Stoic. Vide Phil. Gr. III. i. 285, 1 286, 2:361 yq. ~ Concerning the Stoic Theoin
;
Dls
dicee, tion in
and Seneca
it
participa-
JT.
Qu.
iii.
10,
1,
3;
vii.
(about which much might be quoted) vide ibid. III. i. 173 sqq.
218
ECL EC TICISM.
the Stoic teleology had already an early period, he opposes the propositions that the world was not created merely for men it
ficiality into whicli
CHAP,
VIII
fallen at
rather carries
its
purpose
in itself
and follows
its
own laws;
it,
it is
an undue limitation when we place
under the aspect of the useful, instead of ad

its
2 He does not, however, glory as such. deny that in the arrangement of the world regard was paid to the welfare of man, and that the gods
miring
What he
3 unceasingly show the greatest benevolence to men. likewise concerning the system of the says
universe and
and their
heavenly
nature,
e irth,
5
the elements, their qualities parts transition into each other; 4 on the
its
bodies,
their
their
revolution,
their
divine
influence
spirit
and the
on earthly things; 6 the that animates it 7 on the

;
8 regular interconnection of the universe, interrupted no empty spaces, all this only deviates from the by
Stoic tradition in regard to certain details which do not affect his theory of the universe as a whole. 9
1
DC
;
Ira,
27,2: .\tit.Qu.\\\.
Jlcm-f.
iii.
it
I.
c.
.Y<tt.
Qu.
ii.
11
30, 3 Jirtirf. vi. 20. Jtftu f. iv. 23 sq.

3
2 ., 2), but lie couples with in the manner of his school
lint cf.l.
;
c.
vi.
;
23, 3 xq.
iv.
i.
the theory of
a natural pro-
1.
t
!>
( )it.
29, 4 .svy. v. IS et pax*.

ii.
5;
i.
X<it.
i^nost ieation throutrh the stars, which, as he believes, is as little
liil.
<L
(lr.
1
ITT.
;
17!>,
(Xtit. Qi(.\\\. 10, i. is:;, -2: IS I,
3);
il>i</.\\\.
Id): and
vi.
5
1(>);
ibiil.
IS"),
(.\t. (,)n. ii. 3 (Xat. ( hi.

t
the five planets as the inlluence above mentioned ad Marc. (\at. hi. ii. 32, *y.
continctl to
<
18, 3).
Xat. Xat. )u.

<
( )n. ii. (i; t
Ay^.31,
;
">.
vi. 1(5, 2
vii.
;
21,
2:;.
6
Jtcucf. iv. 23, 4
1,0; vi. 21-
On Qn. vi. 1 fi ii. 5. the repose of the earth, ritJr l)r Pror\,L i. 1,2 Kp. U3, !) X,it.
T
X<it.
:
(Ju.
8
i.
cf. vii. 2, 3.
(
(
In regard to this influence Seneca alludes first to the natural inlluence of the
Xnt.
)u.
i.
ii.
2-7
(cf. Pli J.
fir. III.
9
stars (e.g.
1S7, 4). ,So in i-egard tu the comets,
HUMAN NATURE.
He
*o
also adheres to that tradition in the few passages
219
CHAP.
be found in
his
works mentioning
terrestrial
1 natures exclusive of man.
In his views of
human
nature he
is
farther
removed from the doctrine of the elder Stoics. The the Stoic groundwork of these views is formed by
materialism; but the dualism of the Stoic ethics, the reaction of which on his theoretical view of the world had already made itself
psychology with
its
felt
in his theology, acquires a stronger and more direct influence on his anthropology, in which con
On the sequently two tendencies cross one another. one hand, he wishes to derive, with his school, the whole life of the soul from a simple principle con on the other, the ethical oppo ceived materially sition of the inner and the outer, which even in the
;
Stoic doctrine
is
so sharply accented, is transferred
man, and based and thus over against the ancient Stoic upon it; monism a dualism is introduced, which approximates to the Platonic anthropology, and depends upon it. The soul, says Seneca (in general agreement with
by him
to the essential nature of
the
Stoics), is
a body, for otherwise

effect
it
could not
It
possibly have any

which he considers
a upon the body.
must,
to be
wan-
dering stars with very distant orbits (Aatf. Qu. vii. 22 sqq.}. Seneca agrees with the discrimination of *is and c. (Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 192, 3) by virtue of his classification of essential natures mentioned snprti,p. 20 i), 2 likeChrysippus (Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 193, 1) he,
1
<(>v<ns,
indeed, ascribes to the animals a principals, but denies them not only reason, but affections
(De
cides
Ira,
i.
what
3). is
With
this coin-
remarked con,#<?.).
cerning the soul life of animals (Ep. 121,5$^.; 124, 16 2 He expresses himself quite unequivocally on this point, in Ep. 106, 4, and it is not true
2:20
ECLECTICISM.
however Certainly be the even than fire and air.
>
TllL
_
finest of all substances, finer

1
It
This theory had not pre breath, or irvsvpa,: vented the elder Stoics from recognising the divine nature and dignity of the human spirit to the fullest
extent, and Seneca
that
is so completely possessed by it no other theorem which he reiterates more frequently and more Human
warm
consists, in a word, of
there
is
emphatically.
reason
effluence of Deity, a part of the Divine Spirit implanted in a human body, a god who
his
is
to
him an
has taken up
relationship to
(llolzherr,
is
ii.
abode there
God he
and on this our on the one hand, his bases,

;
47) to say that
lie
arguing from a Stoic premiss which he did not himself share. On the contrary, he is speaking in his own name; and if he
ultimatelv declares the investigation of the question whether the good is a body to be worthless (xttjj/-(t, p. L i)7. ), it does not follow that he himself does not ivgard the good as such, still less that he was not in earnest as to
1
soul the
:
for
i
an
affection
qtiodinn
.
is
only
se
L O,
1
tin
unfit
modo
i.
Imlien* (P/iil. d. (f r III.

,)
:
and
if
the corporeal
alo"ne
can work upon the body, the

soiil
must be
poreal, as Cleanthes
shown (Hid.
1
/>.
something corhad already

i.
]<(-,
ill.
1).
lie
proposition which
assist
is
/. As the flame or 57, S. the air cannot be subjected to or a blow, .v/V <iniinnx, pressure n! i, r tenuissimo i/ conyfut, dc. jiri Iir/nii tnnt jxitrtt (iillnic tt tniior cut ijiil
. .
is
brought
oi
it
forward to
but
viz.,
(tntnio,
this enquiry,
it/tie,
j)er
quite independent that the soul is a body. The same holds good of the further proposition (/. r.) that the affections and the diseases of the s.-ul are bodies, and of the reason given for it that they cause the changes of ex
pression, blushing and turning pale, ,vc., and that tln-y cannot be accounted for: Tn in mtiniji ttit*
;/;.</
oin/ie CO/ JHIX

."M.
}:/>.
fti//<i
(
art.
If a man can wood, and make straight, f/uanto fociHux ((trim HX accijiit forma HI. Ih .riliillx cf omul more obxeqn ntior !
.
bend
it
(.-rooked
Jt it
(Jnul
(jinr.n
,sy;/
/-/
cnl in
,<f
ullnd
anlnuix
ijtKtdani modo ,v- Imlcits ///x / VI den tuitciK laitfo

rx,\v
sjiiritum
aJi/i
fneilwrcm
omul
L>.
iiiafrrl<(.
<;
tnin/ito teniilorcst. L
t>f(,
c<i/
(i
t-.Tixire.
Vie
in ni lm /i(i/-i This also Seneca

i i
declares to
it.
his own. opinion,

so
is
(I. ,-.\\\.\. l.ir,, and where definitions entirely similar are proved to be uni
1
Cf. Phil.
IL
,
however, the affections are

the
versal
among
the Stoics.
something corporeal,
VIRTUES AND VICES.

demand
for
221
the elevation of the soul above the

for the
CHAP.
earthly, and
recognition of the dignity of in every man ; and, on the other, the mankind internal freedom of the man who is conscious of his
This thought, high origin and essential nature. however, takes a direction with Seneca which makes him deviate from the ancient Stoic doctrine on the
1
side of Platonism.
The Divine
in
man
;
is
his reason,
but in opposition to reason stand the irrational impulses, the affections and in com
;
and that alone
bating the affections Seneca, as we shall find, in accordance with the whole Stoic school, finds the
weightiest moral problem. The elder Stoics had not allowed this to confuse them in their belief as to
the oneness of
But already Posidonius had discovered that the affections could not
s
man
essential nature.
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 human nature. With all the greater the more vividly he felt its moral weakness and force, imperfection, the more absolutely he was convinced
Seneca
s
view of
that no
human being was without fault that all vices were implanted in all men that the superior power of evil in human society as a whole would never be
; ;
broken, nor the complaints of the corruption of mariners cease ; 3 and that even after the renovation
1
Some
of his utterances on
12
this subject are quoted, Phll.d. Gr. III. i. 200, 2 201, 1 and mpra, 216, 2 vide also ad Helv.
; ; ;
Ep. 41, 5 44, 1 65, 20 sq.-, 120, 14, &c. 2 Cf. supra, p. 64. 3 Cf. Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 253
;
6, 7
11, 6 gq.
Nat. Qu.
i.
Prcef.
sq.
Belief, vii. 27
Ep.
1)4,
54
222
ECLECTICISM.
.
CH
vm
>
of the world the ensuing time of innocence would Such a universal phe be only of short duration.
1
nomenon cannot possibly be regarded as accidental if a few only sustain the conflict with sin, none or
:
next to none are free from
it
and side by side with reason, from which error and sin cannot be derived, an element which is irrational and strives against This irrational element of human nature reason. 2
;
by element not Divine
side
side with the Divine, there
and therefore in man, must also be an
which,
Seneca finds primarily in the body, the opposition of to the Spirit he emphasises much more
strongly than the ancient Stoics appear to have The body, or, as he also contemptuously calls done.
it,
the
flesh, is
something
so worthless that
:
we cannot
think meanly enough of it 3 it is a mere husk of the soul: a tenement into which it has entered for
a short time,
and can never
feel
:
itself at
home
burden by which it is oppressed a fetter, a prison, for the loosing and opening of which it must necesand elsewhere. Expressions
like
<l.
those in Ej). 11, 1-7: 57, 4, are of less importance. \nt. Qu.\\\. 30,8; cf. Phil. 3. dr. III. i. p. Seneca himself seems freely
1
!"><),
natural destiny and vocation, and are not inherent in us;

ally,
they develop themselves Lrraduliut that does not exclude
the
3
theory that they develop themselves from natural causes,

En.
<>
to admit this.
in
iiitli
i
/>M,S-,
,v/"
"),"),
he says,
ixtitHflS fiiju
.
(>.">,
22:
.\ //:,/
t~
1; fi ///
me,
Eii.
4,
I
( ,1
Cd
.
.
<tfd
cmn iirllt
tin in
i.
oil
inrtinit
xc a
nt
itid
linnet:
.
ii ti
Hi
in linmtrcnt
i<inir.
vi tiiTiint, int/i tln xii n f tid turn cotieilint nnx rif

/ i
tt/llli
:
C(>Tjmm
t
it!
nii
HIII
iJI/i
linjnt cixmii
KIK- H
-
illn
/f,
</
>xf
/-dim
.
n>
cui><
nt
i-<l
rut fir lilx-rnx

ra):
(
<irnnif.
l!ut
r
(nfrni
r itiL
must be iud_ ed the standard of the Stoic fatalism. Vices stand, indeed, in opposition to our
this utt
e
.iccui-diiitr
mii crrt/i
cnntem frfim corjioris r.ln iinx ext. oncrrnf

.
to
the expression cf. ml M/I/-I 2 I. :. ////. 71. 1C: H2, 10; and 7V//7. d. dr. 111. i. 4 lii, 3.
:
IMMORTALITY.
l
223
sarily
long
its
with
its
flesh
body through ings, but in itself

exalted above
it is
exposed to attacks
it
is
must do battle, and suffer and invulnerable, 2 pure

it
CHAP.
the body, even as God is exalted matter. 3 The true life of the soul begins, above therefore, with the departure from the body, and
though Seneca
is
belief in immortality
averse to exchanging the Platonic 4 for the Stoic theory of a

of existence after
limited continuance
death, he
5 (as has already closely approximates to the latter in his idea of the close relationship been shown)
existing between the present and future life, and also in respect to the duration of future existence him which a Stoic expressions involuntarily escape
in the strictest sense of the term would not have
ventured to employ
6
;
even the pre-exist ence of the
soul, which as personal existence certainly had no finds countenance in passages place in his system,
Ep. 92, 13, 33 The body a garment, a velamentwn of the soul, an onus necessarium. 102, 26: The day of death is (fterni natalis. Depone onus : qmd cunctaris ? 120, 14: Ncc
1
:
is
2 Ad Marc. 24, 5 Omne illi cum hoc came grave certamen

:
Ad
domum
Hum.
pitium
esse hoc corpus, sed hoset quidem breve hospi-
ite abstrahatur et sidat. Heir. 11, 7 Corpusculum hoc, custodia ct vincnlum anlmi, hue atque iliac jactatur animus quidem ipse sacer et
est,
Corpus hoc animi poudus (ic pcena est : premente illo wgetur, in mnculis est, nisi
65, 16
:
ffternus est et cui inici manux.

3
non
jtassit
Ep.
65,
24
Quern in hoc
obtlnet, hutic
J\ at.
mundo locum Dens

in
4
Loc. c. accessit philosophia, I will not be a slave to cit. 21

:
hominc animus.
Phil. d. Gr. III.
1.
Qu.
1
;
Preef. 14.
i.
my
body, quod
equidem
non
154,
aliter adspicio quam mnclum aliquod libertati mete circumda-
202,
5 6
Ibid. 203 sq.
turn
c dio
in hoc obnoxio domiJiabitat.
Jmmortalis,
;
animus liber Ep. 102, 22 ad Marc.

;
57, 9
and
;
(Ptcrnus (Ep. Phil. d. Gr. III. i.
24, 5
i.
ad
3.
154, 1
203, 3).
Poltjb. 9, 3
Part III.
203,
2t
ECLECTICISM.
where the recollection of
joined upon the soul, and represented as a return to
leaves
its
hi"-h
CHAP.
VI
1 1
descent
i<
enis
it
1
its
its
elevation to heaven
original
home, when
the body behind, where the soul found it. JUit 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
With Posidonius 2 entirely escape this inference. he follows the Platonic discrimination of a rational
and
irrational
element
in
the soul, the irrational
element
desire
all
;
into courage and being again and though he expressly includes them under the fjys/jioviKov, and so far adheres to the
3
divided
doctrine of his school against Plato and Aristotle, there still remains between his theory and that of
Chrysippus the important difference that Seneca assumes in the very centre of personality a plurality
of original faculties, while Chrysippus makes one and the same fundamental faculty, reason, generate affections and desires through the changes that take
place in
it.
Though we cannot help recognising the period

1
of
Ad
soul
More.
:
21, o
: E/>.
79,
d.
H>
2:
102. I .
i.
iir. III.
120, L (K ). 2:
14:
:
7V//7.
>.">,
d.
derived powers of the soul [TV/// Gr. III. i. 19S. 1] o;- analoLTÛS to tln-ni)
/ //
:>
/:
/>.
lior
The
-
will
rererfi
nd
prineijitiH
cat
/lit/
cxt
r/ii
tjiinriini
:i
Jlj>.
fnit (92, 30
]).
.vy.).
illiquid i rrittloiinle, ioiuih : illud Jniic

:
ct
xrrrit.
Riiprrti
f if/ne
*!4
1
:
st///.
91,
J
e.i
tifi>
infer
me
eii renief
i
fei /id
dii
ii
ri
corjuts
in
enrpurl honorcin
Luc. cit. S Irratinnfilix pit rx nnin/i Imbef /xirtex, alfeni ni iini inoKinn, a ini</t//i*
>l>iiii>xn
jn>tnifrni,
////.v,
<t>nnii
en//, in
anhno
qua*
cm parb S
more/if nr
/nixifa
!i
ni
in
<iiTfee1i<>ni-
ultrrn/n
n ni-ilenijtini/iiidn in
dedittitu
ini/iixf rux,
per
rohiptatibus
4
(I^jt. 71,
i.
cijKili
nnhls
dutas (the seven
Vide riiil.d. dr. III.
199,3.
OCCASIONAL SCEPTICISM.
eclecticism in these deviations from the older Stoic
doctrine, yet the sceptical side of this eclecticism is also exhibited by Seneca in the occasional uncer
225
CHAP. VI1
tainty of his language respecting the same subjects of which he elsewhere speaks in the tone of full dog
We cannot perhaps, argue from the fact that in his epistle to his mother concerning the comfort afforded by the dependence ofâll things
matic conviction.
on God, he secures himself against every attack by is. But it has an unde niably sceptical sound when he elsewhere, in disnot deciding what Grod
1
Assertion
cussing the question of the highest causes, declares that a man must be content among conflicting
the
"
"
certainty of all speclll(ltlon -
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.

another that
3
;
One
sets
up
this
definition
and
but how can the soul, which is not clear about itself, attain to certainty about other
?
things
1
We
145,
1.
should not be justified in calling

echoes the passage from Plato, Tim. 29, c, which Seneca has quoted in the preceding context.
3
Cf.
1.
c.
Ep.
:
65, 10
(cf.
65, 2,
and
65, 23)
Per ergo judex senten-
pronuntia, quis tibi rideatur verisimillimwti dicere, noil quid verissimum dicat. Id enim tarn supra nos est quam ipsa reritas; and after he has set forth the objections of the Stoics against the Platonic theories he proceeds thus Aut fer sententiam aut, quodfacilius in ejusmodi rebus est, nega tibi In liquere et nos revertijube. estimating this passage we must remember that it clearly
:
tiam
et
Nat. Qu.
vii.
25, 1
Mult a
nos
snnt,qua>esseconcedimus,qualia
stint,
ignoramus.
. .
Habere
animum
omnes fatcbuntnr : quid tamen sit animus ille rector dominusque nostri, non mag is tibi quisquam exjtediet, quam
.
sit : alins ilium dicct spirituni essf, alius concetitum quendam, alius rim divinam et Dei
ubi
j>artem,aliustenmssimiimaerem,
alius
incorporalem potentiam.
LlG
ECLECTICISM.
Seneca a sceptic because of such isolated utterances, 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
all
CHAP
VIII.
and other
eclectics, it
is,
above
of philosophic theories which things, the strife of the Stoic to waver. the causes
is purer in the sphere to the greatest importance which he himself attaches of the Stoic moral namely, ethics. The idealism
dogmatism The Stoicism of Seneca
Ethics.
doctrine in
finds
tive.
its asperities, grandeur, and also in in him a zealous and eloquent representa He declares with the Stoics that there is no
its
Essential
agreement
n
t
because virtue alone is, for man, good but virtue, he can paint the satisfaction to nature according
:
t!i
the
jn-inciples of the
Stoics,
which it secures, the independence of all external of the wise man, with fortune, the invulnerability and even glaring colours ; he is convinced
glowing
Deity,
that the virtuous
man
is
in
no way
is
inferior to the
in a certain respect, indeed,
even superior
he requires from us not merely moderation in our emotions, but their unconditional eradication he reiterates the well-known remarkable state
1
ments about the unity and equality of

the
.\i>n
all
virtues,
;
perfect
deerit,
completeness
nanyuinem dicat, nd o animo mm
(lr
of the
wise
man
the
qm
calorem:
iiotcbt
>it
I njiiere adJitic ijw

i.
eeterlx rebus,
qiitrrat.
upon wishes and authority than on proofs is named a helium somniiun but this is unimpor;
DC
tant.
Clement,
little,
I
3,
">,
would prove
Ej). 121,
1
Vide Phil.
*?.,
taken alone, and

less.
and Ep.
(/no
:
In Ep. 102 in immor(Ix irinninfr) a belief

still
quid,
Gr. III. i. 252, Ext al\sapiens antecedat

d.
53. 11
Doim
tile
beneficio
nature
mm
taliTy,
which
is
based rather
timet suo sapiens.
MORALITY OF THE
STOICS.
2*27
misery, defectiveness, and madness of the unwise ; in fact, all the principles on which the peculiar character of the Stoics had been most clearly
CHAP.
]
tion,
stamped with the full decision of personal convic But even and all the pathos of the orator. here we can perceive that the reasons which must
1
which he
have recommended the Stoic doctrine to him are ^^to* and qualiopposed by reflections and inclinations of another
kind.
The
Stoic morality
is
intended for natures
capable of a pure and perfect virtue ; how can it be applied unaltered to us men, who one and all are so
The most definite utterances of Seneca on all these ques tions have been already quoted. I content myself, therefore, with referring to these quota tions and completing them with
1
mind as the chief con stituent of happiness, De Con stant. 13, 5 75, 18 Ep. 29, 12.
peace of
;
;
few others, though many might be added, since Seneca declares in innumerable places
a
leading thoughts of his On the prin ethical doctrine. ciple of life according to nature, and its derivation from the impulse of self -preservation, cf. Sen. Ep. 121, 5 sqq. 10,11; Vita Beat. 3, 3 Ep. 118 sqq. 76, 8 89, Ep. 121, 14; 92, 1 15; Vita Beat. 8, 6; Ep. 120,
the nature and reprehensibilityof the emotions, De Ira,ii. 2, \ ,Ep. 75, 11; 85, 5; 116, \sqq. On the nature and origin of
virtue, Ep. 113, 2; 117, 2; De Otio, 1, 4; Ep. 65, 6; Ep. 108, 8 Ep. 94, 29. On wisdom and
;
On
the
22; Benef.
5
sq.
iv.
25,
1; Ep. 122,
the principal virtues, Ep. 89, 5 95, 55; 120, 11; 115, 3 (the division of the virtues, Vita Beat. 25, 6 sq. is of less import ance) 67, 6 10 ; 88, 29 Benef. ii. 34, On the disposition 3. and will as the seat of all virtue on the equality of all virtues and vices and of all
; ;
Concerning the
2, 1
Good
;
goods and
3;
66,
i.
and goods, Benef. vii.
Ep.
5,
evils, Benef. vi. 11, 2; ii.31, 1; Ep. 71, 18;

,
66, 5; 71, 4; 74, 1; 76, 7, 11; Con 85, 17; 120, 3; 118, 10.
sqq.
66,
32.
On
wise
men and
cerning the autarchy of virtue
and against the admission of ex ternal and corporeal things, pleasure and pain, among goods and evils, vide Phil. d. Gr. III.
215-221 Benef. vii. Ssqq. Ep. On 74, 76, 20 sqq.] 71,17
i.
;
Benef. iv. 26, 27, 2; v. 12, 3; 15, 1; vii. 3, 2*7.; 6,3; 8,1; Ep.BI,llsq. 73,11,13; Prov. i. 5; 6, 4 sqq.
fools,
,
;
De De
Const. S,2;De Ira, ii. 8-10; Const. 2, 1 ; 7, 1 Ep. 9, 14 et

;
passim.
Q 2
228
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP,
maintains, and have these evils, as he also says, so deeply rooted in our The happiness of the wise man is con nature ? his wisdom, the autarchy of the virtuous ditioned
wicked and weak as

1
Seneca
by
by
a virtue
What
world
does
2
it
which corresponds to the Stoic demands. wisdom are proht us if this virtue and
never, or
?
hardly ever, to be found in the actual By these arguments the older teachers of
the school had already, as we have seen, been in
duced
modify their original demands by important concessions, and Seneca was still more likely to
to
not adopt the same procedure. Thus we see him the concessions which his prede only approving
cessors
had made
to
human
weakness, but
still
in
many
the
of his utterances deviating Like the of the system. original severity older Stoics, he attributes a certain value to other
T
further from
3 and reckons these things things besides virtue; This is unim in the w ider sense. 4 among goods
portant.^
1
On
Gr.
III.
the
i.
other
.sv/c/.,
hand,
dcncc
he
is
no longer
PlriL
(I.
252
and
siij)rn, p.
221.
The
utter-
only shows that two kinds of exposition were pro-
ances of Seneca there quoted often coincide almost word for word with those of the Apostle Paul on the universal sinfulness
duced
from
similar
circuin-
stances, experiences,
and
tern-
man, and this is one of the most striking of the points of contact between them which
of
and two that poramonts, writers need not stand in any immediate connection in order to agree, even as to their words,
in
-
many
7, 4
; :i
propositions.
Tra</n.
:
the legend of their personal intcivmirse and written correspondence pondence con-
have given
rise to
As Seneca admits.
cerning which cf. Abhandl. p. 377

Fleury,
Paris,
*</
Baur, Drci and A. /.,

St.
.sv/<y.
Kp. 4, 2 00, 44. /;.//., prodvcla (vp concerning which cf. Ep. 74,
87.
21)
;
An.
itn
Jfrtjf.
22,
4).
Paul, Historicully legarded, this coinci-
Scneque
i.
et
1853:
2(50
Seneca calls them and connnnda.

4
also potiora
In
Jli-ncf. v. 13,
l,he agrees
EXTERNAL GOODS AND
ILLS.
CHAP.
quite consistent when he sometimes extravagantly for the necessaries of praises the Cynic contempt
L_
and at other times counsels compliance with avoidance of all that existing customs, and careful But we hear more of the Peri notice. can attract
life
1
when Seneca, in patetic language than the Stoic about the self-satisfying spite of all his declamation
nature
and indifference to things ex can find ternal, is once more of opinion that Fortune no better steward for her gifts than the wise man
of virtue,
2
since riches alone can give opportunity for the un and external goods folding of a number of virtues,
may add something

3
to
the
cheerfulness
which
It is the same thing with springs from virtue. what he says of external evil. It sounds magna
nimous enough when the philosopher challenges Fortune to an encounter, when he extols the subli man grap mity of the spectacle which the wise
but to the gods ; pling with misfortune affords into a this lofty tone changes only too completely
feeble and querulous sound,
with the Academy and the Peripatetics in distinguishing bona
animi, corporis, fortunes. Elsewhere, however (Ej). 74, 17
76,
;
when Seneca
(to pass
20,9; 62,3. And, on the other hand, Cic. Fin. iii. 20, 68 Ep.
^
124,
13)
he
expressly
says that everything except virtue is improperly (precario}
5 De Vit. E.g., Ep. 92, Seat. 22, 5 Ep. 62, 2. Srevissima ad divitias (to the true
2
; ;
14, 14.
named a
view
ippus
III.
1
good.
is
to
The former be found in Chrys-
riches) per contemptum divitiarum via est. Further proofs Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 215, and
and
262,
others, Phil. d. Gr.

3,
;
supra, p. 227,
3
1.
;
i.
Tranqu. An. 8, 4 sqq. Senef. v. 4, 3 6,1; Ep. 29, 1 90, 14; Senef. vii. 8 sq.] Ep.
;
Beat. 21 sq. Ep. 5. Provid. 2, 6 sqq. Ep. 64, 4 85, 39 Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 178,2; 215,2.
Vit.
4
;
;
230
ECLECTICISM.
over other unimportant examples), though elsewhere constantly assuring us that banishment is no evil,
1
CHAP.
-
and that every land
is
home
for the wise
man,
breaks forth into unmanly lamentations over his own exile, 3 or when he enforces the courtly principle
that
we must put
in
a good face upon the

places
which those
are
high when he argues with
wrong doings 4 permit themselves

;
much
earnestness that there
no more peaceable citizens or more obedient sub 5 and when even Cato, jects than the philosophers;
who
is
elsewhere so idolised,
is
blamed
for sacrificing
himself uselessly in the political struggles of his time. 6 Though we must allow that his observations
on this subject are partially true, yet it is another question whether they harmonise with his general
utterances and with the principles of the Stoics. He in such cases, it is true, by avowing excuses himself
that he
is not a wise man, nor ever will be he only regards himself as on the road to wisdom, and is
;
As in Ep. where the incredible troubles (incrcdibilia tulerim} of a short x/mt,qu sea voyage are described.
1
;~>3,
man and
10).
<
his master (Dio,

ii.
Ixi.
DC
also
Ira,
33; Ep. 14, 7:

,~>
Not only in his later writing s, as in Bcncf. vi. 27, 2

;
Ep. 21, 3
in his
8f>,
but also and
especially during his
own
;
admonitions to prudence. Ep. 103, 14,14. Elsewhere, indeed (as in I m, iii. 14, 4), Seneca s judgcf.
;
I)t>
the
exile
consolatory letter to his 8, mother, cf. 4, 2; 5, 4 6, 1

;
ment was quite different, 5 Ep. 73, where among other

things he assures us that the rulers (the then ruler was Nero) are honoured as fathers by the philosophers who are indebted
to
3 sqq.
:i
10, 2
Ad
and
12, 5 sqq. 13, 3; 18, Polyb. 2, 1 in the Epigrams from

;
;
exile.
The dedication
to Poly-
them
for their leisure,
Seneca is said to have tried to supsubsequently press on account of the Hatterit contained of this freedies
bius
6 Ep. 14, 12^^.; cf. for the sake of the contrast, Ep. 95, 69 xqq. DC Const. 2, 2 DC Prorid. 2,
;
;
FREE
content
better
l
WILL.
going somewhat human weakness
231
if
things with him are but his concessions to
CHAP.
expressly relate 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 scarcely the courage to answer in the affirmative.
But
if
he thus substitutes the

wise
2
man who
is
progress
man, the requirements of the ing on man as he is in reality are thereby neces system and whereas it at first seemed as if sarily lowered through perfect wisdom and virtue he would and
for the
;
could be like (rod,
it
must be
satisfied
to
ultimately appears that we imitate the gods, so far as

of
it.
3
human weakness
allows
In other places,
again, Seneca speaks as though nothing were easier than to lead a life according to nature and reason,
were solely and entirely a matter and not of power 4 but this homage which the philosopher pays to his school and to himself cannot conceal from us his deviation from the spirit
and
as if such a life
of will
of the earlier Stoicism.
The proud
reliance on the
power
of moral will
and
is
Stoics ethics started,
intelligence, from which the with Seneca deeply shaken.
Were
otherwise he could not express himself so strongly respecting the weakness and wickedness of men, and the unavoidableness of these defects.
it
We
1r it.
Beat. 16 *q.;
:
;
cf.
Ep.
iiribecillitan
ad Helv, 5, 2. 57, 3; 89, 2 2 Cf. Ep. 72, 6 sqq. 75, 8 42, 1, and p. 268-271. sqq. * Benef. i. 1, 9 Hos seqva;
:
18,
4
patitur Vit. Beat. Cumpofatero, vivam quo.
modo
ii.
oportet.
;
Ep. 41, 9
13, 1 sqq.
116, 8
De
Ira,
mur
duces,
quantum hnmana
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP.
VIII.
perceive a similar deviation

his
when Seneca,
in spite of
sublime utterances about the blessedness of the wise man and Divine Providence, is forced by the
consideration of
all life is
is
human sufferings to complain that a torment, and that amidst its storms death
1
the only place of refuge. It would assuredly be wrong to conclude from this that he is not in earnest with the principles which he so frequently and so but as in his life he did not emphatically expresses keep sufficiently free from the influence of his
;
position and from the faults of a period (to the best of which he nevertheless belongs) to preserve his character from vacillations and contradictions 2
men
1
Omnis PolyJ). 9, 6 sq. r/ta supplicium cst in hoc turn procelloso marl narif/antibii-s portns nisi
: . . . . . .
Ad
Seneca
life
blameless.
He
as altogether himself made
mdlm
mortis cst. LOG. cit. 4, 2 sq. The rhetorical nature of this
consolatory treatise makes this testimony the less valuable.
Hut we
where.
find
the
same
else
Thus
11, 1
:
Marc.
ext,
in the epistle ad Tota flelilis rlta

;
:
&c. Ep. 108, 37 102, 22 Gravl terrenoque detineor car-
cere.
Seneca
well
character,
as
is
known, has been fre defamed in the quently strongest manner, both in an cient and modern times and, on the other hand, it has been
;
no such claim; he speaks of the anni inter rana studio, consumpti (Nat. Qu. iii. Pra-f. 1); he acknowledges plainly that he w as still far from the per fection of the wise man, and was clogged with many faults that his words were stricter than his life that his possessions were greater, and his household and manner of life much more luxu rious than were properly com patible with his principles ( lit.
r
;
lit-at.
]Jp.
6,
et j;a$x.
often extravagantly glorified. This is not the place for a com plete examination of this vexed question, or for the enumera tion of its literature; but I will shortly mention the most de cisive points. It would cer tainly be a mistake to regard
23 1,2), and though much may be invented or exaggerated in that which his deadly enemy Suilius, ap. Tac. Ann. xiii. 42, and Dio Cass. (if he is speaking
ride
]).
in
his
own name)
Ixi. 10, fol
lowing the same or an equally

hostile authority, says of his colossal income (supposed to be millions of sesterces), his avarice, and his luxury, we
:>()0
must, nevertheless, suppose that
OF SENECA.
so, as
233
a philosopher, he was not so alive to the ten dencies of his people and of his age, that we can
over-rich and over-power minister of Nero, ascribed to external possessions a far greater value, and perhaps
<
CHAP.
VIII.
the
ful
unworthier part
is
ascribed to
them by
Seneca
Dio,
Ixi. 2.
Meanwhile
beyond what was unavoidable in his position made a more luxurious use of it, than might have been expected from a
and
Concerning his riches his splendour of country houses and gardens, cf. Nat. Qu. iii. Praf. 2 Ep. but especially Tacit, xiv. 77, 3 to Dio, Ixii. 52 zqq. According 2, the severity with which he demanded repayment of a loan
Stoic.
the
censured by Tacitus, xiv. 52, for precisely the oppo Whether they site conduct.) were accessory to the plan for Agrippina s murder (as Dio maintains, Ixi. 12) Tacitus can not say. When their counsel was asked, little seems to have been left to them except silent acquiescence for the saving of Agrippina, even if it had been effected, would seem to have been synonymous w ith their
is
; r
of ten millions of sesterces was one of the causes of the insur rection under Nero in favour of
Be certain destruction. fore his death Seneca speaks (Tac. xv. 62) as if he had had
own
no complicity with the crime

to reproach himself
;
Britannicus. Similarly, it be that he, as a courtier

official of
may wherewith
and
the empire,
may have
been
silent, or lent
his aid in
regard to many a wrong. When he had once committed himself to this position it was hardly possible to avoid it to aban don his post, even if Seneca had had the moral strength for such a course, might have seemed like a failure of duty towards the commonwealth.
;
but that he did not mean ex pressly to oppose it, and even defended it (Tac. xiv. 11) re mains a dark spot on his life. So also his unworthy flattery of Claudius and his freedman
Polybius (in the Consolatio ad PolyUiim} by which he sought to effect his return from banish ment, and the despondency he displays under this misfortune, are justly considered blameable, especially when they are contrasted with his equally unworthy mockery of the de ceased despot (in the Indus and his de morte Claiidii) valiant protestations to Helvia
(4 sqq. et pas*.; tup. 230, 2).
Meanwhile it is difficult to form a judgment. If, for in stance, Seneca and Burrhus favoured Nero s inclination for
acting (Tac.
2
;
xiii.
12
q.
cf. c.
xiv. 2), Tacitus avers that this was the best thing they
On
could do according to the posi tion of things. When they acquiesced in Nero s admission into the circus, Tacitus (xiv. 14) tells us that they had not the power to hinder it. (An
the other hand, the reproach of
immoral conduct cast upon him by Suilius and Dio (I. c.) are
not only without proof, but to all appearance gratuitous inven Tacitus describes the tions.
ECLECTICISM.
expect
from
him
perfect
logical
consistency
in
his views.
we consider how the endeavour after rhetorical effect led him easily into exaggerations on the one side or the other, we
If in
addition to this
may
well understand that even in questions as to

is
which he had a clear opinion he

sistent in his utterances.
not always con
In the further development of his ethics, as we

influence of Seneca and Burrhus on Nero (Tac. xiii. 2) as very salutary. Seneca himself
bearing towards Nero, of which Tacitus gives an example (Tac. xv. 23), and
likewise Plutarch, Coll. Ira, 13, 461. Dio, Ixi. 18, also re lates an instance in which he restrained Nero s cruelty by a
p.
appeals (I. independent
c.
xv.
61) to his
moral principles and endeavours are matters of earnest convic tion, but likewise displays par ticular traits which throw a
favourable light on his charac ter. We know that in the school of Sextius he adopted the habit of daily minute selfexamination (De Ira, iii. 36 that in his youth, from sq.} enthusiasm for philosophy, he abstained from meat during
;
bold word. The same author says of him (notwithstanding all his hatred elsewhere), lix. irdvTas /J.fv Kad favrbv Pw19 /j.aious TTO\\OVS 5e KO.\ &\\ovs cro(pia and the judgment of v-rrepapas Tacitus far outweighs even this. Tacitus (xv. 23) calls him a rir
: ;
many
t ion s
years, according to Soprecept and in many

;
respects carried out the simple mode of life enjoined on him by the Stoic Attains, even at a
ripe age (Ep. 108, 13-23). Taci tus (xv. 63) bears witness to his moderation (cnrj)ut wntlc rt
<>fjre(jius
2, praises his eomitax liom-sta in xv. 62, lie he bequeathed to his savs
;
in
xiii.
;
jHirro
rit ft/
1.
passage
c.
tt the iitntinn} xv. 45, where he

;
friends before his death quod
habcbat,
and
pulclicvriniinn rift/ su(f in c. 05 he relates that man} in the conspiracy of Piso had destined him for the
iiuiKjiiu in
:
tniuin
jct
ft
throne, quasi in sontibux claritudini

self,
rirtutuni
di
Jt i
fiixtit/ nini
to.
ad xuinmum Seneca him

despite
follows prudential considera tions, as in the contemplated transfer of his property to Nero Sueton. Xcrn, 3-i) (xiv. 53 .svy. cannot be adduced as contra One of the dictory evidence. most pleasing features of his life is tinally his beautiful re lation with his admirable wife
;
in
his writings,
declamatory, not only gives us the impres sion of a man to whom his
much
that
is
Paulina, cf. Ep. 104, Tac, xv. 63 sq.
2,
s/j.
ETHICS OF THE LATER STOICS.

should expect, the same principles are prominent as a whole. It has,
235
CHAP.
which characterise Stoicism
however, been already pointed out that Seneca and s irit and the younger Stoics generally, differ somewhat from applica.
the older in their closer acceptation of these prm- mora i joc _ Without abandoning or altering the ethics tri-ncs. ciples.
of their school in
tion of his
any important point, they yet lay
such determinations as chiefly correspond with the conditions and necessities of The most important of these deter their times.
greater
stress
on
In a period of such terrible moral corruption and despotic tyranny, it must have been of the first consequence for the earnest
minations are three.
thinker to gain a fixed basis in himself, and to found for himself in his own mind an impregnable
and the power of Fate.
his surroundings refuge against the corruption of If he turned his atten
tion to others, all external distinctions
must have
lost their significance,
among men when each day

1
beheld the most abrupt vicissitudes of
fortune,
dis
when
all
national
and
historical
oppositions
appeared in the general degradation, when the most abject were often endowed with the highest favours
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

Seneca from this experience (Tranqu. An. 11, 8 sqq. 16, 1 Ep. 74, 4, et passim) deduces the moral application, espe1 ;
as well as the
each
cially in regard to
man
conduct, that he dares not attach any value to things external.
own
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP.
VIII
.
social conditions
of the time
must have evoked
a
;
lively feeling of human weakness and need of help Stoic severity must have given place in some
degree to sympathy with the failures of humanity, and Stoic self-sufficiency to the claims of philanthropic
;
sympathy and assistance
the cosmopolitanism of
the school must chiefly have been developed on the side of feeling, in the form of universal love of
Finally, the less that circumstances afforded opportunity to individuals in the way of effectual interference with the course of the world,
mankind.
the more heavily the 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 predilection for the repose of private
have gained ground, but the more strongly also for submission to fate, and for the interdependence of moral conduct with religious
life
must the necessity

conviction,
which the Stoics had never denied, have
made
Indepen dence of things ex
ternal.
itself felt.
All this
may
be
perceived in Seneca
moral
The independence of external things, writings. which is assured to us by wisdom and virtue, is by no one more energetically commended than by him. No one requires us more pressingly to seek our
happiness purely and entirely in ourselves,
1
and
to
Numerous
authorities
in
for
;
licnef.
this \vill be
found
30, 4 Conx.
21
&qq.\ 77, 11
82, 2 $q.; 8 sqq.
Ep.
11,2;
9,2
iv. 2, 13, 5
;
2,
4
1
Vita
;
]>/-at.
14,
tic Ira,
1,
ad Marc,
;
Jieat. 4, 3;
:
Ep. 85,18; 3 J 87:

3;
92,
14
Vita 19, 3 sqq. G6, 14; 71, 18,

;
1 1
xq.
120,
*qq.; 72,
44; 7;
Ep. 85, 10; PhlL d. 234, 252, supra 22G, 1. To the more decided declarations on this subject belong tic
*q.\ cf.
i.
fr r. III.
Pror td.
*,
9 sqq
tie Count. 3,
ETHICS OF SENECA.
encounter bravely what fate may send us. But since it is his moral constitution alone which gives to man
this freedom,
237
CHAP.
he
insists
most emphatically on the
conscientious fulfilment of the conditions to which

it is
attached, and he becomes the
more earnest on
the subject the

victory
is
more he
is
convinced that the

1
only to be won over man s inclination to All are, as he evil by the most severe conflict. believes, sick and in need of healing ; the com
Strictness
bating of our faults is the chief problem of philo moral demands sophy the recognition of this, the first condition of
;
of Seneca
improvement
himself that he
and even in his old age he says of is visibly another man, as he now 3 sees what his defects are. He, therefore, cannot
2
;
4,
5,
8,
2 sq.
;
19, 4
tive of Christian
conceptions,
Vita Beat. 4, 2 gq. Brevit. v. 2 ad Helv. 5 Benef. iii. 20, 1 Ep. -3, 11; 59, 8: 64, 4; 85, 39. 75, 18 74, 19
; ;
;
Ep.
6, 1
Intelleyo, Lucili,
twn
emendo/ri
jjgurari.
me tantum,
sed trans:
Cf. Baur,
Drei AWtandl.
p.
Much, indeed, is al ways in need of improvement Et Iwc ipsum arfjumentum est in

melius
videt.
40
2
sqq.
Besides the quotations in Phil. d. Gr. III. i. p. 253 gq.,
ritia sua, quce

latio
animi, quod adhuc ignordbat, Quibusdam (Pfjris gratu-
translati
and supra, cf Ep.

.
50, 4
Quid
ncs decijnmus ? Non est extrinseeus malum nostrum : intra nos est, in visceribus ipis sedet,
et ideo difficultcr
fit, ciim %2)si fegros se esse senserunt. Concerning the ex
pression
transfigwari
.
(/xera-
IJLOpfyovffQaC)
ad sanitatem
:
perrenimus, quia nos cpgrotare nescimus. Ep. 28, 9 Initium est salutis notitia peccati (ac ideo cording to Epicurus)
.
ac
ritanda percepit, nondum sapiens est, nisi in ea qua; didicit
cf Ep. 94, 48, where these words are quoted from Aristo Qui didicit et facienda
:
quantum
4
:
2>otes
te ipse coargue,
:
animus ejus transjiguratus est. The expression therefore signi

fies
inquire in
One
Vita Beat. 1, te, &c. infects another Sana; ;
b!mur, si modo separemur a caetn. 7, 1 94, Similarly, Ep. 49, 9 52 sqq. 95, 29 gq. 3 In the remarkable passage
;
which
is
so strikingly sugges
the inner transformation of the whole will and disposition, from the as distinguished merely theoretical conviction on the one hand, and merely temporary and occasional im provement on the other.
238
CHAP,
ECLECTICISM.
too
strongly impress upon us the necessity of a severe self-examination and a ceaseless labour within
1
ourselves
he recommends to us what he himself
a duty, to take precise account every evening of the day past; 2 he refers us to our conscience,
made
from which nothing that we do can remain hidden he reminds us of the gods, the ever present 4 of the day of witnesses of our words and deeds,
;]
death, that
a word,
great
judgment day when

in
it
will
5
he
in
shown how much
man
is
genuine or false;
he desires that we should regard the happi ness of the wise as the reward of the most unceasing moral activity, and he consequently finds necessary, 6
side
all
by
side with the universal principles of virtue,
those enquiries into individual circumstances of life, and those counsels designed for special cases,
to
which he himself has devoted
so great a part of
his writings. 7
But the more completely the individual

1
corre-
Cf.
also
E/t. 50, 5 sqfj.. 51,
5
/>>.
26, 4
3.
atjfj.
Pliit. d. (fr.
13 (noMs quoquG inilitandum erf prtticc qiKccnitquf cur tttum Idfiiunt}. 2 DC Ira, iii. 36 cf. p. 186,5.
6,
. .
III.
6
i.
204,
He
goes
very
minutely
:t
28. 0; 41, 2 43, 4 E{).

/<,
;
.<??//>.
/>.
p. 237,
into this in his 04th and 95th letters, in the former provin.tr the indispensability of special
Men
live
in
such a manner that scarcely anyone could bear his whole conduct to be made public.
Qiild (intent
,sv
xt
i>n><lt
rt cotuli-re
<i
ff
MiiliHt lionn mini
rt tijiie
ritfirt ?
l<im
liotni conxcientift furnoli-
precepts for practieal life, and the latter that of universal ethical principles (decreta). In bth lie maintains that, considering^ the greatness of human corruption, and the overwhelminfluence of society, no intr
in left
ddrocdt, nxilu tiiam in

tiff/i/c,
fnditic an.ria
.
. .
sollicita erf
si
te mliii
Tum,
contennrix
68
hunc
4
ti fttetn !
Vita Beat. 20, 5
Ep. 83,
1.
counteracting means should be 04, 52 ,SY/. unemployed 20 sqtj. qq.\ 95, 14 sqq. Kspecialiy in the treatise DC Jicm-ticiis and in the letters.
;
LOVE OF MANKIND.
more closely spends to his moral destination, the with others, the more will he find himself connected and the purely will he apprehend this relationship, more entirely will he extend it to all men. The
Stoic principles respecting the natural kinship of mankind, and the disinterested help which we owe
to all without exception, have found in Seneca one in his conception of their most eloquent assertors ;
l
239
CHAP.
Universal
however, the political element throughout recedes before the universally human element, and the severity of the moral judge before
of
this
relation,
a loving gentleness which bears witness not only to the benevolent disposition of the philosopher but
also to his accurate
knowledge and impartial judg ment of human nature. In political life Seneca can feel no confidence, which is not surprising con the age in which he lived, and his personal
sidering
the mass of mankind so evil experiences he finds we cannot without moral injury make ourselves that on their favours, and the condition of the
:
dependent
Commonwealth
strength upon too small beside the great polity of mankind and of the world, and the activity of the statesman beside
;
too hopeless for us to waste our it the individual state seems to him
that of a teacher of the
human
race to allow of his con
Those connections have for fining himself to them. 2 him a far greater charm which are based upon free
1
As
i.
is
shown
;
III.
2
286, 1
in PMl. d. Gr. 287, 2; 299, 3.

;
.
Clement,
i.
3,
4 sqq.,
where we
Ep.
ibid. III. i. 295 sqq. 14, 4 sqq. (cf supra, 230, 7), and, concerning politics also, De
Of.
that what cannot suppose Seneca says of the importance of the ruler of the commonwealth, apart from some ex-
240
ECLECTICISM.
choice and are regulated according to the needs and To marriage peculiar character of the individual.
CHAP,
he has devoted an entire
and we have every reason to suppose, from what we are told on the subject that Seneca held married life, of which he
1
treatise,
himself had
tion.
full
experience, in the highest estima
him in marked degree, and we have already seen Very

taste for friendship also appears in
that he has difficulty in reconciling his need of friendship and his noble conception of this relation
with the wise
man
2 sufficiency for himself.
]>ut
the real crown of his moral doctrine

universal love of man, the purely
lies
in
the
human
interest
which bestows
itself
on
all
the meanest and most despised, which even

;
without distinction, even in the
3 in that gentleness of slave does not forget the man disposition which is so especially antagonistic to
4 anger and hatred, tyranny and cruelty, and which
travagances of expression, is merely the language of a courtier; it was not only quite true
according to the existing state of things, but doubtless his own personal conviction that in was then the Roman empire as
i
must have
lost
its
charm
for
the best of them, For the fragments of this

treatise which, however, consist for the most part of quotations
the emperor (as 4) was (he uniting bond of the state and that the dniinnitio llomtnxt. the jta.r urliis, was linked with his preconstituted,
he says in
c.
from other authors and exampies of good and wicked women, On the cf. Haase, iii. 428 view of marriage there enun.<?///.
scrvation
i
(JJ-i in
cnnn
1
it:?,
nd
ii
it
dii<-i
rei/nildictf ^V/w// nt .sv linn y^wttY, vine (liter inn

,
p.
"2
,\\.
\~idr Pliil. d.
dr.
III.
i.
2S9
ut
rlii.
iir
i><Tiiii-it
nani ut
itn
ft
illi
*<i
l:i
ririhiix
o /nix
rxt.
liitie
cojnte.
But if the republic was abandoned, public service
Am])le authority for this is 286, 1. quoted, 7Wd. III. i. 299 A mode of thought which
.<?</.
FORGIVENESS OF INJURIES.
considers nothing worthier of
241
man and more
accord
CHAP.
VIII.
ing to nature, than forgiving mercy, 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 spare than punish, does not exclude even
enemies from
its
injury with injury.
goodwill, and will not return even Seneca s dissertations on these

1
subjects are among the most beautiful testimonies to the purity of moral conceptions arrived at by In their content, as has already classical antiquity.
been shown, they entirely harmonise with the Stoic but they have manifestly arisen from a principles
;
somewhat
different idea of life
and a milder temper
also expresses itself in the de cided repudiation of the in
human
gladiatorial shows and in censure of the Roman lust for war. For the same reason, and also on accoxint of his
passionate disposition and want those severe of self-control, sentences were passed upon Alexander the Great which fur nished such welcome material
for Seneca s rhetoric, Benef. i. Clement, i. 25 De Ira, 13, 3 iii. 17, 1, 23, 1; Nat. Qu. vi. 23, 2, et passim. 1 Of. Ep 95, 52; Vit. Seat. De Clem. i. 1, 3 De Ira, 24, 3 i. 5 De Otio, i. 4 De Ira, ii.
; ; ;
1; Benef. iii. 18-28; De Clem. i. 18, 2 ii. 4 Ep. 31, 11; Vit. Beat. 24, 3. In De Clem. ii. 4, he speaks of the possibility of uniting mildness with justice and the distinc
32,
;
punish where it ought, the other in punishing has regard to all really available grounds of extenuation it desires only to carry out complete justice, De Clem. i. 6 De Ira, ii. 9, 4 iii. 27, 3 10, 1 sq. 28 (on the weakness of man we should not be angry with error, but pardon it) Benef. iv. 25 sqq. (how far, according to fche example of the Gods, should favours be bestowed on the ungrateful ?) vii. 31 sq. (vincit malos pertinax bonitas). As the gods, in spite of all unthankf ulness, continue unweariedly to send rain upon the worthy and the unworthy, and patiently bear with the error of those
;
;
who misconceive them, so also should we act, and conquer in

gratitude by benefits, as the husbandman conquers unfruit
ful
tion between this
and culpable
does
ground by tillage
1.
c.
ii.
neglect
the
one
not
9 sq. (hidden benefits).
242
ECLECTICISM.
than were found amon
of
is
CHAP
VIIL
the elder Stoics.
The need
stronger with Seneca than with community and though the social nature and vocation of them,
is
man
in the older Stoics it appears
in both cases recognised with equal decision, more as the fulfilment
of a duty, in Seneca of
human
affection,
more as an affair of inclination, and of benevolence; and hence

on the virtues of the philan
he lays the chief
stress
closely this softening of thropic disposition. the Stoic severity is connected with Seneca s deeper
How
sense of
dicated.
human
imperfection has already been in
From
His n-ntint/fi
the same source we must also derive the
tcnit.
religious cast of his ethics.
Here, too, he follows

.
. .
throughout
the
common tendency
is
of his
;
school.
to
The
will of
God
to
him the highest law

with the claim of
in reason
obey
and to imitate that
will, is
3
the most universal

life
com
mand, synonymous
ing to nature the
divine
;
accord
he perceives
and conscience
spirit
equality of all take up his abode as well in the soul of a slave as

in that of a
4 he bases the dwelling in us; men on the proposition that God can
nobleman; and the union of the
in
humanity on the thought of the gods with us, belong to the universe and govern it who,
dividual with
;
1
r<
Phil.f/.
<wr.
III.
i.
p. 130.
rtn/fluM m-ijut.
I".
L.
c. vii.
The Deity here coincides
/{/>.
15,
vi.
with
Nature, and. therefore, also the will of (Jod with the laws of nature. 3 11, iit-f. iv. 25, 1: Propositn HI Kt nohix xt cnudiim rcrutn natarum clccrc ct Deorum exi
Jimrf.
4
4-7; Ep. 1(5,5: Proi td. 5, 23, 1

;
:n, 2 cf.
8.
PhiLd. Or.lll.i.
1
.
T".
p.
31<>,
320,
*
DC
\.
lie. 20.5; 31, 11: Phil. d. d r. III. Otlo, 4, 1 296, 3. p. 302, 2

/>.
;
SENECA S RELIGIOUS TEMPERAMENT.

on a willing and joyful acquiescence in the decrees of Providence, and sees in this disposition the most secure foundation for the he pressingly
insists
243
CHAP.
freedom and peace of mind of the wise man ; but, at the same time, he would leave open to us as a 2 last refuge the voluntary departure from life, and
l
would have us accustom ourselves above contempt for death, without which, he
happiness
is
is
3
all
to a
says,
no
possible.
In
all
these utterances there

spirit
nothing which does not flow from the true
of the Stoic doctrine.
Even the
proposition that
no one can be good without the assistance of the

deity is to be understood with Seneca wholly in the sense of that system ; the divine assistance which
is no supernatural aid, but coincides with the use of our reason and its natural powers. 4 If,
he claims
Cf. ibid.
1.
III.
i.
p.
304,
305,
2
3
Ibid. III.
i.
p. 306, 1.
Nat. Qn.
esse
lumus
minum
Si vonee honee Deoruni nee rerum

vi.
32,
felloes,
si
si
timore vexan,
despicere for-
tunamsupervacuapromittentem, levia minitantem, si volumus tranquille degere et ipsis Dis de

felicitate
test all quis supra fortunam nisi ab Hit) adjtitus exsurgere ? Hie dat eonsilia magnified et erecta. In unoquoque rirorum bonorum (quis Deus ineertum est) habitat Deus. Similarly, Ep. 73, 15 sunt Dl fastidiosi nan invidi: admittunt et adseendentibus manum porrigunt. Miraris Iwminem ad Deos ire (through
:
Mm
controrersiam
est
agere,
anima in expedite
&c.
4
kabenda,
the elevation of the mind and Deus ad homines re-nit, will) ?
This plainly results from a comparison of the passages in which this proposition is advanced. In Ep. 41, 2, after he has said that there dwells in us a divine spirit (by which
immo, quod est propius, in homines re-nit : nulla sine Deo mens bona est. Semina in cor^
poribns hum anis divina dispersa sunt, qua si bonus cultor earcipit, rimili-a origini prodeunt et paria hi,*,exq-uibus orta sunt,
nothing
else
is
meant but
:
reason and man s conscience), he thus proceeds Bonus vero

vir sine
surgunt, &c. The help of God must, therefore, consist in this: that an effluence of the Deity
as A(fyos
<rirpfjia.riKbs
Deo nemo
est
an po-
is
combined
244
ECLECTICISM.
therefore, Seneca
s doctrine is distinguished from the elder Stoicism by its religious character, this must on no account be understood to mean that he was
CHAP,
thereby carried into radical deviations from the Stoic system, but only that the importance assumed bv the religious element in relation to the philosophical
is
from the
his distinction peculiarly characteristic of him earlier Stoics is merely quantitative. That
;
the religious point of view, however, acquired with
him such
great preponderance,
we must
attribute
partly to the practical and popular cast of his philo sophy and partly to his lively sense of human weak
ness and imperfection, which must naturally have disposed him to point more frequently and more emphatically to the support which the moral life of
man
finds in the belief

in the world,
is
in Grod
and
his
guiding
power
and
in the
s
human
spirit.
How
pure, moreover, conception of religion ; how he keeps clear, not only of the belief of the
people, but of the fallacies of Stoic orthodoxv how the plurality of gods is cancelled in the unity of the divine nature, and external worship in the
;
Seneca
spiritual cultus of the
knowledge of God, and the

as. a
imitation of his moral perfection, have already been
shown.
Here
also
Seneca appears
worthy
re
presentative of
Roman
in
Stoicism, in which a purer
with
1
human body
man.
32G,
1
the
:
the
power of atonements are
spiritual nature of
3ir,,
PJi il.d. (jr. III. i.p. 31 2.
*<///.
5; 324,
1.
337, 3;
310
last
Kven
only defended very conditionand Seneca elsewhere ally: treats such ihings simply as
absurdities
(<\at^Qn.
quoted,
in the passages soothsaying and
iv. 4, G).
SENECA AND PANsETIUS.

and
view of religion had been implanted by Pansetius in its very commencement, and which it
freer
1
245
CHAP.
had constantly maintained, as is seen by the example To Panaetius, of a Scaevola, a Varro, and a Cicero. Seneca bears great resemblance in his whole mode
of
thought.
trines
Both postpone the theoretical doc of their school to the practical, and seek to
make the latter as fruitful as possible by a treat ment generally comprehensible and an application
and in this endeavour they have no scruple about recurring to other than Stoic predecessors, or departing from the Stoic tradition
to individual details
:
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 feeling of human weakness and defectiveness
more vivid than

with Pansetius
;
the
case
seems to have been and while the healing
race is regarded as the chief task of philosophy, there arises the fusion of philosophy with religion and the reaction of
of the morally diseased
ethical dualism on metaphysics,
human
by which the
later
Stoicism approximated more and more to Platonism.

d. Gr. III. i. p. 340, sup. p. 49, 2 170 sq. 176 sqq. If in the above sentences I
.
Cf Phil.
1,
and
partly by his exposition of the Stoic theology in the second book of the treatise De Natura
name Cicero beside Scsevola and Varro, this is justified partly by his particular connection with the Stoic school, and
Deorum, from which some
strik-
ing passages are quoted, Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 311, 1; 314, 2.
ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTER
THE STOICS CONTINUED
I
IX.
MUSONIUS, EPICTETUS, MARCUS AURELIUS.
CHAP.
IX.
STOICISM maintained on the whole the same charac

ter during the entire course of its further history,
The Mole
school con
tinued.
except that the traits by which Seneca had already diverged from the original direction of his school,
The ultimately asserted themselves more strongly. rest of the Stoic philosophy known to us may there fore, be discussed more concisely.
A younger contemporary of Seneca s, Musonius Rufus, who resided in Rome in the reigns of Xero
1
and Vespasian, 2 was a distinguished teacher of philo 3 sophy, and was held in the highest estimation on
1
C.
Jfitwinii
llvfi
Pi
litjiiicr
sonius of
11,
~>,
whom
liny
iii.
(/</;.
AjHijilitJicij nxttd c.
An not.
Kdid.
(ilar-
7)
,].
Venhuizen Peerlkamp
llS
mention.
makes honourable He was of good

.")
1cm,
2i^
the
first
137 pages
arc taken from 1 Vtri NieuwMiisonio landii Diwrtnlio

<Jc
family, originally from Etruria (Tac. Ann. xiv. .); J/ixt. iii.
H nfo (\\\\\u\\
also.
J)(tiib
-
appeared in 1783);
in
Moser,
Stndirn
vi.
;">
ron
Ajwllon. vii. Hi), and more especially Volsinii (Suid. cf. the epigram Ant /ml.
;
81
hilo.-tr.
und (Jreti:cr, Tac. Ann. xiv.

el>cwhcre.
I
,)
74 sqq. xv. 71,

;
/.(it.
\.
70; vol
his
i.
f>7,
I>urm).
and
;1
ir/c
tlie
fol
The year of known, but

in
<;.">
birth
as he
his
is un had already
lowing note.
INhisonius
A.I),
aroused the jealousy
Kufus.
is
son
of
of
Nero
by
of
fame as a
Capito (Suidas), a]iparently identical with the Cajus Mu
teacher
philosophy (Tac. Ann. xv. 71) and according to
MUSONIUS RUFUS.
account of his personal character. This philosopher confined himself even more decidedly than Seneca
Julian, ap. Suid. then filled a
247
CHAP.
IX.
public
can hardly be A.D. supposed later than 20-30 An adherent of the Stoic school,
office,
it
letters which Musonius is said to have exchanged with Apolthe Tyrian lonius. sonius is related 10 our philo
How
Mu
the friend of Rubellius Plautus,
with whom we find him in Asia Minor in the year 53 A.D. Thrasea Paetus and Soranus, whose death he afterwards
revenged by the
cution of miserable Egnatius Celer (Tac. Ann. xiv. 59 Hist. iii. 81 iv. i. 1, 26) 10, 40; Epict. was banished by Nero, 65 (Tac. Ann. xv. 71 Dio Cass. Ixii. 27
;
;
sopher cannot be clearly ascer we have seen (//;. but they seem to be p. 199) He was probably identical.
tained, as
;
recalled
(cf.
judicial prose the his accuser,
2>iss.
Miison. ap Stob. Floril. 40, 9, Themist. Or. vi. 72, d. p. 75 vii. 94, a-, Suid., Mova-wv and re Kopvovros, instead of this, him as put to death,
; ;
philosophers leave Rome by Vespasian he alone was except ed (Dio Cass. Ixvi. 16) according to Themist. (Or. xiii. 173 c.) he had per sonal relations with Titus. How long he lived we do not know but if he is really the person
;
from exile by Galba Epict. Digs. iii. 15, 14 Tac. and when the Hist. iii. 81) were ordered to
; ;
presents
but this
is
a palpable error,
Justin. arising perhaps from according to 8); (Apol. ii. Philostratus, I. c., his place of
banishment was Gyara, which was visited from all sides on The same author his account. and the pseudo(Ajfol. v. 19) Lucian in his Nero, mention that one Musonius was em
the ployed in penal labour in proposed cutting of the isthmus.
Philostratus also
(I.
mentioned by Pliny he must have survived the reign of Trajan. Nothing is related as to any writings by him that which Stobasus communicates from him seems like an account given of his lectures by a dis
;
and indicates the exis tence of Memorabilia, such as those of Xenophon, or Arrian concerning Epictetus. Suidas (FIcoAiW) ascribes such airo^vr]ciple,
/jLovev/JMTa
Movffvviov
to
Asi-
c. iv.
35,
46) mentions a Babylonian Musonius, a wonderful philo into sopher, whom Nero threw But whether our Mu prison. here- meant, and sonius is the Ba/3jAwi/ios of Philostratus should be altered to BovXvivios, or discarded (vide Kieuwland, seems the more im p. 30 sqq.) material since these statements are as valueless as the absurd
nius Pollio, a contemporary of Pompey. Ridiculous as this is, it is probable that one Pollio
had composed them

not to be
identified
been done by ancient and mo dern writers) with Claudius

Pollio, who according to Pliny a (Ep. vii. 31, 5) had written Liber de Vita Anni (older reading Mvgonii) Jlassi, but rather with the grammarian Valerius
but he is (as has
Pollio,
who
(Suid.
I.
c.)
lived
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP.
.
to moral problems.
He
Practlcal
*lf\isplti-
bases of the Stoic system, and even tions were not him.
too starts from the general its theoretic por-
neglected by
Epictetus relates
^ iat ^ e Poetised his scholars in the use of logical forms, and demanded scrupulous accuracy with a remark as to the regard to them origin of moral
;
conceptions points to the Stoic theory of knowledge and its empiricism. 2 He mentions in a similar
certain physical doctrines; speaks of the unchangeable necessity of the universe, of the ceaseless change of all to which
manner
things everything, both in heaven and earth, is subject ; of the regular transition of the four elements one into another, 3
fulfilling itself
downward;
through the same stages upward and of the divine nature of the heavenly
Ociovs Kal 0eoei8e?s uvoThere is a similar de claration of Seneca, 120, 4;
under Hadrian, and was called a philosopher. According to the description of the younger Pliny (Ep. iii. 11) his f-on-inthe Artemidorus whom la\v, Pliny so enthusiastically praises, is to be considered his disciple.
avrous
p.aov.
_}>.
cf.
3
A>.
120, 11. Stub. Fhrll. 108, GO.
This
fragment bears with some others

(P/onl. 11), 13: 20, GO, Gl Ed. ii. o.jG) the inscription
PoiHpOU
<t)i\ias.
;
:
Dus. i. 7, 32. When llufus blamed him for not knowing how to find what was wanting in a syllogism, he excused him
1
K
is
TrtV
ETTi/CTTJTOK
TTtpl
That
nothing
self thus
tveirpr]aa,
fjd)
yap rb Kaviru\iov
however, an account
tetus (/. c. of Arrian s
meant by
taken
to
which the other

eV0a5e TO KcnriTwAiov eVrti/
more, this than from Epic

portion
from a
lost
replied,
avSpd-jroSov,
7rapa\snr6/ii.fi>ov
( here is what you have over looked, the chief thing ). A p. Stob. Fltiril. 117, 8, 89 (Mciu.): .Man can attain to
-
cerning
sonius
KpictL-t.
dissertations) con an utterance of Muiii.
(cf.
Schweighiiuser on is the less

1J>5)
virtue: ou
yap
"
eTpo>0eV
iroOtv
Tawras
/J-fu
and a comparison of
2:5,
open to doubt, since Musonius is always liuf us in Epictetus;

Dint.
iii.
fTrivoTJa ai
Tas aperas
*X~
^ a 71 avTTjs TT)S avOpwireias (f)i>(r(as, eVry^^j/Tey o.vOpuTrois TotoTcrSe THTIV, o lovs uinas
O<x-)>
with Gell. .V. ^1. v. 1, si lows that he is the person

29,
intended.
HIS PRACTICAL CHARACTER.

bodies
(in
l
249
so
and
as these are nourished
by vapours,
CHAP.
IX.
agreement with the Stoics and Heracleitus) the soul, he says, is nourished by the evaporation of the blood the lighter and purer, therefore, our food is,
;
the drier and purer will be the soul. 2 Some other definitions, standing in close connection with ethics
such as those respecting the goodness and moral perfection of God, the natural kinship of man with
God,
the divine omniscience, 4 the divine law, the 5 effluence of which is moral duty, or virtue as an
3
imitation of
God
we should
necessarily have pre
supposed to belong to him, even had no decided utterances on these subjects been handed down
to us.
To the popular
the recognition
1
religion he also accorded allowed by the Stoic principles,

such as we conceive
d. Gr. III.
i.
These are the gods for whose nourishment the evapo ration from the earth and from
the waters
2
Him
(Phil.
man,
p. 140), so also for virtuous conduct alone is
is sufficient.
c.
Stob.
Z.
Concerning the
corresponding Stoic doctrines

vide Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 189. 4 and 196, 2. The observation (Floril. 79, 61, p. 94) that God has as signed the faculty of thought to the best protected place in the
body, is of
little
importance this
;
may mean either the head or the

breast (cf ibid. III.
.
according to nature. 4 Stob. Floril. Exc. Jo. Dam. ii. 13, 125; Bd. iv. 218 (Mein). Musonius here infers from the omniscience of the gods that they require no demonstrative proof and he applies this in the manner discussed infra, but the thought of p. 252 the omniscience of God admits
; ;
i. p. 197, 2). Man Floril. 117, 8, p. 88. alone is a /ui/trj/ia deov upon the earth (similarly 17, 43, p. 2SG); as there is nothing higher in God than virtue (Musonius expressly
the
6
of very forcible application in way of ethical admonition. 5 LOG. clt. 79, 51, p. 94.
Cf.
note
and
Plut,
Be
enumerates the four funda mental virtues) as virtue alone
Aere Alieno, 7, 1, p. 830, where a capitalist says to Musonius* who wishes to borrow money
:
makes him the

exalted above
perfect being, beneficent, friendly to man, and

all
Saveiêrai, and the other laughingly replied, ou
Zeus 6 ^TjAoTs, ov
t>v
ffv
<ro>T77p,
fit/up
Kal
weaknesses,
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP.
IX.
without
apparently
troubling
himself
with
it.
1
speculative justification or interpretation of
any But
enquiry as such, with a knowledge that carries its end and purpose in itself, Mnsonius has no concern. We see this already from the fact
scientific
with
that
among the many sayings and discussions of his that have been preserved to us, 2 the theoretical doc trines of his school are only mentioned in a casual
and But he has himself spoken superficial manner. most definitely on 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.
In there
1
this
is
little
respect, however, to be quoted
the same
85,
way Musonius (Floril

end)
it
20,
from
these fragments. The deity is called Zeus, and the divine law the law of Zeus 51, p. 04); the (Floril, 71), stars are treated as gods
(*?//>.
luxury that
argues against hinders the ful

;
and asChrysippus had blamed the unmarried state as an offence against Zeus Gamep. 249,
1
filment of our duties among others, the duties connected with service to the gods. There are in all, more than fifty of them and among these many of considerable length
;
\ios(Phil.d.Gr.
III.
i.
2 ,3, 2) so
inVenhuizen Peerlkamp they occupy l. pages.

>5
work
:
Musonius urges, among other

things, against the exposure of children, that it is a crime against the TrarpoJoi 6eol and Ztvs 6/j.oyi/Los (Floril. 75, 15); and in favour of marriage he and Eros, Hera, says that Aphrodite have it under their
Ira, 2. p. 45a KCU urji uiv 76 ju.euvrnj.e6a MovcrocKa\uv fv ((TTtv, db 2i AAa, viov 5eiV aet 6fpairevoij.tvovs ftiovv rovs
*Plut,
Coli.
(T(*}f(T0ai
Tt>
/j.f\\oi ras.
Cell.
3*.
A. v. 1, 2, and infra p. 252, 3. This point of view, under which

the
first Cynics represented philosophy (rldi-Pltil. d. Gr. 11.
i. becomes strikingly ;i) jn-ominent every where after the beginning of the rirst century
2S."),
while the observa protection tion deal yap (irirpoirevovo ii avTIJV, Ka9o vo/jLiôvrai Trap avQpuTTOIS, /jLcydhoi, even if we subst itute voî^rai and thus render the assertion less startling, still points the distinction between the popular and the philoso In phical notion of the gods.
;
:
A.D.
examples have
(.<??//;.
already
come before us p. 77,3; 237, 2) and we shall meet with others among Stoics, Platonists, and
Neo- Pythagoreans.
ETHICS OF MUSONIUS.
the only way to virtue, and therefore occupation with it is necessary for every one, 2 but conversely virtue is the even for women;
251
1
Philosophy
is
CHAP.
only end and
philosophy ; to philo the principles sophise means to learn and to practise 3 A philosopher and of conduct according to duty. content of
a righteous
man
are therefore
synonymous
4
;
virtue
and philosophy are only different designations for But whereas Socrates and Plato the same thing.
understood this proposition in the sense that virtue is merely the fruit of a real and fundamental know Musonius, on the contrary, agrees with the
ledge,
attained without Cynics that true wisdom can be much knowledge by means of moral endeavour.
Philosophy requires few doctrines, and may dispense with theorems in which the Sophists take such de well be learned even in light what is necessary may
;
5 the occupations of the spade and the plough. Virtue is far more a thing of custom than of instruction, for
the vicious habits of

1
men
where
&/
ttt]
are only to be overcome by

Trelv OTTUS
&i<t><rovTai
Stob. Floril. 48, 67,

:
KaAws,
ii>
oirep
we read
TIS
pi)
SIKCUOS 8e
trtos
rb fyiXovofytlv
t<rn;
Floril. 67, 20,

erej)
fTTitrrd^vos
t<rri
iKaio<rvvi}v
end
pov
but this is imwithout philosophy. possible Likewise in regard to (rwtppoo-vvri

birol6v rl
;
n (paiverai
Trooo-rj/cei
ov yap
877
<pi*.o<ro<p
lv
rb
/tej
Kal a
4
\6ytf
:
Ipyy Se
ayaBbv
e<rri.
and the other

fore
:
TTWS
Kal
Therevirtues. Tiva Tp6irov 8u-
Trpdrreiv. Flori-l. 79, 51
rb 5e
:
vatro av TIS jSaenAeucrai ^ fiiuvat
Ka\ws,
2
el /my
<pi\o<ro<pT)(rtiev.
Floril. Jo. Damaxc. ii. 13, 123, 126 (iv. 212 sqq. 220 sqq.
Mein).
3
LOG.
cit.
ii.
13,
123, end,
p.
216
tyiXoffoQia.
Ka\oKayaeias
;
tffrlv eiriTTiSfvo-is Kal ovSev erepoi/ (thus Floril. 48, 67) 1. c. ii.
ravrdv the Similarly 48, 67 good prince is necessarily a and the philosophilosopher, pher is necessarily tit to be a prince (?), (cf. svp. note 1). 5 Loc. cit. 56, 18, p. 338 gq. INlusonius here shows that the calling of a husbandman is best ritted for a philosopher.
T($ (pi^ffotpov eli/at
13, 126, p. 221
^rety
/cal
<TKO-
32
ECLECTICISM.
The disposition to virtue, the opposite habits. of virtue, is implanted in all men nature ; 2
1
CHAP.
by
germ if we
have before us an unspoiled pupil of a good dispo sition, it needs no lengthy argument to convey to him right moral principles and the right estimation
of goods and evils
are better than
;
a few convincing proofs, indeed,

;
many the main point is that the conduct of the teacher should correspond with his principles, and that similarly the disciple should live
3 according to his conviction.
To this practical end, to Musonius, all instruction should then, according

;
work. The teacher of philosophy should not pro duce applause but improvement he should ad minister to his hearers the moral medicine that they require if he does this in the right way, they will
;
not have time to admire his discourse, they will be with themselves and their con completely occupied
exaltation. 4
science, with feelings of shame, repentance, and In this manner Musonius himself tried
to
work upon
hearts
his disciples
5
;
he spoke so forcibly
as
if
to
their
that each individual felt
per
sonally struck
1
he made the entrance to his school

t
Loc. elt. 29, 78, with which the statement of Lucius (sup. p. 199) in the E,cc. e. Jo. Dam. i. 7, 40 (vol. iv. 109 sy. Mein.)
entirely agrees.
*
from all, and all lay claim to lie honour of it (cf. Phil. d. Gr.
a
i. 224, 2). Stob. Flttril.
III.
Dam.
M.)
ii.
13,
JY.
2. },
1.
125
(iv.
v.
Eve. e 217
1
;
Jo.
sqtj.
ndvres
&<TT
TUS KaXus
fyvcrei ir^c^vKa^v ovfjv ava/j.apTr)T(as Kal
("Jell.
A.
29.
c.
:
Epict.
O VTUS
(pvffiKrjv flvai virofio-
Dixx.
5
iii.
\r)v TIJ TOV avdpuirov tyvxfj irpbs KaXoKayadiav Kal airep/uLa aperris
tK.d(TTv
Ka-
Ti/j.ui
eVeTi/ai,
where
this
dri^fvov olfvQcu OTL TIS TTOTC avrbv
is
proved (ap. Stob. Eel. ii. 426 v (/-) ^y the argument that the
laws demand
moral
conduct
OVTUS ^ Sia/SeySATjêi/yivo^vuv, ovru -irpb triBei TO e/cacrroi; /ca/co.
PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHY.
more
difficult, in order to separate the stronger natures from the weaker and more effeminate he
l ;
9;
CHAP
sought to brace their force of will by the thought of the difficulties life would bring to them 2 and we
;
may
tion
well believe that the influence of such instruc
must have been very important and lasting on the character of those who enjoyed it. But we cannot expect that a philosopher who so decidedly subor
problems to practical influence, should distinguish himself by originating new thoughts or even by the firmer establishment and
logical
If,
dinated scientific
development of a doctrine already existing. therefore, in most of the fragments of 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 merely an application of the recognised Stoical principles which sometimes becomes so minute that the philosopher, after the
find in
is
them
example of Chrysippus, does not even disdain to 3 give precepts on the growth of the hair and beard.
On certain points the Stoic principles are exaggerated
Musonius exceeds the bounds of Stoicism and ap proximates partly to the simplicity of the Cynics and
partly to the asceticism of the Neo-Pythagoreans; at other times he deduces, even from thence, such pure
1
Loc. Loc.
cit. iii. 6, 10.
/coAw (to treat this better) *apa

:
cit.
i.
9,
fjLf
29
OVTU Kal
aov avra \a^f1v Swdueuos.

3
PovQos ireipdfov
<TOL
<rv/j.fi-h<reTat
Xfyeiv TOVTO Kal TOVTO
fi(9fi
Ploril.
6,
62,
where
Muso
im-b rov SCO-TTOTOU. KO./J.OV irpbs ourbi/ airoKptva/mfvov, 6n avdpwri iriva$7}, Ixelvov Trapaovi>,
Chrysippus before him (Athen. xiii. 565, a), expresses himself strongly against the cutting of the hair and beard.
nius, like
254
ECLECTICISM.
and yet humane precepts as were not universal in the Stoic school itself. His leading thought is the inner freedom of man. But this is linked to two con
ditions, (1) the right treatment
CHAP,
.
of that
which
is
in
our power, and (2) submission to that which in our power. In our power is the use we
of our ideas,
is
not
make
we
and on
this
depends
all
virtue and
;
happiness.
All the rest is out of
our power
that
must, therefore, leave to the course of the universe,
and must be
brings us.
1
satisfied
From
this standpoint
;
and happy with whatever it Musonius 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,
pleasure and pain, life and death, are indifferent he requires that we should defend ourselves against the troubles of life, not by external means but by
;
elevation above the external, and indifference towards

3
it;
that, for example,
we should regard
exile as
no
evil,
1
but should
Ki-l.
ii.
feel ourselves at
home
r<3
in the
whole
Kal
TT)S
Stub.
H5G
ruv
uv-
firirpeâi
KLKTJJ.U.\
eJVe
-Ka
T&V
TO, p.fv e
rj/uLlv
edero 6 debs
Tt>
r&v iraiSwv
Se oiro
efre
ra 8 ou. e rjfjuv /j.ev TOV Kal (TTTOfScuoTaToj

O.UTUS
fvSal/j.wi
TiteV.
/caAAtrr5r;
o>
Kal
eVrl,
TI-JV xpf;(Tii/
~ya.p
erre rpiSos etre rou <rufj.aros urovovv, aa/j-fvovs Trapa.-%u>pt1v. Cf. Florll. 7, I?. ? (/ITJ Svcrxepawe
TO.IS TrepicrTacrerrii
)
;
Tovro
6p9ws
/.
c.
108,
(50,
ov e\evOepia
SIKII
(Tvv-f]
errrij/ etipoia
where from the thought of the

necessity of the course of the world and of the change of all things, is deduced the moral application that the condition of a harmonious life is the tK^vra df xeadai ravayKala.
Floril. 29, 78, Gell. ^V. A. xvi. 1.
tffT\
fvffrddeia, TOVTO Se Kal Kal vofj-os Kal crwcppo^vjjLTvacra

e
Kal
apery
ij/j.as
ra
aAAa iravra OVK

(raro.
rifjuv
eVoiTj-
OVKOVV Kal
(rv^-f]-
(puvs
XPV
rt?
&eV
y^veffOai
Kal
ravrrt SieXovras ra Trpdyuara T&V iU.ej/ iip.1v iravra rpoirov avne<p"
p.
15;
cf.
TroielaOai,
ra
Se
/J.T]
rijjuv
Siij). p.
253,
2.
GENERAL PRECEPTS.
world,
it.
2
1
255
CHAP. that we should neither seek death nor shun IX In order to attain this strength of mind, how #* * ethics. ever, man needs not only the most continual moral
practice
and the most unremitting attention to but also bodily hardening. 4 Musonius, himself, therefore, admonishes us to learn to endure bodily
3 5 exertions, deprivations, and hardships ; he desires to lead us back as much as possible, in regard to food, clothing, and domestic arrangements, to a
6 he goes further, and with Sextius ; the Neo-Pythagoreans, counsels us to avoid the and eating of flesh, because this is not according to
state of nature
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
1
many
of the
Cf
the lengthy discussion
ap. Stob. Floril. 40, 9, which finally comes to the conclusion that as banishment robs a man
runt is also quite in accord ance with his spirit that he prevented Rubellius Plautus
of neither of the four principal virtues, it robs him of no real

it cannot injure the good man, and the bad man is injured by his wickedness and not by banishment.
from escaping, by means of an the death with which Nero threatened him.
insurrection,
3
good;
Cf. Stob. Floril. 29, 78,
and
the expression (ap. Gell. N. A.

1), remittere animum quasi amittere est. 4 For the body, he says (ap. Stob. I. .), must be made the serviceable tool of the mind, and with it the soul also will
xviii. 2,
i. 306,4, entire agreement with this that Musonius (ap. Epict. Diss. i. 26 sg.) blames Thrasea because he desired death rather than exile for we should nei-
Cf. Phil. d. 6fr.HI.
5. It is in
be strengthened.
I. c. Pliny, Ep. iii. praises in Artemidorus (sup. p. 246, 3, end),besides other excellences, his hardiness, mo;
Stob.
6,
ther,
says, choose the harder instead of the easier, nor the
he
11,
but regard
0<u
easier instead of the harder, it as a duty apKf iff-
story which Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 59) with a qualifying ferelates

TcjS
ScSo/ieVy.
The
deration, and abstemiousness. 6 Stob. Floril. 1, 84 18, 38 94, 23. 8, 20 7 Loc. cit. 17, 43, sup. 249, 2.
; ;
256
ECLECTICISM.
Stoics
CRAP.
man
he
is
who carry the self-dependence of the wise to the point of dissuading even from marriage JT O O
himself a
warm advocate
of a connection so
;
natural, and, in a moral point of view, so beneficial
and gives very good and wholesome precepts on the
He sets himself still more decidedly the immoral courses which the elder Stoics against had not unconditionally excluded, for he condemned
1
subject.
all
unchastity in or out
of marriage, 2 as also the
custom of the repudiation and exposure of children, 3 so common in antiquity, and justified even by Plato
and
Aristotle.
in all this
him
it
is
The gentle disposition which guides also shown in the proposition that
is unworthy of man to revenge injuries, partly because such faults as a rule arise from ignorance,
partly because the wise man cannot really be injured, and not the suffering but the doing of wrong is to
be regarded as an evil and a disgrace. 4 When, how ever, he condemns on this principle the judicial
indictment of offences, we recognise the onesidedness of a standpoint where elevation above external things has become indifference to them, and lias
degenerated into a denial of their interconnection with things within.
With Musonius
1
is
connected his famous disciple

;
Lor. cH. G7, 20

;
GO, 23
i.
70,
14
of.
Phil. d. Or. III.
293, 2,
and gup. p. 246, 3. He himself was married, for Artemidorus was his son-in-law p. 24G, 3, end), and in the Program.
(.<??//>.
himself Mii&nn lure sobolcs, cretux Vohhncnxi. Loc. cit. G, Gl. 3 Loc. cit. 75, 15; 84, 21 cf. sup. p. 250, 1. 4 Loc. cit. 19, 16; 40,9; ScJil.
i
:
A,ttliol.
I
Ltif.
i.
79
(vol.
i.
urm.)
Test us
Avienus
57, calls
20, Gl.
DATE OF EPICTETUS.
Epictetus, a Phrygian who lived in Rome under Nero and his successors, went in the reign of Domitian to Nicopolis, and seems to have died in
CHAP.
TX.
that of Trajan.
1
In the discourses
of this philo-
Epictetus native city was Hierapolis in Phrygia (Suid. He himself was a ETTI/CT.). slave of Epaphroditus, the f reedman of Nero (Suid., Epict. Dlss. i. 19, 19: cf. i. 1, 20;
Gellius, N. A. ii. 18, 10; Macrob. Sat. i. 11, 45; Simpl. in Epict. EncMrid. c. 9,
i.
sible. Even Spartian s state ment (Hadr. 16), that Hadrian associated with him in sunima familiarltate is somewhat sus
26, 11
picious, as Hadrian s accession to the throne (117 A.D.) is more
than 50 years removed from the time when Epictetus seems to have heard Musonius in
the last years of nevertheless have extended to the reign of Ha
his life
p.
102, Heins.),
weak
in
cf. (Simpl. I. c. Epict. Enchir. 9; Celsus, ap. c. Cels. vii. 7 Suid. and Grig. others according to Simplicius
; ;
:
and lame
body
Rome; but
may
he was lame from his youth according to Suidas he became so through sickness according to Celsus, through the illtreatment of his master, who may indeed have used him harshly, judging from the quo
;
;
drian, or this emperor may have become acquainted with him before he came to the throne. He himself makes mention of
Trajan (Dig*,
13,
9).
iv.
5,
17
cf. iii.
The consideration in which Epictetus was held by his contemporaries and later
authorities
others,
is
attested,
tation gup. p. 253, 2), and lived in great poverty (Simpl. I. c. and on c. 33, 7, p. 272; Macrob. I.e.). While he was yet a slave he heard Musonius (Epict. Dig*. i. 7, 32; 9, 29: iii. 6, 10; 23,
29).
by and
Gellius,
among who calls
him
nob Hi
(ii.
ft,
18,
10)
pMloxophu*
(in xviii. Wi^maxiwusphilosojrftorum ; also by Mar
cus Aurelius
(irp. eat/r. i. 7),
who
In the sequel he must
have become free. Under Do mitian he must have left Rome (sup. p. 190, 1, end) with the other philosophers (Gell. N. A.
Lucian, Peregr. 18) he betook himself to Nicopolis in Epirus (Gell. I. c. Suidas), where Arrian heard him (Epict. Dlss. ii. 6, 20 1, Praf. cf. iii. 22, 52). According to Suidas and Themistocles (Or. v. 63, he lived until the reign of Marcus Aurelius this, how
; ; ;
:
xv. 11, 5
thanks his teacher, Rusticus, even in mature age, for having made him acquainted with the Memorabilia of Epictetus; cf. likewise Lucian, Adv. Ind. 13 (who relates that an ad mirer of Epictetus bought his earthenware candlestick for
3,000 drachmas) Simpl. Enchir. Prcff. p. 6 sq. and
;
in
others.
many
ever, is chronologically
impos
2 These are the Aiarpiftal and the Eyx* l pfoiov. Arrian wrote down the former, as he says in the preface, after Epictetus as faithfully as possible, in the
258
ECLECTICISM.
the problem sopher, recorded by his admirer Arrian, to its moral of philosophy is likewise restricted
1
CHAP.
IX.
His
dis courses
According to Epictetus, to philosophise operation. 2 The is to learn what to desire and what to avoid.
reported bt/Arrian.
Moral
practice
the end
beginning of philosophy is the consciousness of a man s own weakness and need of help he who is to
:
become good must

first
first
be convinced that he
is evil.
instance for his
own
use,
and only published them when copies of them had begun to

be taken without his co-opera
tion.
The Handbook
lie
com
piled later, partly from the Dissertations (Simpl. in Ejrict. j\Ian. Prcrf., according- to a letter of Arrian to Massalenus). He also wrote about the life
drian, in 18P) A.D., as prefect of appadocin, he held the hostile Albanians in check (Dio Cass. He afterwards rose to I. .). the consulate ("Phot. Cod. 5S, Suid. avrip Pwp.a iwv tv Tols TOIS, he is called by Lucian, From this we see Alr.r. 2). that, though belonging to a Xi(
;
Ttpu>-
comeclian family (Phot.
Toe/. 58),
and end of Epictetus (Simpl. The latter work is pro I.

<:.).
bably identical with the twelve books OfuAi cu ETTLKTIITOV menof tioned by Photius (Cod. the eight books of AiarpijSoi, to which the same writer alludes, we have still four, and of the other numerous fragment s most I quote Arai-e in Stobncus.
~>S)
he possessed the right of lloman citizenship, whether he himself had received it or one of his ancestors (probably from one
rian s
writings on Epictetus simply under Epictetus name. That Epictetus himself wrote
much
false.
1
(Suid.)
is
manifest ly
He of the Flavian emperors). was also an Athenian citizen, and was named after the man whom he imitated as author and general, S.evoty&v or re os s.evofywv (Arrian. T)e Voiat. 1, Phot. /. c., Suid.). Ac 4, 5, G and Suid. cording to Phot. /. he lived till the reign of Mar cus Aurelius. Concerning his writings, ef. Fabric. J}il>Hntli.
;
<".
Flavius Arrianus (Dio Cass. the name Fla vius) was born and grew up in the Bithynian town of NicoIxix. 15, attests
v. 91
///>/.
Ilarl.
K<//{.
;"Miiller,
Fraijvi.
(!r. iii. 58(5.
The Arrian
;
whose
quoted
2
is
meteorology is often not the Stoic cf.

l
media, where he was also priest
Demeter and Kore (Arrian. Under Phot. Cod. 93). Trajan we find him with Epic tetus at Nicopolis (see the two last notes and Lucian, Mex. 2, under Ha and elsewhere)
of
a]>.
Meteor, i. 1!?S. J)isa. iii. 14, 10: Ka (TX^V Tb (f)l\0(TO(p?V TOVT fffTL, (,7JT?l
Idelt-r. Arixt.
TTUS
:t
eVSe êrcu
airapairo8i(TTtoS
(Ki<\i(rei.
opfêi xpf/fT0ai KOL DixK. ii. 11,
a-pxh
Ao</>
(rofyias irapa TTJV 6vpav(l\(jt dTipav*)
HIS DOCTRINES.
The philosopher is
his scholars,
is it
259
and not the healthy
whom the sick come, CHAP. he must not only instruct but help and cure them; of what use and proa physician to
l
to display his learning before
them, to develop
dogmas, however true they may be, or to provoke 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
first
^^
sophy.
them
;
to the feeling of their wretchedness
and
ignorance
that he should call forth in
resolve of
amendment
that
them the he should make
them
philosophers, not in their opinions, but in 2 in a word, that he should produce their behaviour ;
avrov
TTfpl TO.
is avrrfS affOevetas
crvvatffQi]<ns
rrjs
only in order to applaud thy

fine oratory
8.)
? (Similarly rovTO 2w/cpaT7js eiroiei
Kal
_?r.
a$vva/j.ias
iii.
;
21,
avayKaia.
1,
3 (Stob.
el.
rovra
Floril.
48):
et
jSouAei ayaOus
Kaitbs
Z-f]va}v;rovTaK\dv9r]S.
And also
eTi/cu, iriffTtvcrov
6n
:
Cf.
Seneca, sup.
1
p. 273, 2.
Diss.
iii.
23,
30 Iarpe16v fcrnv,
avftpes, rb TOV fyiKoffAfyov ov 5e? rjffdfvras e|eA0eiV, Ae?oj/
ax~
aA\
oi>x
a\yf)(TavTus.
epêffde
yap
vyiets, &c. Cf. Fr. 17 (Stob. Flor. iv. 94), and Musonius,
sup. p. 733, 2; 734, 5 sq. 2 Diss. iii. 23, 31, Epicfcetus You come, not as continues
:
healthy people, a\\

5
(passing over other utterances), ii. 19. Epictetus is here asked what he thinks of the Kvptevwv (Phil. d.Gr. II. i. 230, 4), and he replies that he has as yet come to no opinion thereupon but he knows that very mucli has been written about it. Has he read the treatise of Antipater on the subject? No and he does not wish to do so what does the reader gain from it ? $\va; ;
:
e/cjScÂ^/cws, 6 S cunJcTTTjjUct 6 5e avpiyya ex^^j &
elr
ya>v.
iyco Kadicras
v/u. iv
\eycc
^TTL^wvrj/ndTia, li? firaivecravTfs /xe e|6\07jTe, 6

*bv S}/JLOV
,
Kal
K<pfp(av
oTov
eiffr)-
6 5e
T^V
K<pa\^v
ucravrcas
And shall the Zxovffav, &c. young men make long journeys,
leave their parents
ings,
p6repos effrai Kal aKaipdrepos, Such tilings are % vvv tan. worth just as much as the learning of the grammarians about Helen and the island of Calypso. But even with ethical doctrines it is generally the same thing. Men relate to one another the principles of a
and belong
s
and spend
their property,
Chrysippus and a Cleanthes, as they relate a history from Hel2
L GO
ECLECTICISM.
on them the deep moral impression which Epictetus had received from Musonius, and his scholars in like manner received from Epictetus.
1
CHAP,
himself
Inferior
From
this
point of view
Epictetus
this
could
of
theoretial
course ascribe to theoretical knowledge,

a very subordinate value
;
as such, only
know
ledge.
and
must
especially
hold good of that part of philosophy which mani distant connection with festly stood in the most
ethics, namely logic. The chief thing in philosophy is the application of its doctrines next to this stands the proof of them only in the third rank comes
;
lanicus
to of
but if somebody were remind one of these disciples

;
TOVS,
3\fvQepovs, tvpoovvras, evfls Qthv a.(pos,

T\>V
the philosophers during a shipwreck or a trial before the emperor, that death and ban ishment are not evils, he would regard it as an outrageous mockery. Of what use, then, is such a philosophy ? Deeds must show to what school a man But most of those belongs. who call themselves Stoics prove themselves to be rather Epicureans, or, a the most, Peripatetics of the laxest sort.
1
:
tv iravrl
/j-ixpui
Kal /j.eyd\w.
6?7rar6
Your purpose
5;a
fj.01
is
to learn this.
TL
ovv
OVK
a^yerai;
It
r)]V airiav.
can onlv
lie
in you, or in me, or in both. 6e\T apc!:ut6d Trore T oiiv

L
;
roiavTT]v
eVijSoA?^
fj-^^pL
fJ.6vOV,
Ko/.u (, e(i/
eV-
TavOa
TO,
vvv
a<pct)/j.V
ap^d /J-fdo
TTLtTTflKTaTe
ULOL
Kal utyfcrde.
of the tetus admonished
A further example manner in which lopicliis
given in
1
stt/>.
J)in#.
i.
J>,
pupils 10-21.
is
~2,TU) iKbv
Se
. .
Seizure
8ei |aTe
fj.oi,
JJLOI
e?
TLVO.
eêre
(Tovvra
Tivd vo-
Concerning Musonins, ride JK 252 concerning Epic

:
Kal
vevovTa
iI/iiYTjv
fVTvx^^vra, Kivfiv\c. Kal evrvôvvra,

TLS vp.wv dvdpwirov
w/j.ovri<Tai
tetus, Arrian,
firel
7>/x.s
Pr(cf. S
UTI
.s-y.
Kal
\tywv avrbs ovSfvbs d\~f]V
5e(aTa>
\ov SrjXos
KLVTJcrai
f(pif/j.fvos,
/j.ri
deXovros
.
6/j.oyi
rw Bey
(pOovricrai tTridv-
TOS yvu/u-as TOOV CLKOVOVTCOV
/J.TI
.
dpyLffdyvai,
e|
fj.T]
Oeov
dvOpunrov
.
. . -
/uovvra yfVfcrQai a\A OVK lx 6T6
5ei|aT6.
^ I/
If his dis n-pbs rd &(\Ti(TTa. courses, as reported by Arrian, did nol accomplish this, aAA.
Tt/
a ^ T0 ^s
fj.ev
&c.
Kal vvv
tw
^\Iy
tK(7vo ffTTwffav ol fVTvyxdvovTfs, on, av-rlts oTTore (\eyev avrovs,

dvdyK-r]
-ffv
rovro
Trdrr^ftv
oirep
rl)V
Trap
f/jLol
TraiSevevOe.
pur
aKpow/iievov avrov,
e/ce?j/oj
pose
IS, ctTroTe Aerrai
v/j.as
O.KW\V-
TOVS, CLyavayKaffTOVs, aTrapairoSicr-
LOGIC.
the doctrine of proof, the scientific method, for that is only necessary on account of the proof, and proofs
are only necessary on account of their application. However useful and indispensable, therefore, logic may be in order to protect us from fallacies, and
1
201
CHAP.
_
though accuracy and thoroughness are undoubtedly 2 an end necessary in its pursuit, yet logic cannot be
in itself
;
the question
is
not that we should be able
to explain Chrysippus and solve dialectic difficulties, but that we should know and follow the will of nature, that we should attain the right in what we do and avoid 3 the only unconditioned end is
;
virtue
dialectic is a tool in its service,

is
the art of
help, which has merely speech 5 In accord nothing to do with philosophy as such. ance with these principles, Epictetus seems to have
a subordinate
at
occupied himself very little with dialectic questions ; any rate the written records of his doctrine con
single logical or dialectical discussion.
tain not a
Even the refutation of scepticism gives him little concern ; he declares it to be the greatest stubborn
ness to deny self-evident things
Man. c. 52. Epictetus elsewhere (Diss. Hi. 2 ii. 17 15
1
; ;
he says he has not
29 *#.) distinguishes three problems of philosophy: the first and most necessary is that it should set us free from our passions the second, that it should make us acquainted with our duties; the third that it should strengthen ourconvictions with irrefragable proofs and he insists that we should not
sq.
; :
trouble ourselves about this last point unless we are clear about the two first, 2 ii. 25 ; Diss. i. 7; c. 17 vide sup. p. 248, 1. 3 ii. 17, 27 Diss. i. 4, 5 sqq. c. 21, 1 sqq.\ ii. 19 iii. 2 sqq.
; ; ; ;
sqq. (vide previous note) ; c. 18, 17 *q. ; Man. 46. 4 Diss. i. 7, 1 ; Man. 52.
5
Diss.
i.
8,
4 sqq.
ii.
23.
262
ECLECTICISM.
to contend with .such objections for his he lias never taken hold of a broom when he part wished to take up a loaf of bread he finds that
; ;
CHAP.
time
the
same way, and put food into the mouth and not into the eye finally he encounters them with the old reproach
sceptics
themselves act in
the
that
they cannot deny the possibility of know
2 Of ledge without maintaining its impossibility. the proper signification of scepticism and of the necessity of its scientific refutation he has no idea.
tions
just as little concerned about the investiga of natural philosophy ; indeed, he expressly agrees with the saying of Socrates, that enquiry
is
He
into the ultimate constituents and causes of things passes our understanding, and could have no value in any case. 3 If, therefore, he generally presup the Stoic theory of the universe, he not only poses 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 especially the which attract his attention. theological definitions
He
1
is
full
5
of the thought of
;
God, who knows our

fl
J}tSS.
Diss.
/mot
i.
27, 15 sqq.
1
ii.
Qpoairivy yvufj.y
5e Kal
ra
/u.d-
20, 28.
2
\tcrra
ii.
dfiri
ovi>
ris
flvai
Kara\-i}irra,
Ka.Ta\ri<t>eev-
20,
tjq.
:
a\\
f
e
/c
ri
u<pf\os
Fr. 75 (Stob. Flor. 80, 14)

fj.c\fi,
T)
fyriffl,
-rrorepov
i)
This discussion prorwv, &c. fosses to bo u comment ;uy on

the Socnitic theory, as
\vi>
a.T6fj.wv,
e
6/j.oio,u.fp>i>,
sec
rrvpbs Kal
-yfjy
(rvvea-rriKe
^j.aQe iv
ra ovra ra
5
ov yap dp/ce?
inrep
r]ju.as
TT]V
ovviav
ariva
av-
rov ayaOov Kal KUKOV, Me.

TV)(bv
[j.kv
âipfLV aKaTa\r]TTTd
tav
by the word ^Tjcrl, which is afterwards repeated; but it is nevei lieless unmistakable that the same Epictetus adopts
t
imiv
standpoint liimself.
GOD AXD THE WORLD.

words and intentions, from whom comes all good, in whose service the philosopher stands, without
263
CHAP.
;
whose commission he may not go he should have always before his

interconnection of the universe
to his work,
1
whom
proves
Religious
eyes.
He
the guidance of Providence by the unity, order, and 2 he praises the ;
paternal care of
God
for
men, the moral perfection
which makes
Him
3 a pattern for us.
He
recognises
all in the world the work of God, who and fault has made the whole perfect for the best
has ordered
less
all its parts to correspond with the of the whole, has destined all men to happi necessity 4 ness and furnished them with the conditions of it ;
and formed
he
of
the adaptation extols, in the spirit of his school,

to ends in the universe,
so
means meets us
which he says that our whole life clearly at every step
should be an unceasing song of praise to the Deity ; to point out and, like his school, he condescends this adaptation even in the smallest and most ex ternal things ; 6 he does not allow himself to be dis
turbed in his faith even by the apparent evils and learned from the injustices in the world, having Stoa to reconcile these also with the perfection of
God and
however,
Stoics,
1
his works. 7
Epictetus,
refers
in
This belief in Providence, the true fashion of the

to
always
primarily
4
the
universe,
on
Meanwhile,
;
shall recur to this later cf. Diss. 22,
5 e
2- 23, 63; 21, 18; ii. 14, 11, 18 19 19, 29 i. 16. 2 Diss. i. 14, 16; Man. 31, 1. 3 ii. 14, Diss. i. 6, 40; 9, 7 11
; ;
Diss. iv. 7, 6; iii. 24, 2 sq. Diss. i. 16. Cf. Diss. i. 16,9 sqq. and
Phil. d. Or. III. i. 172, end. 7 Ibid. III. i. 175, 4; 178, 2; and infra, p. 271, 1.
s.
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP,
and to the individual only so far as is determined by the interdependence of the whole when he
;
Things, Musonius, cannot happen otherwise than as they do happen we cannot withdraw ourselves from under the law of change to which the heavenly bodies and the elements are subject; 2 against the
says, with
;
counsels submission to the will of God, this coin cides, in his sense with the demand that man should conform to the order of nature. he
1
all things serve and obey we 3 So also he expressly mentions ought not to rebel. the doctrine which most strongly asserts that
universal order which
nothing individual is more than a transient moment in the flux of the whole the doctrine of the con
flagration
conviction
to
the religious of Epictetus allies itself on this side physics, so on the other side it allies itself,
as
of
the
world. 4
And
like
Stoicism,
to
the
pantheism
with
him
also
Stoic popular religion. includes polytheism ;
the derived divine natures are to be distinguished from the primal divine nature ; 5 and if all things
ii.
i. 12, 15 sq. 28 24 xqq. 6, 9 xqq. In the fragment mentioned ?(p. p. 248, 3, which begins thus 6ri roiavrt] TJ rov K6(r/j.ov fyiHTis
1
Z>m.
,<ty.;
Kal a^ftvov
rat,
5,
^ra
v-n-fp fowv 0e0ov\fvTUV 6\(av Kal T]/j.as avv-
SIOIKWV.
With Epictetus
also,
as with his
4
/>7.v,s-.
whole school, God

13, 4
,sv/y.,
coincides with the universe.

iii.
Kal fffri
Kal
errTar
ttal
oi/x
ol6v
where,
re &\\ws yiyvtcrdai. ra fl *) is vvv *x

-
yiyi>6/j.fi/a,
Fr. 13G (Stob. Floril. 108,

:
0(5
Trdvra
uirT?p6T6?
viraitovei
T<
Ko<T/n.ca
as in Sen. Ep. 9, 1(5, the condition of Zeus after tho universal conflagration is described.
5
earth, sea, stars, plants, animals, our own bodies.
Kal
Hence he says
;
in
7/?.s-.v.
iv.
12, 11
670;
rii
i
Our
Kal
exw
0ea>
TIVI
judgment
alone
cannot
5e?
ctpfV/ceii/,
be set up
in opposition to it. yap i(rxvp6s eVrt Kal Kpeicr(Twi>,
ireiêo-âr
raJ
viroreraxQai, rivi Kal rols âer
tKtlvov
(ii.
17, 25): r
Ait
SOOTHSAYING.
are full of divine powers, so are they full of gods 1 The beneficence of these gods we con-
205
CHAP.
and daemons.
tinually enjoy in all that we receive from nature and from other men ; to deny them is the more unjusti
fiable,
the greater
2
is
cause to so many. to the popular religion
the injury that we thereby Yet the relation of Epictetus

is,
dependent
accordingly he
on the whole, very in seldom mentions the
popular gods, and then only casually, without further committing himself to the allegorical interpretations
but prefers to speak in a general of the gods or the deity, or even of Zeus ; manner he retains indeed, with Socrates, the principle of honouring the gods according to our power, after
of his
school,
the manner of antiquity, 3 but he also knows very well that the true service of God consists in know
4 ledge and virtue ; the fables about the underworld, the worship of hostile beings he blames ; 5 and if he does not attack the belief in soothsaying, he
able to dispense with prophecy, that they should make use of it without fear and desire, being previously in harmony
demands that men should be
with the result, and should not

Oeo is, and iii. 13, 4 besides Zeus, Here, Athene, Apollo, and, generally speaking, the gods, who do not survive the conflagration of the world. 1 Diss. iii. 13, 15 iravra 6fwv
first
enquire of the
but,
rots &\\ois
s<^.),
Pluto are named;
the Stoic
unmistakably reserves to hituself the traditional interpreta-
tion of these gods in the ffiKbs \6yos.

8
4
<J>u-
êo-ra Kal tatp6vuv.
Man. Man.
;
31, 5.
;
LOG. tit. ii. 20, 32 sqq., where, as examples of gods the denial of whom is censured by
Euripides, Demeter, Kore,
19
b
cf. Digs. ii. 18, 31, 1 Phil. d. (Jr. III. i. 311, 1. Diss. iii. 13, 15 ; i. 19, 6 ;
22, 16.
and
ECLECTICISM.
soothsayer, where
1
CHAP
the
fulfilment of a
duty
is
in
question.
Man
an.
i
emanatwn from God.
To Epictetus the
belief in the
is
hum
...
<
kinship of the
;
spirit to
God
of tlie highest value

;
man
should be aware of his he should higher nature himself as a son of God, as a regard part and emanation of the deity, in order to gain from this
thought the feeling of Ids dignity, of his moral

responsibility,
ternal,
his
independence of
all
things ex
brotherly love to his fellow men, and the consciousness of his citizenship in the universe ; -
and in the same sense Epictetus, after the manner of his school, elso employs the conception of daemons,
3 understanding by them merely the divine in man.
On the other hand we vainly seek in him for more minute anthropological enquiries even the question of immortality is only mentioned casually, and if from his utterances on the subject we gather that (departing from the Stoic dogma) he disbelieved
;
in a personal existence after death, utterances of his are also to be found which logically lead to
the opposite theory.

1
Nor
20
ii.
is
the question of the
Disx.
JJittit.
;
ii.
i.
7;
Man.
e. c.
.
32.
;
from the commencement, alien

12,
;
3;
c.
.">
to
.NV/C/.
c.
13,3;
;
14,
;
*////.
and
8,
(/.
yqq.
iv. 7, 7 xq.
i.
cf.
Phil,
(ir. III.
3
Dinx.
i.
200, 2. 14, 12 xqq.\

p.
151
]>.
the body, lonirs to leave it to ivturn to its original state. Thus in Fr. 170 (ap M. Auivl. iv. 41 ): ^vxa-pwv e/, /3ocrTdôv
v titpov
rcf
c.
:
cf.
Phil.
cf.
L>iss.
ii.
1!>,
*/.
4
(!r. III.
i.
2.
27:
eV
/.
au\uaTLw ruvrca
i.
Epictetus view of the des-
vfKpw,
in,
<),
<j
hm
e.spc-
tiny of tlie soul after dent h is On the one not easy to state. hand lie treats the soul (this aspect will be spoken of a<ruin later on) as an essence which is,
10 xqq. lie daily J)ix$. i. thought hat they (he here says to his disciples) e-myvovres T^V
t
Trpbsrovs Beovs av-yyeveiav, Seo-â TWO. ravra T
KOU.
ori
FREE
freedom of the
WILL.
2G7
with any exactitude ; it seems, however, probable that Epictetus did not since he depart from the fatalism of his school
will discussed
1
CHAP
TX.
constantly insists
that
all
faults
are
involuntary
and merely a consequence of incorrect notions, for it is impossible not to desire what a man holds
rb
.
.
ffca/jt-a
,
/cot
rrjv
Krrjffiv
avrov
would wish
to shake off
soul
this burden, /cot aireXQelv irpbs rovs ffvyyevels, that they would say to him, ovKeri avex6/J.e6a fj.era
rov
. . .
ffu)/j.ariov
rovrov
SeSe^cevot
OVK
6eov
efffj-ev
&$es
cra/uiev
r/yuas
&(f)es
ffvyyeve ts rives rov KaKelQev e\Tf]\v&a/j.fv, aireXQelv odev e\T]\v.
\vOr)vai irore
rwv
for
Seo"-
of the but as, on the supposition of its personal continuance, this was to be said before all things, we can only conclude that Epictetus made the soul also pass into the elements, fire and air among the Stoics the soul was universally described as Pneu-
What becomes
learn
;
we do not
p.uv rovrtav,
that he,
his
ma
part,
would have to remind them that they must await the call of God, and when that came to them, he should have
to say,
T<$T
or as fire, and Epictetus would not herein have diverged from his school the faculty of
;
sight,
cbroAiWfle trpbs avrov.
According to these utterances we should have supposed that Epictetus believed with Plato
1
according to the Stoic doctrine an emanation of the is yye/j.oviKbi expressly de scribed in Diss. ii. 23, 3, as a Pneuma inherent in the eye.
,
The same theory

Diss.
iii.
results
from
and the majority of the
Stoics,
24, 93
that the soul after death was transferred to a better life with God. Other passages, how ever, render it doubtful whether
,u6Ta/3oA77
ovros els oviteri ovv ecro/icu vvv u.^] ov. OVK eery, a\\ a\\o ri, ov vvv o
;
rovro Qdvaros, fK rov vvv /Ltet(wi/, OVK rb /J.T) (Jv, aAA els rb
:
he meant by
existence.
this
a personal
Kofffjios
-^peiav
eêt.
Here the
says (Diss. iii. 13, 14), when God no longer grants to a man his subsistence in life, we should regard this as if He opened the door and called to him to come and to
;
He
continued existence of man is certainly asserted, but it is not a personal existence it is merely a continuance of his substance he becomes #AAo TI, another individual.
;
;
the question whither ? this is the answer els ovSev Seiv6v. aAA
5
:
/col <rvyy06 ev eyevov,elsra etsro (TTOixeto. OGOV i\v eV crol vfi, aTreurif oaov i\v yr\irvpbs, ds irvp
<f>i\a
Siov, els
ynSiov oaov
*6<rov
irvevfj-arlov,
plain from this that Epictetus places the su over the periority of man animals not in free will but in consciousness (the 8vva/jus irapaDigs. i. 6, 12 $;//.; /coAov07)Tt/c7j)
1
It is also
fls irvevp.a.riov
uSortou,
ety
ii. 8,
-i
sqq.
208
ECLECTICISM.
to be a good.
.
CHAP,
How
this fatalism
is
to be
is
combined
nowhere
with moral precepts and exigencies indicated by our philosopher.
Etliic*
ethics we must not expect from He Epictetus any more searching investigation. wll conmies himself in to the practically philosophy
in
carries on theoretic enquiry onlv as an and means to this, is necessarily, even in accessory
But even
based on
useful,
and
immediate
conscious
"
devoid of any proper scientific mode of treatment it only remains for him, therefore, to found that doctrine, in the
foundation and
;
his moral doctrine,
last
resort,
upon immediate consciousness.
Thus
Epictetus, like his teacher Musonius, assures us that the universal moral conceptions and principles are innate in all men, and that all ore agreed about them ;
the
strife
relates
merely to their application in
given
has only to develop these natural conceptions and teach us to include the individual rightly under them for instance, under the idea of good we are not to place pleasure
cases.
Philosophy
or riches,
and
so forth.
Here
ideas
it is
indeed acknow
suffice
ledged themselves alone

deceptive
that
the
innate
;
do not
their
for
and that
is
in
application
2 intermingled ; but since, as Epictetus believes, there is no strife concerning the universal conceptions, he hopes to put an end
opinion
1-7; 28, 1-10 2; iii. 7, 15. It forms no contradiction to the above when Epictetus says again (JV. 180; ap. dell. xix. J) that acquiescence isanail air
/;/.s-x.
i.
IS,
ii.
20;
iii.
3,
of our free will; for the Stoics, notwithstanding their fatalism,
maintained the same.

-
/;/.**.
i.
22,
$q.
9;
ii.
11;
c. 17,
1-13.
TRUE WISDOM.
to the discord of moral presentations in the simple Socratic manner, starting from that which is
209
CHAP.
universally acknowledged, by means of short dia lectic discussions ; 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 we would enter
somewhat more
the content of Epictetus
closely into ethical doctrine, we may %/ thing*

external.
point out, as its fundamental feature, the endeavour to make man free and happy by restriction to his
moral nature
from which
all
demand to bear
proceeds the double external events with unconditional
submission, and to renounce all appetites and wishes directed towards the external. This, according to Epictetus, is the commencement and sum of all
wisdom what is
power
2
;
that
in
we should know how

power and
a
to discriminate
is
our
is
what
not in our
he
born
philosopher
who
desires
absolutely nothing but to live free and not to be afraid of any event that may happen. 3 Only one thing is in our power namely, our will, or what is the same, the employment of our notions and
ideas
is
;
for us
4
everything else, whatever it an external, a thing that
may
is
be called,
not in our
power.
1
Only
cit.
this
should
ii.
have,
therefore,
any
LOG.
ii.
especially
11,
quoted by Musonius from the
and
2
8
12, 5 sq.
mouth
254,
*
of
ii.
Epictetus,
17,
sup.
p.
Cf. sup. p. 2G1, 1. Man. i. 1 ; 48, 1 ; Diss. i. 21, 22, 9 sq. ; cf. what is
1.
Diss.
29;
3,
cf. 1, 4, 18.
Cf.
sup.
note
and Man.
270
ECLECTICISM.
value for us, only in
.
CHAP,
it
should we seek goods and

!
and this we can happiness and unhappiness do, for things external do not concern ourselves 2 our will, our proper essential nature, nothing in the world, not even the deity, can coerce; 3 only on the will depends our happiness it is not external things as such that make us happy, but only our concep
evils,
; ; ;
tions of things
and the question

s
is
not
how our
shaped, hut whether we know how to govern and employ our notions. 4 So long as we desire or avoid anything external to our
selves
external circumstance
are
we depend upon fortune

is
ceived what
ours and what
ourselves with our wishes to
we have per not, we restrict our own rational nature,

;
if
is
5 direct our efforts and counter efforts, 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-being And the depends.*
:
we
more completely we
have
made
the
ourselves
external,
i>,
thus
the
independent in our minds of

6
:
Jt ntx.
:
i.
2;5,
"2.
31
:
ii.
ti
5,
1,
.vy.
iii.
3,
1
;
14
iv.
.<yy.
xyy.
->,
]()()
>
*<-
ide
V.>
preceding note
;
and
,sv
5.
Man.
ii.
-
7>/.v.v.
iii.
22,
:?s
y y.
iv.
10 i. ], 7 xyy c. IS 1710*yy.: 25, 1 ft^.; ii. ] 4; f; 4: 23. iii. 22, 3S ,\v/y. 4, 23 I tjmts,- (iell i
:
J/,/ Wi ],
;
/;/.<w.
21
]<}
1,
20, 7 Xc. Mis*, i. 1, 21 .sv/y.
4;
i.
xvii.
:
1.i,
r,,
wlicre there
HK>
is
c. c.
18,17:
!),
21),
24
ii.
">,
Man.
23;
20:
c.
and
ii.
(]s.-\vlierc._
3
quotation from Epictetus to the cfVcct thai worst vices are impatience towards tlic faults
of others,
DIM.
i.
1,
17,
27:
23, 19; 7
iii.
3, 10.
1(>,
MIH.
.vyy.
:
5,
1,
7>;..i.
1.
ii.
3, IS;
26, 34 q. Pl.ll.d. r/r.JII.
24: iii. and elsewhere,

1C,
i.
living happily and without faults is contained in two words, ave vow and airevov
the art of
and intemperance in enjoyments and in all things;
p. 224, 1.
COURSE OF THE UNIVERSE.

clearer
it
271
is
will
become that
all
that
happens
CHAP.
necessary in the interdependence of things, and so far according to nature we shall acknowledge that
to each event a moral activity may be linked, and that even misfortune may be used as a means of training we shall for this reason submit un conditionally to our destiny and hold what God wills to be better than what we will, and feel
;
ourselves free precisely herein, that
we
are satisfied
with
all
as it is
universe will
and happens the course of the correspond with our wishes, because we
;
have received
it
unaltered into our
wills.
Even
the hardest experiences will not disturb the wise man in this temper ; not only his property, his
person, his health, and
life,
but even his friends, his

will consider as
belongings, his fatherland,
he
some
thing that is merely lent, and not given, to him, and the loss of which does not affect his inner
nature
2
;
and
as little will
he permit himself to be
others
in his peace
troubled by
;
the faults of
of
mind he will not expect that those belonging to him should be free from faults 3 he will not require
;
1 Phil. d. Gr. Ill.i.p. 303, 1; 304, 1 Man. 8, 10, 53 Digs. i. 6, 37 sqq. 12, 4 sqq. 24, 1 ; ii. 5, 24 sqq.; 6, 10 10, 4 sq. 16, 42 sqq. iii. 20 IV. i. 99, 131 7, 20, and elsewhere. It is consistent with this principle that Epictetus, who with his school regarded suicide as the refuge kept open in the last resort, only allows it when circumstances uneqiiivocally demand it (vide Diss. i. 24, 20 9, 16
;
;
ii.
15, 4 sqq.
*
6,
22;
iii.
24, 95
sqq.
Man.
;
14
5,
s
Diss.
and Man. 12;
c. 3; c. 11 c. 15 iii. 3, 22, 10 elsewhere,

i.
i.
1,
14.
Still less
can natural compassion as to the external misfortunes of other men be permitted, though Epic-
human and inconenough to allow the exof sympathy (Man. prcssion

tetus
is
sistent
16).
272
ECLECTICISM.
IX.
CHAP.
that no wrong should be committed against himself: he holds the greatest criminal to be merely an unhappy and deluded man with whom he dares not
be angry, for he finds that

1
all
about which most
men
grounded in the nature of things. Thus does man win freedom here by withdrawing with his will and endeavour absolutely into himself,
excite themselves, is
while he accepts on the contrary all external events with perfect resignation as an unavoidable destiny.
Inclina
tion of
Jfjrictetus to Cfid-
We cannot deny that these principles on the whole are Stoic, but at the same time we cannot help feeling that the spirit which pervades the
morality of Epictetus is not quite the same as that of the earlier Stoicism. On the one hand our
philosopher inclines to Cynicism, when, as we have seen, he speaks disparagingly of 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
and contrary
jectionable
to
it,
that which
is
according to nature desirable and ob

chiefly
dis
which was the doctrine
for tinguishing the Stoic morality from the Cynic him almost entirely loses its meaning; 2 when he
/y/x.s
i.
18
L4
;
c.
2S. in
eKelvo TO u\ov vvv

/caO? ;/m,
/.teV trot vocrTicrai
That distinction, he says

/.svf.
ii.
.">,
.-v/.,
only holds
vevaai,
vvv 8e vvv 5
ZCTTLV
so far as man is regarded for himst lf irrespective of his of place in the interconnect!
>n
irpo
i
&pas
obv
T
. ; .
KTe is ayavai(Tf7s ouro) 70^ eV
aSvvarov
(r
Tovr/j.aTL,
lia
ui e
el
iivOpunros.
el fj.ev
(f>V(Tll>
TW
Trepi
/H
OUTL,
Tv/j.Tr
TOVTOIS T(HS
(TV-
US O.TTO\VTOV (TKOTTt^S, KaTOL r T (rat XP yilpws. TrAourelj/, yiaivtiv el 5 ws av9pwrrov OTKOre?$ KCU /ue os o\ov Tivbs 5i
1
{U1<TL,
nrTLv
ovv
O.\\OLS
a\\a
eA-
TOLavra.
(rbv
fpyov,
Luvra 6( j/ & us cvtpd\\fi.
5e7, SiaOtcrOai
Tavra
What
falls to a
CYNIC TENDENCIES.
finds
it
273
dignified to
disdain even those
external
l ;
CHAP.
IX.
goods which
fate offers us without our co-operation

2
;
when
feel
in his
exaltation above mental emotions he
advances to insensibility
when he
forbids us to
compassion and sympathy for our fellow-crea tures, at any rate in regard to their outward con
dition
3
;
when he
believes that the perfected wise
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

as
for
a teacher of
humanity,
compared
with
action
his
man
c.
as his lot (as was said in cf. c. 6, 1) is immaterial

:
not deterred from
by
Tip TT((r6vTi 5
eViyUfAois
Kal
rf%-
TOVTO ^877 f/u.bv In such observations Epictetus to a certain extent is anticipated by Chrysippus, from whom he quotes these words
VIKWS
xp7j(T0cu,
epyov
fffrlv.
their fatalism, neither did they allow it to interfere with their conviction of the different rela tive values of things without
;
and consequently no action, would be possible (Cic. Fin. iii.

15, 50).
which no choice among them,

If that conclusion is
(ZWf.
fJLOl tf
ii.
6,
:
<))
/ie xpis
TU>V
&v aSrj\d
fV(pV<TT-
TO.
4|77S, del
more prominent in Epictetus, so

that he approximates to the complete indifference of Aristo and the Cynics, this only shows the whole character of his ethi cal theory of life, in which the Stoic withdrawal from the ex ternal world becomes total in
difference to
puv 6%0/iat irpbs rb rvyx&veiv rwv Kara tyvcriv avrbs yap 6 Oebs TUV TOIOVTWV fK\KTlKbf
/u.
firoirjcrfv.
/J.OL
el
8e ye yfjeiv
dm
vo-
KaGei/aaprai vvv, Kal avr6. Kal yap 6
TTOI/S,
firl
el
Qpfvas
eTêi/,
&p/j.a
Uv
In a system so strictly fatalistic as that of the Stoics, only a relative value could be allowed to the oppo sition of contrary to nature and according to nature from the standpoint of the whole, all that happens appears according to nature, because necessary. But as the ancient Stoics were
;
rb in]\ov(TQai.
that world, and
submission to destiny becomes inactive sufferance, or tends to it.

1
J/rt/f.
15.
Diss. iii. 12, 10. Accustom thyself to bear injuries: tiff
ovrw
irpo/3r)ffr),
iva kav 7r\7j|r;

-rrpbs
fff
Tts eftnjs avrbs
avr6v 8rr
3.
Vide svp. p. 271,
:>74
ECLECTICISM.
IX
spiritual
CHAP.
posterity
when he
dissuades
us
from
Ills
taking part in political life, because for human community in comparison with gentle
state of the universe
is
him every
the
great
tion*
when, finally, he develops his philosophic ideal under the name and in the form of Cynicism. 3 But, on the other hand,
too small
;
and gentler temper than
there unquestionably reigns in Epictetus a milder in the older Stoa the

:
philosopher does not oppose himself to the unphilosophical world with that haughty self-confidence
which challenges
avoidable
is
it
to battle; resignation to the
un
his first principle.
He comes
forward
not as the angry preacher of morals who reproves the perversity of men in the bitter tone of the
well-known Stoic propositions about
fools,
but as
the loving physician who desires indeed to heal their diseases, but rather sympathises with than
1
Dis*.
iii.
22,
fiT.s
Epictetus himself was unmarried (Lucian, Di inon. 55; cf. Sirnpl. in Epict. Utichir.c. 33,7,p.272). In iii. 7, 19 i. 23, 4 lie reproaches the Epicureans that their repudiad.
6rV.III.i.2W>.
;
s>j.
^/.
cf.
PMl.
of life according to nature and the necessity of human society
demand family
pendence and
of
life;
the indeforbid
it.
self-sufficing-ness
the
wise
man
With Kpictetus, however, the

hitter point of view manifestly predominates, and thus there
tion
marriage and of political life undermines human society, and in Lucian (. c.) he admonishes Demonax the Cynic to found a family, -n-pfTreLv yap
of
/ecu
results a doctrine similar to that which prevailed at this
time, and subsquently in the Catholic Church: marriage is
TOVTO
<pi\off6(pff)
avSpl fTfpoi/
rrj
<pv<rti
avtf
O.VTOV Kara\Lirlv
(to
which Demonax replied: Very good! Give me then one

!
recommended, but celibacy is considered better and higher, and is advised for all those who
profess to be teachers in the service of God. Plnl. d. Gr. III. i. 21)6, 3. 3 Vide Digs. iii. 22 iv. 8, 30;
;
of your daughters
is
).
But this
only the same contradiction
which we
find in
might
everywhere
the Stoic treatment of
i.
24, 6.
these questions.
The principle
DUTIES TO GODS AND MEN.

them, who is not irritated even by the greatest wrong, but prefers to excuse it as an invoaccuses
275
CHAP. IX
Universal
luntary
error.
When
our connection with other
men and
the duties arising from it is in question, Epictetus represents these relations chiefly from
affair of
fulfil
the emotional side, as an temperament we should

:
the affectionate
to the
our duties
gods, to those belonging to us, and to our fellowcitizens, 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 3 even to those they all descend equally from Grod
;
who
ill-treat
us
we ought not
to refuse the love of
Vide, besides the passages p. 259, l,the quota tions p. 268, 1 for example
1
quoted sup.
(i.
\OV
2
i)
fKfil/OLS.
iii.
Diss.
2, 4.
The
first is
18, 3)
;
T( ITI iroAAoIs
xa\e-
Traivo/uLev
AwTToSimu.
/cAeTTTcu, fpyfflv, elcrl Kal fcrri rt) /cA-eVrai
n
;
being without passions or affec tions the second is the fulfil ment of duty ov Se? yap /J.G
;
:
Kal AoTToSuTcu Kal
7re7rA.aj/7ji/Tai
KaKcav. ayadcav x ovv 5e? auTOfs ^ eAeelV avrovs
Trepl a ^- 67rcu 1/eil/

;
tlvai airaQri ais avSpiavra,

3
&C.
Diss.
i.
13,
where Epictetus
:
There is no greater unhappiness than to be in error concerning

the most important questions, and not to have a rightly con
stituted will
exclaims to the master who is violent towards his slaves avSpdiroSov, OVK avf^y rov ei r ^ v TOV ffavTov
t>s
atie\<pov
<?X
â
.
irp6-
yovov,
SiffTrep
vlbs
K TWV avruv
Kal rrjs ourfjy
; . .
why be angry with those who have this un happiness? We should rather them. And compassionate finally, we are only angry with them because we cannot free ourselves from dependence on the things of which they
;
yeyove
raôA-r)? ris el Kal rivwv
ov
/J-f/m.!
&px ety
. . .
^ Tt
on
,
a5eA0wj/
;
<pvo~(i,
on
deprive us
TO. /j.$i Oav/jiafc K\Trrr} ov xA.e7ral/jidna Kal j/els Oai i/j.a^ rb /caAAos rrjs /JL)}
:
<rov
T<i5
iravets
TOV Atbs airoy6v(av 6pas TTOV /B\TTIS OTl CIS TOVS Ta\Olrovrovs v6/j.ovs rovs TUV irwpovs IS 56 TOVS TU)V QfO)V OV VKpS>V cf. Sen. Benef. iii. 18P\eireis 28; De Clement, i. 18, 2 Ep. MuVit. Beat. 24, 3 31, 11 sonius ap. Stob. Floril. 40, 9 Ep. 44 Diss. iii. 22, 83 i. 9.
;
T 2
276
ECLECTICISM.
a father or a brother.
1
CHAP.
IX.
How
this disposition is con
nected with the religious temperament of Epictetus and how from this starting-point a divergence from
the older Stoicism
is
inevitable, even in the theo
retical part of philosophy, will
be discussed further
on.
The greatest admirer of Epictetus was Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, 2 and in his apprehension of Antoninus
A
ii
Marcus
r dins
iii. 22, 54 8aip0-0cu 5eT avrbv (the Cynic, the truly

1
Z>is\<?.
lonius
cf.
xn/>.
p.
The
philosophers
197, note). whose in
wise
fjifvov
TO.S,
u>s
man)
<pL\e
ScupoO.VTOVS TOVS SaipovTrdvT&v. oisa5eA<>dz/ TraTfpa

iv
;
ws
ovov
KO.\
cf
Fr. 70
;
ap. Stob. Flaril. 20,
and concerning other Cy 61 nics who express themselves in the same manner, Phil, d. Gr.
III.
-
structions he attended were, besides the above mentioned, Stoics (/. c.} Sextus, the Platonist, of Chaeronea, nephew of Plutarch (M. Aurel. i. 9 Capitol.
: ;
Dio and Philostr.

viii.
1.
c.
Eu;
trop.
12;
i.
299,
4.
Alexander (M.
Philostr.
Map/c.); Aurel. i. 12
Said.
(for so he was originally called) was born on the 25th of April, 121 A.D., inRome(Capitolin. Ant. Philos. 1), where his family, which had emigrated with his great grand father out of Spain, had at
M. Annius Verus
but
V. Soph. ii. o, 2 .^/.), this last only at a later

;
tained a high rank (/. His careful education was for warded by his ow7i anxiety to
<-.).
period and Claudius Severus, the Peripatetic (Capitol. 3). Among the earlier philosophers none made a deeper impression upon him than Epictetus, as we have already seen p. 738, 1 according to M. Aur. i. 7. Adopted by order of Hadrian
(*u/>.
;
learn philosophy very early attracted him, and already in his twelth year he assumed the garb of a philosopher and pre scribed to himself abstinences which he only curtailed at the entreaties of his mother (I. e. His teachers he loaded c. 2). with proofs of his gratitude
;
(concerning his predilection for Dio him, ride Capitol, i. 4

;
Cass.
Ixix.
15)
by Antoninus
Pius, he took the name of Mar cus Aurelius after lie had borne that of his maternal grand father Catilius for a while. On his accession to the throne the
and respect, even became Emperor (I.

ii.
when he
<\
surname of Antoninus was also added (Capitol, i. 5, 7 Dio

;
c.
cf.
Cass.
/.
c.).
His later
life
be
Ant. Pi. 10; Philostr. V. Soph.

Cass. Ixxi. 1, of Sextus as Capitolinus relates of Apol9
:
and Dio
who
relate the
same
imperial his tory, which exhibits to us on the throne of the Csesars many
longs to
Roman
more
powerful
princes,
but
MARCUS AURELIUS.
Stoicism, as well as in his whole mode of thought, he approximates very closely to him. Like Epic-
277
CHAP.
tetus he generally presupposes the Stoic doctrine, resembles but only those determinations of it which stand in fpietet** J in his
close relation to the
moral and religious
life
possess practical
JJJj^j
any
interest for him.
He
does not feel called upon

l
and though he *ophy. to be a dialectician or a physicist ; sciences in general, 2 he is admits the value of these
none of nobler and purer cha racter, no man of gentler dis
position, stricter conscientious ness, and faithfulness to duty. I refer, therefore, to Dio Cassius
(B. Ixxi.), Capitolinus Philos. Ant. Pius. Ver.

;
{Ant.
Vulcatius(Avid. Cass.),
;
Imp.\ and the
well-known authorities for that part of Roman history and in this place will only shortly mention the rare and peculiar relation in which Marcus Aurdlius as Csesar and actual coregent stood to his equally father-in law and excellent adopted father (136-161), to whom he himself (i. 16 vi. 30) in his meditations has raised so His beautiful a monument. own reign was disturbed by great public misfortunes (fa
;
180 A.D. Marcus Aurelius died at Vienna during the expedi tion against the Marcomanni according to Dio Cass. c. 33, of poison, which his son had caused to be administered to him. A monument of his cha racter and his philosophy re mains in the aphoristic memo randa, chiefly written in his later years, which in the MSS. bear the title els eavTbv or Kaff eavrbv, but are also quoted
;
p. 6).
:
under other designations (Bach, More recent monographs
concerning him are the follow ing N. Bach, De Marc. Aur. Anton. Leipzig, 1826; Dorgens,
vide sup. p. 202,
1
;
Zeller, Vortr.
;
und Abhandl. i. 89 sqq. Cless M. Aurelius Selbxtgeiprdche iibers. und erldut. Stuttgard,
1866.
1
in Rome, 165, 6 A.D.), difficult wars (with the Parthians in 162 A.D., the Marcomanni, 166 sqq. and 178 sqq.}, dangerous insurrections (the Bucoli in Egypt in 170 Avidius Cassius in Syria, 175) and em bittered by the indolence of his
; ;
mine and plague
And
i.
:
Grundr.
vii.
KO.S
others in Ueberweg, 223.

teal
/JLT),
67
on
air-f]\Tn-
8ia\(KTiKbs Kal
6ai, 8ia TOVTO 9epos Kal al$r)(j.<av Kal
Kal eviTfiQfys
2
9f<f.
colleague Verus(died 172 A.D.), the immorality of his wife Faustina, and the wickedness and excesses of his son Commodus. On the 17th of March
So he says in viii. 13, in agreement with the Stoic triple division of philosophy Sn?:
vfKus Kal
(pavraaias
yelv,
tiri
Traffics,
el
tyvcrioKoyfiv,
ol6v re, ira6o\o-
278
ECLECTICISM.
nevertheless of opinion that a man may attain his The proper destination without much knowledge.
1
CHAP,
all important thing the earth, but that he things above and beneath should commune with the daemon within him and
is
not that he should search out
serve
him
in sincerity
2
;
the greater are the

a
diffi
culties
which oppose themselves to the investigation
of the Real, the
more should
man
hold to that
which
can
in the changefulness of things and of opinions to the conviction that alone give us calm
nothing can happen to us which is not according to the nature of the universe, and that none can oblige
It us to act against our conscience. 3 these practical convictions, therefore,
is
only with that he is
concerned in his study of philosophy. Philosophy must give us a fixed support in the flux of pheno1
lie
tits
Vide 277, 1 cf i. 17, where reckons among the beneof the gods that he did
; .
Sv(TKO.rd\r]irTa 5o/ce?
TTOV
KCU irucra
If
yap
a/j.fTdirrwros
we
not
make
greater progress
in
oratory and poetry and such studies which otherwise might have exclusively occupied him, and that when he applied himself to
go further with external tilings, they are all transitory and worthless; if we consider men, even lie best are scarcely ent
durable
/ecu
eV
roiovra)
ovv
.
6fycp
.
.
philosophy he refrained
T)
from
\vtLv,
-
airoKa6i(rai
ypa(pf"is,
TOVS avyava(rv\\oyicr/j.o js
firl
pviru Kal roaaurp pva-fi. ri TTOT farl rb eKnp.riQyvai,
T)
rb
irepl
ra /uLfTfwpo\oyiKa
ii.
ii.
13;
. .
cf.
.
fii@\ia
TT}V 5e
2,3: TUV
clês
TO
It only remains to await peace his natural dissolution, but until then TOVTOIS
vow.
in
fiifiXiwv
p.6vois
56av
3
ptityov.
TW,
on
evi /j.ev Trpoffavairaveo-dai. ovSev (rvfj.ô f rai /J.OL, o
v.
10
TO
/j.fv
irpa.yp.aTa.
eV
oif^l
Kara
TTIV
5e,
Ttav
oXwv
(pvfriv
/U.OL
Toiavrr)
6(TTiV,
Tp6irov Tiva 4yKa\v\l/fL W(TT( <pl\0<r6(pOlS OVK &\i-
ftrriv
frepw
on
^fari
yois, TravTaTrafTtv
7r\rjf
ouSe TO?S
rvxovaiv,
rols
I5o|
flvai.
tfeuv
Kal
8aifj.ova.
ovSels
yap
aKaTa\TjTrTa
dvayxdcrtov TOVTOV
avrols
yt
2TonKO?s
PROBLEM OF PHILOSOPHY.
mena, and supply a defence against the vanity of What is human life ? he asks. all finite things.
279
CHAP.
1X<
A dream
in a strange land.
strife and a wandering one thing can guide us Only through it namely, philosophy. This consists in our keeping the daemon within us pure and clear, exalted above pleasure and pain, independent of the
and an exhalation, a
conduct of others
to us as sent
in our receiving all that happens

1
by God, and awaiting the natural end of our existence with cheerfulness and courage. The problem of philosophy lies, therefore, in the of forming of a man s character and the calming
his
mind
problem
is
only according to their relation to this the value of scientific enquiries and
this purpose there are three points in the Hi* theotheoretical portion of the Stoic system which are
dogmas For
to be estimated.
Jjjjj^"
of our philosopher. pi ux O chiefly important in the eyes f the doctrine of the flux of all things, of the al1 things. First,
decay of
all existence, of the rotation of becoming and passing away, in which nothing individual has
ii.
17
TOV avtipwirlvov
ffTij/j.^<TWf\6vTi
T]
fiiov
V
,
XP OVOS
&C.
8e ovffia
ws fKfWev iroQev avrbs tfXOev tirl

VO.TOV
px4 u
ira<ri
*"
ZOev
5e rbv 6d-
5e
fiire iv,
YAey
TT?
yvu>ny
TrfpiptvovTa,
\vffiv
ru>v
irdvTa,
ra/j-bs,
ra /zev TOV ra 5e TTJS

6
ffdo/j-aros
</>ux^s
TTO-
us
ovStv
&\\o
e|
>v
fotipos
Tr6\efjios
aroix^v,
concerning
the
fKacrrov
&ov
and
Kal Kal
Se
rv<pos.
Se
jBios
v<r
ffvyKpivfrai.
%i>ov
firi5r)/j.ia- TJ
rfpo<t>-n/j.la
Similar utterances the vanity and

of
life
AV/0TJ.
T I ovv Tb
;
Traf>aTTf/j.\l/ai
<pi\o<ro-
transitoriness
fvov
fv Kal
/j.4vov,
TOUTO 5e eV TV TrjpcTj/ rbv Salpova avv&punov Kal &C. ert 5e TO trvâiairoi>(/j.6/j.fi>a
worthlessness of everything external are to found in a\ii. 12, 15; iv. 3 (6

K6<r/j.os
AoiWis
48
;
ftios
;
uTroArj^/ts)
iv.
VOVTO. Kal
$fx6/j.fvov t
v.
33
vi.
36
ct pass.
L>80
ECLECTICISM.
permanence, but all returns the ceaseless transmutation
1
CHAP.
ments are subject;
time; of to which even the ele of the change which conducts
in course of
its future dissolution. 4 With these doctrines he these reflections what an couples unimportant part of the whole, what a transitory phenomenon in the stream of universal is each
:
even the universe to
life,
individual
*
;
how wrong
it
is
to set our hearts
upon
it
the perishable, to desire

as
if
it
as
a good, or to fear
an
evil
*
;
how
little
we ought
to disturb ourselves
we form no exception to the law which holds good, and must hold good, for all parts of the world, if we too are hastening to our dissolution. 7 But the more lively is his consciousness of the
changeableness of all the finite, the greater is the importance he attaches to the conviction that
governed by a higher law and sub highest reason and this is the conclusion of those propositions on the deity and providence, and on the of unity and
serves the end of the
;
this
change
is
perfection
the world, to which Marcus Aurelius so often recurs. The belief in the gods is so indispensable to man that it would not be worth while to live in a world without gods ; 8 and just as little can we
doubt that
iv
36 ,43; v. 13, 28; 28 rf^ww*. }9

(1
viii.
know
gods
of the existence of the
?S
lv
4G
?
iv.
-jo
;
42
17,
v.
23
vi.
viii.
15
ix. 28.
end;
f
18;
x. 7,
we ask how we
do not see, .Marcus Aurelius answers (xii believe in them be2S): C IUSC wo x l )( rience the effects of their power; but that we do not see them is not quite true, for they (i.e. a portion of them, the stars) are visible and we believe in our souls
whom we
t
We
ORDER OF THE WORLD.

the Divine Providence embraces
281
ordered
all
l
things in the
all things and has most perfect and beneficent
CHAP.
IX.
manner
whether
this care
extends to the indi- Belief in

God.
him by vidual immediately Divine means of the general interdependence of nature. 2 order of The same divine spirit permeates all things ; as the tJie uni ~
as such, or is related to
substance of the world
is
one, so
is
its
soul
3
;
it is
which goes through all bears in itself the germs of all things, and things, brings forth all things in fixed and regular succes
one rational and
efficient force sion. 4
The
living whole, the parts of
world, therefore, forms a well-ordered which are maintained in

internal bond, 5
best, the fairest
harmony and interconnection by an and all in it is regulated for the
and the most appropriate ends ; the worse is made for the sake of the better, and the irrational for the
without
1
seeing
:
them
(cf.
rb Sf
6\ov,
Xenoph. Mem.
ii.
ra
3, 14). rSiv dfoov
efre
irpovoias
e</c7j,
6ebs, eu eêi iravra eire

/j.^ /cat ffv et/cr).
rb
Ac-
Therefore,
e/cacTTOi/
yuecrro (xii.
<pi\avQpu>TT(as
5) Trdvra K.a\us /ecu Siardâvres ol Ofoi

;
iii.
11, Sib
5e?
f(f>
(ii.
2
4,11;
vi.
44, &c.).
TOVTO /xej/ Trapa dfov JJ/cet. TOUTO 5e Kara TÎ/ av\\T]iv /cai
yetv
to
Marcus Aurelius allows us choose between these two
he repudiates the third that the gods do not trouble themselves about anything as wicked and sub versive of all religion though even were it the case he holds
theories, whereas
;
The same distinction be tween indirect and direct di vine causation, between God and destiny, we find Phil. d. Gr.
&c.
III.
3
i.
143, 2
339,
;
1.
;
that man could still take care of himself and his true welfare ride Phil. d. Gr. III. i. (vi. 44 163, 3. Similarly ix. 28 fjroi (KaffrOV dp/ULO. T] TOO 0\OV StO; :
</>
iv. 40 Phil. 140. 200, 2 * Ibid. III. i. 159, 2, 3 v. 32 T^y 5io TTJS ovffias î^Kovra \6yov Kal 810 iravrbs TOV aluvos Kara
xii.
;
30
ix. 8
d.
Gr. III.
i.
irfpi68ovs rerayfjifvas olKovo/j.ovvra
rb
5
TTO.V.
voia, then be satisfied with it ra 5e \oiira /COT j) O7ra op/j.i}(Tf,
p.
iv. 40 Phil. d. Gr. 140; 169, 1, 2.

;
III.
i.
282
ECLECTICISM.
Even that which seems to us burdensome and purposeless has its good end for the economy of the whole even the evils which seem to conflict with the divine goodness and
sake of the rational.
1
CHAP.
wisdom are
in part merely the inevitable reverse side of the good, and in part things by which the inner nature and true happiness of man are untouched. 2
not content with recognising in the usual course of things the traces of Divine Providence, An toninus, in the spirit of his school, does not deny
And
even the extraordinary revelations of God in dreams and auguries, 3 of which he believes himself to have had experience 4 on the relation of these revela
;
tions to the course

little
and connection of nature
he
as concerning the relation of says, however, his gods to the popular deities ; G and in other pas1
Loc.
fit.
170,
v. 1C,
30
;
and elsewhere.
-
old Stoics so greatly (Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 339

,<??.).
Phil.
;
d. (rr. III.
i.
p.
;
175, 2
ii.
176, 3; 177,
:
174, 2 178, 1,2;

a.\T}Qeiav 6 avdpw-
11
TO??
jurj
/j.ev
KO.T
KaKols iva
TTOS,
TrepiiriTTTy
Marcus Aurelius always speaks in a general manner of the 6fol or the dfbs, for whom he often substitutes Zeus
;
eV
aurcc rb iruv fOei ro

et
TWV
/ecu
5e \onruv TOVTO kv
TTtxi/TT]
TI>
TL
/ca/cbi/
^v
iva
in regard to the popular deities lie doubtless followed, as Epic-
7rpo /5oz/To,
firy
t)
/J.TI
5e
x
3
l/
P Ct)
irpnr nrTfiv avryTotet

ai>6pwTroi>,
tetus did, t he universal theories of his school, but held to the
TTWS
L
existing
public
worship
the
kv
TOVTO
;
fiiov
avOpwirov
x f Pw
TTOLycreifv
xii. 5,
ix. 27.
and elsewhere, Even to the wicked

friendly
.
more steadily, since for him as head of the Itoman state it was a political necessity and thus
;
we must be
4
KCU
ol
we can understand how
Cliris-
Qfol 5e Travroiws avrols fiorjdovffi, Si ovfipuv, Sia jj.avT e iwv
where the ôÔ-fj/LLara 5i ovcipwva.YC mentioned which were imparted to himself, arnong other things, against blood-spitting and giddiness. 5 Which had occupied the
i.
17,
tianity ajipeared to him as rebellion against the laws of the State, and the constancy of the Christian martyrs as a wanton defiance ($L\TJ -jrapdxi. 3), which must be crushed by severity. Under his reign, as is well known, great
ra|is,
FUTURE EXISTENCE.
of sages he altogether repudiates the superstition The primal revelation of (rod he con his age.
1
283
CHAP.
IX.
siders to be the
human
spirit itself, as a part
and
emanation of the Deity, the daemon within us, on which alone our happiness and unhappiness
to Grod
this doctrine of the kinship of man the third of the points which determine 2 He diverges, however, Kinship his view of the universe. n of man s existence after death G from the Stoic doctrine
depends
and
is
by the theory that the
souls,
some time
after the se
paration from the body, return into the world soul or 3 the Deity, as the body returns into the elements. The central point, however, of the philosophy of
persecutions of the Christians took place (Zeller, Vortr. und Abhandl. i. 106 sqq.) 1 In i. 6, he says in praise of Diognetus that he owes to him rb aTTKTrririKbv rots virb ruv rfparfvojj.f:V(av
referred to in
(
iv.
14 WS
els
= fV
T(f 0\(f)
VTTf(TTr]s}
/j.a\\ov
5e
a.va\T]fyT](Tri
rov
al-
\6yov Kara
avrov
Kal
5e
rbv
;
(Tirfp/j.aTiK&v
fj.fr afio\T]v
v.
13
fls
e"
Kal
trepl
yo-^rtav
irepl
TtwSoVS
oi>$Tpov
V\IKOV
ffVVfffTT]Ka
(TTcpS&v Kal
Tro/j.irris
Sai/muvuv
airo-
Kal
TWV TOLOVTWV
this
\yo/j.e-
vois.
-
Cf.
on
he
;
subject,
to
often recurs, the quotations, Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 319, 2. p. 200, 2

Marc.Aur.ii.l7;iii.3;iv.l4, 21 v. 4, 13 vii. 32 viii. 25, 58. The most striking of these pas sages is iv. 21. As bodies which are buried last for a time, but then decay, ovrtas of fls rbv
; ;
;
which
rb JU.TJ ~bv TOV ovros uTreo-TTj, &c. Cf. further how is it consistent xii. 5 with the divine justice that even the most pious persons die, in order not to return
(pQap-fjTfrai uxnrep ou5e e /c
TOVTWV
(^TretSoj/
cura!
airoQavtoffi
/J.TJK(TI
av9is yivf(r6ai,
a\\
els
rb
irav-
alQepa
Kal
/jLf9urrdu.ei>ai
tyvxal,
eVl
Tf\fs airefffifiKtvai) 1 to which the answer is not that the pre supposition is false, but rather TOVTO 8e ffafp Kal ovrws ex 6 6 ^ Va6i 6n, d ws (this is to be omitted, or else to be replaced
?
x* OVTai Kal
TCOJ>
^
\6yov Kal TOVTOV rbv
irpo<T(rvvoiKio-
by
<rav
TTCOS)
erfpcas
*X flv *$ fl
17,
x.
fTroirj-
rbv
6\u>v
ffirep/uLaTiK^v
av.
Also
ix.
ii.
end
7,
v.
;
33
ava\a/iifiav6/JLfvai,
viii.
18;
upav ra?s
3;
xii. 1,
32; 21,31.
31
xi.
Trapx ov(ri
The same
is
:^4
ECLECTICISM.
Antoninus
lies, as
CHAP.
has been said, in the moral
life
of
JXkics.
mail, and here his likeness to Epictetus conies out most but the difference of their nationality and strongly
;
social position
made
it
inevitable that the
Koman
emperor should display in his theory of the world a stronger character and maintain the duties of the
individual towards society more emphatically than For the rest, we find with the Phrygian freedman.
him
also that
the fundamental determinations of
his ethics are the
dependence of man upon himself,

1
resignation to the will of God, and the warmest and most boundless love of man. Why dost thou disJfan
s
turb thyself about others ? lie says to man ; retire thyself; only within dost thou find rest and
wellbeing reflect upon thyself; be careful of the daemon within thee ; loose thy true self from all
;
that clings to it in a merely external fashion ; con sider that nothing external can affect thy soul,
that it is merely thy presentations which trouble thee, that nothing can injure thee if thou dost not think it injures thee ; consider that all is
changeable and
1
futile, that
only within thee streams

in effect asserted in
v.
3;>
]\Iarcus
Aurclius
himself
the
ere-
often
forward these virtues, sometimes all three, sometimes only two of them, as the chief point. So in the pasp. 278, 3 279, 1, sage quoted he mentions purity and freedom of the inner life, and submisbrings
SM/>.
;
essential thing
/3ety /ecu
is
deovs
^v
eu077,ue (V,
avQpwirovs 8e
ev iroif iv,
/ecu
KCU
aveêrrtfcu
(of. p.
avruv
>).
ctTre xfo-flcu
U70.
ocra
/ecu
5e
ruv
opuv rov Kpeadiov Trvevfj-ariov, ravra fj.f/Ji/erta

/n-f]re
vriffdm
sion to the course cf the uni-
ao i.
UT/TC era ovra, lint as he does
eVl
not
at-
and together with iii. 4 these a recollection of the kinship of all men and the duty of caring for all. The same is
verse,
;
tempt any systematic enumeration, we cannot expect any consistency from him in this
respect.
PHILOSOPHY OF
LIFE.
285 CHAP.
.
an inexhaustible fountain of happiness, that the in which man passionless reason is the only citadel
His he would be invincible. in which a being rational activity is the only thing endowed with reason has to seek his happiness and
must take refuge
if
2 his goods ; everything else, all that does not stand in connection with the moral constitution of man,
is
He who confines neither a good nor an evil. 3 himself to his internal nature, and has freed him self from all things external, in him every wish and
every appetite is extinguished, he is every moment satisfied with the present, he accommodates himself
with unconditional submission to the course of the

universe
;
Resigna-
the will
he believes that nothing happens except that that which advantages the God of (rod
;
whole and
lies
in its nature
must be the best
for
him
that nothing can happen to a man also which he cannot make into material for a rational 4 For himself he knows no higher task activity. than to follow the law of the whole, to honour the
;
god in his bosom by

at every
strict morality, to
fill
his place 5
(and as a Roman, adds the imperial philosopher), and to look forward to the end of his life, be it sooner or later, with the serene
as
moment
man
ii.
13;
v.
;
iii.
4,
;
12
iv.
3,
7,
;
8,
-
18
19, 34
xii.
vii.
28,
59
i. p. 177, 2 178, principle (x. 40

;
1.
;
Hence the
cf. v.
viii.
3 et passim. Phil. d. Or. III. i. p. 210, 212, 4. 2, 3 8 n. III. i. 216, 1 218, 1 viii. 10 iv. 39. 4 iii. 12; ii. 3, 16 x. 1 iv. x. 6 viii. 7, 35 vi. 45 23, 49 ct passim. Cf. Phil. d. Gr. III.
; ; ; ; ; ;
;
48
men
7) that
should not ask external prosperity from God, but only the disposition which neither desires nor fears what is external.
5
ii.
5,
6, 13,
16, 17
iii.
5,
16, &c.
1>SG
ECLECTICISM.
cheerfulness
CHAP,
which
is is
simply
content
with
1
the
thought of that which
how can man

subordinate
But according to nature. feel himself part of the world, and

to
himself
the
law of
the
universe
without at the same time regarding himself as a
Lore
to
humanity and finding in work for hu 2 and how can he do this manity if he does not bestow upon his more immediate fatherland all the attention which his position demands of him ? 3 Not even the unworthy mem 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 ungrateful and hostile he bids us consider
of
his worthiest task ?
;
member
that
all
men
are our kindred, that in all the

;
same
the
divine spirit dwells
that
we cannot expect
but
to find
no wickedness in the
world,
that even
sinning sin only involuntarily
not perceive what is really who does wrong harms only

essential
and because they do best for them that he

;
nature can be
own harmed by no action of

himself;
our
another
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
4 faults, should only compassionate and forgive them. know how consistently Antoninus himself acted We
For further details

dr.
III.
i.
]>.
cf.
Phil.
q.
0iAetV
/.
KO.\
rovs irraiovras, &c.

;
(/.
-
*
4
lh. p. Ib. III.

\ ii.
2<>7,
28*5, p. 2, 3.
(
.>7,
301
c.
21!
ii.
1,
f>
iii.
1,
i.
2, 3.
&c. iv. 3; v. 25; viii. 51: ix. 4, 42; xi. 18;

;
8,
xii.
14,
12,
22:
ttiiov
avQpuirov
rb
et
passim.
CHARACTER OF LATER STOICISM.

to these precepts. 1 From his life, as from his words, there comes to us a nobility of soul, a purity
287
CHAP.
up
of mind, a conscientiousness, a loyalty to duty, 2 a mildness, a piety, and love of man which in that cen
tury,
Roman imperial throne, we must admire. That the Stoic philosophy in times doubly of the deepest degradation of morals could form a Musonius, an Epictetus, a Marcus Aurelius, will
and on the
always redound to
its
made no
scientific progress
imperishable glory. But it through these men ; and
though the severity of the Stoic moral doctrine was modified by them, though the feelings of benevo lence 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, Vortr.
sq.
;
und Abkandl.
101
sq.
mand
tion.
3
for strict self-examina-
i.
96
2
98
sq.
As is seen, for example, in his repeated expressions of dissatisfaction with himself (iv. 37 v. 5 x. 8) and in his de; ;
In regard to the anthropology and theology of Marcus Aurelius, something further will be said later on.
ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTER
X.
THE CYNICS OF THE IMPERIAL ERA.

CHAP.
X.
15.
The
contemporary Cynicism by the onesidedness and only distinguished thoroughness with which it followed the same
is
FROM
this later Stoicism the
Cynics.
direction. Stoicism had originally formed itself out of Cynicism, for the Cynic doctrine of the independ ence of the virtuous will had furnished the basis
of
more comprehensive and

in
scientific
view of
the world, and

placed in a nature and of
consequence of this was itself truer relation with the claims of
human
life.
If this theoretic basis
of morality were neglected, Stoicism reverted to the standpoint of Cynicism, the individual was
restricted for his
moral activity to himself and his
personal endeavour after virtue: instead of creating the rules of his conduct from his knowledge of the
nature of things and of men, he was obliged to resort

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 one sided subjective acceptation it should not seldom be
LATER
mate moral
at strife with general claims.
CYNICS.
legiti-
280
custom and even with
CHAP.
observe this tendency of Stoicism towards Cynicism in the later Stoics,

especially in Musonius and Epictetus ; indeed, the latter expressly designates and describes the true
We may
On the same road we also philosopher as a Cynic. encounter the school of the Sextii,
though these,
so far as
we know, did not
call
themselves Cynics
and
undeniable that the conditions which dis tinguish the last century of the Eoman Kepublic and the first of the Imperial Government the
it is
opening meeting the distress and corruption of the time in the same way as had been done under analogous but much more mitigated circumstances by Diogenes and Crates. Soon after the beginning of the Revival of lici m Christian era we again hear of the Cynics, and ^ under that name is united a numerous host, the bepartly of genuine, partly of merely nominal philosophers, thT^hril who, with open contempt for all purely scientific tianera.
1
universal immorality and luxury, and the pressure for weighing upon all gave a sufficient
activity,
set
before
them
as
their only task
the
liberation
unnecessary wants, idle endeavours, and disturbing mental emotions; who herein far more than the Stoics set themselves
definitely in
of
man from
mode
of
life,
opposition, even by their dress to the mass of men and their
and
customs,
and came forward as professed preachers of morals and moral overseers over the rest. That under this
mask
a
1
number
Cf.
of
impure elements were hidden,

Lucian
itnd die Jft/niker, 27 sq.
Bernays,
200
ECLECTICISM.
that a great part, perhaps the greater part, of these ancient mendicant monks, through their obtrusiveness, shamelessness,
CHAP,
and charlatanism, through their
coarse and rude behaviour, through their extortions and impositions, and, despite their beggarly life, even
Its adhe
rents.
the name of through their covetousness, brought into contempt, is undeniable, and may be philosophy but we shall find that the proved from Lucian alone like its predecessor, had never new school,
l
Cynical
But even the theless a nucleus worthy of esteem. better Cynics are of little importance in a scientific
point of view.
E.g. De morte Pere/jrini; Piscat. 44 sq. 48; Symp. II xq.; Fugit. Ifi; also Nigr. 24. Simi lar complaints had been raised by others. Seneca warns his
1
Sopetv axaipus,
Set/cvuea-,
t)
Ka\bv rov
&/
^c.
and about the
same period Dio Chrysost. (Or.

34, p. 33 R.) says, with refe rence to the philosophic dress, he knows well that those who are seen in it will themselves Cynics and regard themselves
Lucilius (Ep.
5,
strange
manner of
1) against the life of those
qui noti proficere setl conspici cu pin tit, against the cultus asper, the intonsum capnt, the negligentivr barba, the indict urn artjento odium, the cubile hum I
as
Kal
/jLaLVOjuLevovs
TIVO.S
avdpuirovs
The Ta\aLTTwpovs. plaints of Lucian are
com
echoed
posit urn, et quicquid aliud atnbitio perversa via seqmtur, all traits of the new Cynicism; and there is also reference to
it,
by his contemporary Aristides, the rhetorician (l)e Quatuorr. Dind. c-f. ernays, ]). 397 ftqq.
I
;
Lucian
to
mid die
A"////,
p.
38,
KM) xqq.\
no doubt,
:
;">)
103,
,sr
2>tiblieos
in Ep. 14, 14 (of. non contni babit sapiens mores nee populuni in
From these passages, which maybe added Lucian,

1,
Dial. Mort. 1, Dlgn. An. Pecc.
Galen,
v. 71,
3,
vol.
nnritdtc conrertet. Epictctus also (iii. 22, 50) sharply discriminates between the in
riff/
also wherein the external tokens of the Cynic life con sisted in the mantle, of ten very
:
we see
freedom and the outer moral qualities of the true Cynic: and that which many
ner
substitute for these irypiSiov v\ov Kal yvddoi /j.fya\ai Kal 8a5s, ^ O.TOKaTa(bay(7v TTO.V &
:
fai>
ragged, worn by these philoso phers, the uncut beard and hair, the staff and wallet, and the whole rough mendicant life, the ideals of which were a Crates and a Diogenes.
6r)<ra.vpi(Tai,
J)
TOiS aTravTwffi \oi-
DEMETRIUS.
The first philosophers who assumed the Cynics name and mode of life are to be met with about the
1
2fll
CHAP.
middle, and before the middle, of the first Christian Danetr)MS century, and the most prominent man of the school
-
at this date appears to have been Demetrius, the friend 2 of Seneca and of Thrasea Psetus. Greatly, howCicero always treats Cynic ism as a phenomenon belonging
1
The Menippus to
in
whom
Lucian
to the past
Off.
i.
yet the passage in
ratio
41, 148 (Cynicorum vero tota est ejitieiida ; est
enim inimica verecundicc} seems to be aimed against panegy Some rists of the Cynic life.
the Icaromenippux and a great portion of the Dialogues of the Dead has given the chief is roles, unmistakably the Cynic of the third century
B.C.,
famous for
his
Satires,
what later Brutus (Plut. Brut. 34) names M. Favonius (who

mentioned, sup. p. 74, foot, the Stoics) with expres sions descriptive of the Cynics (air\oKV(av and \|/eu8oKuco/), but we cannot certainly infer from this that there was a Cynic school. Under Augustus is said to have lived that Menippus who plays so great a part in Lucian (Schol. in Luc. Plscat. 26; iv. 97 Jac.), and he is also said to have been identical with Menippus the Lycian, whose adventures witha Lamia
is
already written a NfKuta (Diog. vi. 101); Lucian (Accits. 33) also calls him Mei/TWJ/ TroAataJi/ KVVWV nrTrJs TIS
who had
among
paXa uAa/criKos treats him as a contemporary of the events of the third century (Icaro men. 15), and mentions his having
;
killed himself (Dial. Mort. 10, 246, 3. 11), cf. Part II. The supposed contemporary of Augustus seems to have arisen out of an arbitrary combina tion of this Menippus with the Menippus of Philostratus,
;
who was, moreover, assigned much too early a date. The

first
are
related
iv.
by Philostratus
(Apoll.
same time
25), while at the he calls him a dis
cal proof will
Cynics capable of histori be named in the
ciple of Demetrius the Cynic Of these (Ibid. iv. 39; v. 43).
following note. 2 This contemporary of Se neca, who often mentions him,

was, according to Benef. vii. 11, already in Rome under
Caligula,
statements not only is the second manifestly false (irre for spective of the Lamia) Demetrius did not live in the reign of Augustus, even sup posing that he had a disciple called Demetrius but the first
; ;
and was offered by
is
also untrue,
though
it
was
formerly universally accepted.
the Emperor a gift of 200,000 sesterces, which, however, he declined. We find him in Rome under Nero (Sen. Benef. vii. 1,3; 8, 2; Ep. 67, 14; 91, 19). The utterances of Seneca on
2
ECLECTICISM.
admired ever, as this philosopher is as his freedom from by Seneca, arid wants contrasts
as a Cynic. as to any
1
advantageously
his poverty and his manner of life (Vit. Beat. 183) date from this time (hoc paiipcriorcm c inn fjnam cetcros Cynicos, quod,
siJri
who mention him, Nothing is known
writings left by him. Accord ing to Kunap. V. tioph. Prmnn.

p. 6,
ititcrdixerit lialcri
in1c.r1)
dixit ft posccre ), Ep. 20, certe alitcr audio, qiu?
(rr/o
w ere,
(licit
Demetrius nosier, cum ilium ridi nudiim, qnanto mi mix,
quam
tf in),
in
E}>-
xtramentis, inciilnin02, 3 (lie lives, -nun
Musonius and Carneades as well as Menippus, contemporary with Demetrius. Two of these names, however (Menippus and Musonius). he doubtless merely takes from
unit. pp. 2 .], 240, 3), and we know not how much of what 1 hilostrat us says has any historical founda
Philostratus (ride
1
;
contempserit ounritt, xcd tainqiKim aliix liabcnda pcr7NW?vY),also the word of Epictetus (Disx. i. 22), and the
tamqnam
2~>,
anecdote in Lucian, Saltator, When Thrasea Pajtus was 63. put to death (07 A.D.), whose intimate friend he was, lie
raised his voice in opposition (Tac. Ann. xvi. 31 AY/.), and
still
as to Carneades we can form no judgment, as he is mentioned nowhere else. Hut
tion
that there were; other Cynics in Home at the time of De metrius is plain from the fore
going
statements,
and
the
more
tage,
to his own disadvan after the accession of
Vespasian
undertook the de fence of Egnatius Celer (Tac. Jlixt. iv. 40; cf. Ann. xvi. 32). On account of his injurious
quotations (p. 21)0, 1) from Seneca. One of these Cynics, by name Isodorus, who on ac
count of his biting words had been exiled by Nero from Italv, is mentioned by Sueton.
(Nero, 3D).
1
expressions concerning Ves pasian he was banished (71 A.D.) 1o an island, but his con tinued insults were not further
JJencf.
:
vii.
>/i/o
1,
3,
he calls
IIKK/II
him
ct
Vir
/.
jndirio
HX
:
:
dinxi
in
n i in
t/ui.fi
mix
coin /xirrt HT
punished (Uio
(.
ass.
Ixvi.
13;
and
()
t
c.
8, 2,
Suet on. Vcxp. 13).
In Lucian,
iniJii
he says of him ridiiur rcrnm naItilixxc

?>((
Ind. Ill, he apjK-ars in Corinth in Philostratus,^4y^Z/. iv. 25; v. 1SI, we meet with r liini in the rei_ n of Nero at subse Athens and Corinth quently he was recommended
: ;
A df.
lira noxlrix
<>x1c(l<.
ri t, nt cor ruin pi ncc nox
illii in
fill
,
ttinporilms, a
ill a
</bif<
corriyi
jwxxc, ririiin
f,i
<ict(/
licet ttef/ct
fee. ipnc, Kfipicntifr,
According
2o, less
Cf. A/A 02. to Philostr. AjtoJL iv.
by
Apollonius
of
Tyana
to
Titus (vi. HI), and in the reipm of Domitian was still in the company of that necromancer (vii.42 viii. 10 ,sv///.) l)iit these statements are untrustworthy. lie is described bvmost of those
: ;
light in what been quoted from Tacitus, Dio Cassius, and Sue
brilliant
jraised him.
Favorinus had also greatly He appears in a

ju>t
has
tonius.
DEMETRIUS.
with the luxury of the Koman world, his philosophic At any value cannot be estimated very highly.
rate, there
293
CHAP.
have come down to us no remarkable
thoughts of his,
renders
it
and the meagreness of the tradition probable that none of any importance
were known.
He recommends
his
scholars not to
to
trouble themselves with

exercise themselves in a
much knowledge, but

life for
few rules of
practical
he appeals with impressive eloquence to their moral consciousness 2 he expresses with cynical
use
l
rudeness his contemptuous opinion of others ; 3 he opposes himself with bitter scorn to the threats of
the despot ; a means of
4
he welcomes outward misfortunes as
moral training, and resigns himself 5 In all willingly and joyfully to the will of God. this there is nothing that a Stoic might not also
have said ; and even his light estimation of learning and knowledge Demetrius shares, at any rate, with
the Stoicism of his time.
The
peculiarity of his
Cynicism therefore lies only in the severity with which he stamps his principles on his life.
1
Sen.
Benef.
vii.
1,
sq.
ances
concerning
:
What
Vespasian,
follows, however, from 5 onwards, is, as well as c. 9, 10, Seneca s own dissertation. In I. c. 8, 2 He was do:
and Sen. Ep. 91, 9, who quotes from him Eodem loco sibi exse
races imperitorum, quo rentre redditos crepitns. Quid e-nim, in quit, mea refert, sursum isti an deorsum soiient ? If Seneca
"
qiicntia ejus, quce resfortissimas dcceat, non concinnatce nee in
rerba iollicitce, sed ingcnti animo, prmit inpetus tulit, res suas proscqucntis. 8 Cf. Lucian, Adv. Indoct. 19, where he takes the book out of the hand of a bad reader, and
tears
it
applies the word elegantcr to these words, this is a matter of taste. 4 In Epikt. Diss. i. 25, 22, he says to Nero aimAeTs /uot 6dva: 1
TOV,
5
<rol
TJ
Qva-is.
in pieces.
Further, his
utter-
Sen.
Provid.
14.
3,
previously
mentioned
Ep. 67,
204
ECLECTICISM.
Of the Cynics of the period immediately follow down to us respecting ing, some details have come (Enomaus of Gadara, who is said to have lived under
1
CHAP. X.
of (iadara.
Besides the Cynics men tioned supra, p. 291, 2, the fol lowing names are connected with this school, of which, how ever, our knowledge is very im perfect. Under Vespasian lived
1
Diogenes
whom, on
and
Heras,
of
account of their abuse of the imperial family, the former was scourged and the latter beheaded (Dio Cass. Ixvi. 15); and probably also
even were it otherwise, the time when Demetrius lived can only be approximately con Agat ho cluded from c. 34. bul us in Egypt (Lucian, Dewon. 3; Peregrin. 17) must also be counted among the Under Cynics of this period. Antoninus Pius and his suc cessor lived Demon ax, Peregrinus, and his pupil Th ca
ge nes,
of
whom we
;
shall
Hostilius
banished
(I. c.
13),
who was
speak later on
is
also
Honora-
with
Demetrius.
tus (Luc. Demon.

related of
10, wlk-re it
Under Domitian or Trajan we must place D i d y m u s with

the surname of Planetiades
(if
him that he was
clothed in a bearskin, and that
Demonax,
he was an historical person), in
Ap/ceo-iAaos)
therefore, called him and erophi1 u s
whose mouth Plutarch, De Def.

Orac. c. 7, 413, puts a sarcasm against the oracle under Ha drian, besides (Enomaus (vide infra), perhaps that Deme trius of whom it is related (Lucian, To.r. 27 xqq.) that he came to Alexandria to devote himself under the guidance of a certain Rhodius (or of a lUiodian ?) to the Cynic philo sophy, that he tended his unjustly-accused friend Antiphilus with the greatest selfdenial in prison, and finally ac cused himself in order to share his fate. When their inno cence was brought to light he gave over to his friend the con siderable compensation which he received, and himself w ent to India to the Brahmans. The historical truth of this occur
;
(Icaromen. 16) seem to be his torical persons, Crato, on the

contrary ( Luc. DC Salt at. i. sqq.) imaginary. To the period of Antoninus likewise belongs
Pancratius, who
Athens and
lostr.
r.
lived
1),
in
in
Corinth (Phii.
8opJi.
23,
and
Crescens, the accuser

tin
ii.
of Jus
the Martyr (Justin. A/wl. 3; Tatian, Adr. frcnt. 10; Eus. Jlirt. Keel. iv. 16, \-c.) to the period of Severus, An-
tiochus, the Cilician, whom that emperor esteemed because he set his soldiers an example
of endurance (Dio Cass. Ixxvii.
10;
cf.
Bernays, Lucian nnd
die Kyn. 30). After this time there is a gap in our knowledge of the Cynic philosophers ex
rence, however, is as little cer tain as the authenticity of the and treatise which affirms it
;
tending over a hundred and fifty years, but the continuance of the school is beyond question.
When
Asclepiades
lived,
who, according to Tertullian,
(ENOMA US.
the reign of Hadrian.
Julian reproaches him for for destroying in his writings the fear of the gods,
1
295
CHAP.
X.
despising
all laws,
human reason, and trampling under foot 2 human and divine his tragedies, he says,
;
are
terous
beyond 3 and
;
all
if in
description shameful and prepos this verdict the horror of the
pious
despiser of the popular we must still religion has perhaps no small share, in a suppose that (Enomaus must have departed
emperor
for
the
customs and striking manner from the prevailing mode of thought. In the lengthy fragments from 4 which Eusebius his treatise against the Jugglers, for us, 5 we find a polemic as violent as has
<
preserved
it is
outspoken against the heathen oracles, in the

3
Ad Nat. ii. 14, travelled through

distant lands with a
Loc.
cit. p.
210 D.
When
cow
or
Sphodrias, who
Athen.
epom/cTj
iv.
;
is
quoted by
162 b, with a re xvTj or the Cynics named
ap. Phot. Cod. 167, p. 114, b 23, among the authorities of Sto-
baeus
viz.,
Hegesianax, Po-
lyzelus,
know.
1
Theomnestus
He is
by Syncellus,
Xanthippus,
we
do
not
placed in that period The p. 349 B. statement of Suidas, OtVd/u. that he was a little older than Por phyry, is perhaps inferred from the circumstance that Eusebius (with whose more definite ac count, however, Syncellus was acquainted) Pr&p. EC. v. 19
sqq., discusses
Suidas, Aioyevys 3) Olv6/j.. calls (Enomaus a writer of tragedies, whose name was also Diogenes, and who lived in Athens after the fall of the Thirty Tyrants, this statement seems to be founded on a confused recol lection of this passage, where tragedies are mentioned, dedi cated to Diogenes or to his Philistus (Philiscus, disciple
cf.
vol.
ii.
a,
244,
2),
and
then tragedies of (Enomaus are spoken of. 4 The title of this book runs
thus, according to Eus. Pra>p. Ei\ v. 18, 3; 21, 4; vi. 6,52; Theod. Cur. Grcec. Affect, (par. 1642) vi. p. 561 yorjrwv
:
<fxapa,
before
(C. 18,
2
him immediately Porphyry, and calls him

vftav.
vii.
named
vii.
5
less accurately
:
3) rls rtav
p.
209, B rb KOTO xp^TTjptaj Pra-p. Ecang. v. c. 19-36,

.
by Julian
Orat.
209 B. Spanh.
vi. 6.
cf. vi.
199 A.
ECLECTICISM.
but it is based on no properly philosophic arguments and in connection with it (Enomaus likewise turns against the fatalism of the Stoics, and exalts in its stead free-will as the rudder and foundation of human life, declaring it to be as much an incontrovertible fact of consciousness as our existence the irrecon itself, and
; ;
spirit of cynical freetliinking
expounding
foreknowledge with freedom, and of fatality with moral responsibility. 2 In these utter ances we recognise the self-dependence of the man
cilability
of
who, in spite of his Cynicism, would be a follower neither of Antisthenes nor of 3 Diogenes; but he was doubtless neither inclined nor adapted for
any
Demonax.
deeper study of philosophic questions. The famous Demonax 4 also, who was highly esteemed in Athens, and extolled in a treatise
1
Expressions entirely similar are put into the mouth of the representative of Cynicism by Plutarch, Dcf. Ornc.l,?- 413.
Moreover, cf infra, p. 298, Phil. (/. Gr. II. i. 280 5^y. nays, I. c. 30 sqq.
.
3, and
;
c. 3) had enjoyed the instruc tions of the Cynics Agathobulus and Demetrius (supra, p. 294,1) and of the Stoics Epictetus and Timocrates
2J>1
Bur-
(.<f///>;v7,pp.
Loo.
197, 25(5); in Athens,
he afterwards lived and died there when
cit. vi. 7,
11
s(j.
(Tho-
doret, I. r .) with the proposi tion; iSov yap, &

rpo-Kca
iûv
/ecu
avruv T&V eV
J>ut
avTfi\-f]fj.fjieOa,
rip.1v
rovrw
avtiaiptruv
/ecu fiiaicav.
of self-consciousness it was previously said: OVK ctAAo iKa.v bv ourus d y (rvvaiaOria-is re /ecu
>]
almost a century old, having starved himself to death on account of the advancing weak ness of old age (/. c c, S qq.\ but as he still had intercourse with Herodes Atticus (c. 24, :M)
.
r>3
in this
latter period,
till
he may,
160 A.D.,
perhaps, have lived
avTL\ri\l/Ls rifJLuv
:i
avruv. -Julian, Orat. vi. p.

o^/re
187
Kwia-fjibs
4
I
AvTiareevurs
even longer. The treatise or_ said to be by Lucian shows (as

Bernays,
/.
t(TTll>
OVT orn
c .,
way
in
in
which Herodes
it
17f>
remarks), by tinis alluded

till
family,
Demonax
Cyprus of a good
(according- to
to, that
was not written

A.D.
after his death
DEMONAX.
bearing Lucian s name, is much more distinguished 2 From GEnoby his character than by his science.
1
297
CHAP.
maus he
differs chiefly in that
the severities of the Cynic reconcile it with life and

respects he
is
mode
its
he tried to mitigate of thought, and to

;
necessities
in other
it.
(Enomaus
tific
considerably in had neither held
harmony with
strictly to
all
As
a definite
system nor troubled himself at

so
about any scien
Demonax, according to the knowledge, assurance of his biographer, 3 carried his eclecticism
to such an extent that
it
is
difficult to say
which
of
his
philosophical
predecessors
he
preferred.
He himself, to all outward appearance, proclaimed himself a Cynic, without, however, approving of the exaggerations of the party; but in his own charac
ter
he chose
for
model the mild, benevolent,
and moderate temper of Socrates, 4 and was largehearted enough to esteem Aristippus side by side
with Socrates and Diogenes. 5 His principal efforts were directed to the liberation of mankind from
all
things external: for the man he, alone is happy; and he only
1
who
is
is
free, said
free
who hopes
credi-
Bekker has denied that it Lucian s, and Bernays (Luclan und die Kyn. 104 sg.) has def ended this opinion with very important arguments. But that its author, who nowhere gives himself out to be Lucian, was really a contemporary of his hero, and had intercourse with
is
for suspicion
bility.
2
as to its
Concerning his gentle, humane, and amiable character, his imperturbable cheerfulness, his efforts for the moral welfare of those around him, and the
veneration he extraordinary thereby acquired, cf Lucian, 1. c. c. 5-11 57 63 67.
.
him
TOV
for
many
/
years (eVl
/
,
/UL^KKT-
c. 1), we have <ruj/e7j/o u^J no reason to doubt, nor is there any internal reason in his work
3
*
Demon.
Loc.
52.
5.
cit.
5-9;
5
cf.
19; 21
cit. 62.
48
Loc
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP,
nothing and fears nothing, being convinced of the transitoriness and paltriness of all men. In order
1
to resign nothing of 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 popular religion he him
;
self
was indicted because he never offered

in
sacrifices,
and despised the Eleusinian mysteries, and he con

ceals neither
his
defence nor elsewhere his low
3 In his suicide and opinion of the existing worship. his indifference to burial, 4 we recognise the disciple of Antisthenes and Zeno ; and the
though
departure
from
this life, according to the Stoic doctrine,
must
open an entrance to a higher life, Demonax, like Panastius 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 solely the exercise of
1
Lucian, Demon. 20
/uLffj.f\~f]Ki
cf.c. 4
make them acquainted with

In c. 27 he refused to enter a temple to pray; for God, he said, could hear him just as well in any other place and in c. 37 he confounded a soothsayer with the dilemma either he must believe himself to have the power of altering the decrees of fate, or his art was worthless. 4 Jôc. cit. 65 sq. 5 &\\ov tie TTOTC Jj>c.clt. c.32 tponevov, fl aQdvaros avrf TJ
;
: :
rb oKov
avr
/zrjSei/bs
them.
aAAou
*
Trpo<r5ea
elvai.
Cf.
the
anecdote
quoted
sujtra, p. 274, 1. 3 Loe. fit. 11.
To the com-
plaint that he did not sacrih ce to Athena he replied he had hitherto refrained, ouSe 70^
SeTo-flai
avrrjv
TU>I>
Trap
;
(/JLOV
Qvfftcav
inreXd/uLâvov
and when
to
the respect mysteries, he said that he did not get himself initiated, because it would be impossible for him not to speak to the in them uninitiated about order, if the mysteries were
censured
in
8o/m elvai aOdvaros, #17, aAA us iravra, Cf. c. 8, where he says that in a word, \r]97j ns
tyvxr)
;
ayaQu>t>
Kal
KO.KUV na\ (\fvdfpia

eV
bad,
to
warn
if
them against
/j.a.Kpa
-rrdvras
6\iyy
Kara-
them, and
they were good, to
PEREGRINUS.
practical influence means to this end
299
on those around him, and the is with him, as with Diogenes,
CHAP.
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.
in its
still
Cynicism appears, indeed, in his person most interesting and attractive shape, but
with essentially the same features which have
already been long familiar to us. In contradistinction to this ideal picture

a caricature in Lucian
s
we
find
1
Pcregri-
who
bears the
cognomen
description of Peregrinus, of Proteus. 2 According to
him, this Cynic escaped from a reckless and profli gate youth first to Christianity and then to Cyni cism, the most absurd and disgusting excesses of
which he adopted, until at last the wish of making himself talked about induced him, half against his will and in constant struggle with the fear of death, to throw himself into the flames of a funeral pyre 3
1
n.
rrjs
Uepeypivov re\fvrrjs.
found in the treatise of Zelle

quoted. In that of ride, concerning the excesses imputed to him, c. 9 the murder of his father, of which he is accused, c. 10, 14 his relation to the Chrissq. tians, and the imprisonment which he suffered in consehis introquence, c. 11-14 duction through Agathobulus to the Cynic philosophy (supra,
Of modern writers concerning Peregrinus and the literature

relating to him, cf. Eckstein, Encyklop. v. Ersch. u. Gruber, sect. iii. vol. xvi. sub voce Zeller, Vortr. u. Abhandl. ii.
;
already Lucian,
173
sq.
Bernays, Luc.
I.
if.
d.
Kyniker, 21, and

translation
c.,
p. 65,
the
and commentary of
the treatise bearing the name of Lucian. He first received this name, according to Gellius, N. A. xii. 11,1, after the time when that author made his acquaintance what it means we are not told. 3 Further details will be
;
p. 294, 1); his arrival in Italy,

c. 18 his burning himself to death (which is also mentioned in Athenag. Suppl. 23 Tert.
;
Ad
ii.
^fart. 4
1,
Philostr. V.
&>j>k.
33), c. 20 *qq.
Some few
300
ECLECTICISM.
the Olympic games in the year 165 A.D. But the most serious of these charges are too insuffi ciently attested by Lucian s testimony, the uncer
at
l
CHAP,
tainty of which he himself cannot entirely conceal, to allow of our unconditionally endorsing his judg
If we separate from his Peregrinus. account all that is internally improbable, this Cynic
ment
of
appears as a
after
man who was
sincere in his endeavours
and austerity, but was, at the same time, always exaggerating and pushing forward his 2 principles to an absurd extreme, finally investing
virtue
even suicide
in the Stoic
in regard to which he has so many allies and Cynic school with theatrical pomp,
in order to produce the
There
is
most striking effect possible. 3 other evidence to show that he asserted the
r
claims of his school w ith some exaggeration 4 but Gellius praises the earnestness and steadiness of his
;
character,
and the value and usefulness of

Atticus, he
to raise
his
years after his death, previous totheyearl8()B.C.,Athenagoras in agreement with Luc. (1. c.),
c.
is said to have tried an insurrection against
the
3
Romans (Luc.
The
fact
of
18
,sv/.).
27 zqq. 41, speaks of an oracular statue of Peregrinus which stood in the market -place of his native city. Cf. Zeller, Vortr. ii. 175 sq. Bernays, 52 sqq. If he was thrown as a Christian into prison while his fellow-Christians remained unmolested, he must have given occasion to this by his behahe was banislied from viour
1 ; ;
this
suicide
(which has been disputed by

A. Planck, Theol. Stud, in Krit. 1811, 8:U ,sv/., 8-1:5; and Haur, Kirchenycsch. ii. 412), according to all the above quotations, is beyond a doubt. Luc. Demon. When Peregrinus said to Demonax, on account of his cheerfulness ov KVVO.S, the latter replied, riepe7pVe, OUK avdpuiri^Ls.
:
Italy on account of his abuse of the Emperor; in Greece, besides his quarrels with the Kleans and his attacks (also
He
calls
him
(/.
c,
.)
rir
mentioned by Philostratus, V. ii. 1, 33) on Herodes

&>i>h.
grai ix ct constant, whom he often visited in his hut before the city, and whose lectures he attended.
THEAGENES.
1
301
his, in
doctrines,
and quotes a discourse of
which he
CHAP.
avoid wickedness through says that a man should not fear of punishment, but from love to the good ; and
the wise
this even though his action hidden from gods and men but he who remained has not made so much progress in morals may still be restrained from wickedness by the thought that We are all wrong-doing comes to light in the end. however, with no scientific achievement acquainted,
;
man would do
2 either of Peregrinus or his scholar Theagenes, or, indeed, of any of these later Cynics. But for the very reason that this Cynicism was
Tkeagenes
Tlie later
Cynics.
far more a mode of life than a scientific conviction, it was able to outlast the vicissitudes of the philo
maintain itself sophic systems, and to

latest periods of
Greek philosophy.
down to the Even in the
second half of the fourth century the Emperor Julian found occasion for those two discourses
which give us a picture so un against the Cynics, favourable, but at the same time probably not
essentially
1
untrue,
.
of
this
school
Or.
cf.
at
vii.
:
that time. 3
irpta
LOG.
cit.
Multa
hercle di-
cere
eum
what
utiliter et honeste au-
TTWS
Kvvurreov.
For
di-vimus. Cf. the
same authority
for
-
follows.
This Cynic, whom Lucian 24 30 gq. 7 36) (c. 3 sqq. treats with the greatest ma is described by Galen, lignity, Meth. Mcd. xiii. 15, vol. x. 909 K. (as Bernays, p. 14 sqq., has shown) as a philosopher of
; ;
;
vii. 204, C. sq., example, 223 B sqq. Julian (p. 224 C.) mentions, besides Heraclius, as Cynics of his time, Asclepiades, Serenianus and Chytron. In Or. vii. 198 a, he mentions
;
Or.
Iphicles of Epirus,
whose
free-
spoken notions expressed before

the Emperor Valentinian in the year 375 are related by Ammian. Marc. xxx. 5, 8. A Cynic named Demetrius Chytras, who,
in extreme old age,
repute (8ia rV 56âv ravdpuirov} who gave lectures daily in Rome in the Gymnasium of Trajan.
8
Or.
vi.
fls
was
tor-
302
ECLECTICISM.
Further traces of the recognition which Cynicism still found in this period are to be met with both in
CHAP.
X.
heathen and Christian authors.
About the begin
ning of the fifth century, Augustine tells us that all 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 3 With the overthrow of a Cynic ascetic, Sallustius.
;
heathenism
this school, as
such, naturally
came
to
tured under Constantius on a and religious charge, but was finally set free, is men tioned by Ammian. xix. 12, 12 another in Julian s time is
political
;
aut Peripatcticos nut Platonicos. Et Cynicos quideni, qu ui

eos t itfff qifffdam delectat liberLater on, tas atque licentta.
Civ.
if
D. xix.
19,
he remarks that
spoken
1
of
anonymously
by
David, SchoL in Ar. 14 a, 18. Bernays, I. c. p. 37, 99 gq., alludes in this connection to the panegyric which Themistius
pronounced on Cynicism
his dis its founders in course on Virtue, especially pp. 417 444-, (preserved in the Syrian language, and translated into German by Gildemeister and Bucheler in the Rht in. also the Mus. vol. xxvii.) violent attack of Chrysostom
;
and
a philosopher goes over to Christianity it is not required that he should change his dress the Church does not trouble itself about the Cynic garb. An example of an Egyptian Cynic, Maximus by name, who be came a Christian in 370 A.D., and retained his dress a long
;
time,
/.
c.,
is quoted by Bernays, from Tillemont, Jfemoires,
ix. 2,
3
796 sqq.
T*.
Damasc.
;
250
and
at
(Homll.
17, c. 2
ii.
Mignc,
Chrys. Opp. ed. 173) upon the phi

;
losophers (clearly described as Cynics) who left Antioch on the approach of danger, but who enjoyed, it would appear, a certain degree of reputation among the inhabitants of that
city.
"
Suidas (sub taken the first of his articles, and probably also the second, from Damascius. That Sallus tius, as is here observed, ex aggerated the Cynic severity as
well as the
pov, is
Traiêiv
Ixidori, 89-92, greater length row}, who has
iwlrb yf \oi6rf;
Cicero, Acad.
iii.
19,
fere,
Itaqne nnnc philosophot ridcmus, nisi ant Cynicos
42 non
:
continued by Simplicius, in Epict. Man. p. 90 H accord ing to whom he laid burning

coals
upon
his leg to see

it.
how
long he could endure
DISAPPEARANCE OF CYKICISM.
an end
;
303
the Cynic
the only element which was peculiar to it, mode of life, the Christian Church had
1
CHAP.
long since appropriated in Monachism.

1
Julian,
I.
c.
224 A, already
compares the Cynics with the
airoraKTia-Tal ( = qni nunciarcrunf) of the Christians.
301
ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTER XL
THE PERIPATETICS OF THE FIRST CENTURIES AFTER
CHRIST.
CHAP.
TIIE direction taken by the Peripatetic school in the first century before Christ was maintained by it
(.:.
Tkv
teticsof
Those during the whole of its further existence. members of it with whom we are acquainted, 2
1
In regard to what follows, Fabric. JiiJtl. Gr. iii. 458 .-Y/Y. Brandis and Znmpt in Karl.
1
tcorol,
i.
xvi. sqq., believes
we
cf.
the treatises mentioned supra, Prantl, Gesch. dcr p. 112, 1

:
Our knowledge of the Peri patetic school in this period is very imperfect. According to thewriters named an/mi, pp. 1
1
<
perhaps attribute to Alexander the commentary on ihe Meteorology, which has handed down under the name of Alexander of Aphrodisias; and he seems to suppose that the Sosigenes whom Alexander men
l>een
should
tions
as
his
teacher
is
the
famous astronomer of the time

of Ca?sar. shall, however, find that Alexander the Aphrodisian had a Sosip"enes for his
.SV/Y-,
about the middle Christian century, Alexander of JK-^.v., the in
we
find,
We
of the
first
structor of Nero
Afy.X from
Cutey.
a,
3,
(Said. AAe|. Simplieius, a (SfJiol. in Arixt. 29,
teacher.
(ap.
14,
Towards
(,hi.
1
th*
end of
ix.
fi
:
whom
the same century

Tint.
we encounter
Conrir.
40) quotes observations out of a commentary on the Cate and Alex. Aphr. ap. gories, Sirnpl. Dr Cfrlo, SrJin?. 414, I, 28, from a commentary on the Books of the Heavens. (Karshere substitutes ten, 104,
,
r>.
5)
eripatetic
named
Menephylus, perhaps the head of the school in Athens, and ibid. Prat. Am. lf, p. 487,
A])ollonius the
sisted
Peripatetic,
1
one of the later philosophers, who was praised for having as
Aspasius for Alexander, whether
by
his
own
conjecture, or ac
cording to manuscripts, does not appear.) Ideler, Arisf. Me-
his brother Sotion to attain honour than greater This may, perhaps, himself.
be Apollonius the Alexandrian,
PERIPATETICS OF THE EMPIRE.

so
far
J05
as
we have any
details
concerning their
CHAP.
writings, are mostly
mentioned
in connection with
centu^ric
from whom Simplicms,iw Categ.

Schol. in Arist. 63, b, 3, quotes a treatise on the Categories. Sotion another Peripatetic, has already come before us in Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 931, 3 (vide sup. 181, 2), as author of the Kepas
,
taught, as Galen (De Cogn. an.
Morb. 8, vol. v. 42), in his fourteenth or fifteenth year, there

fore in
1
B c
45-6,
B.C.
had
for his
teacher a pupil of this philoso pher, who apparently was still

alive
AûaAfletas.
This
man
have
there conjectured
Herminus(ap. tSimpl. ])e Ca-lo, Schol. 494, b, 31 sqq.)

;
and
same from
Top.
to be the Alex. Aphr. 213, apparently out of a
whom
commentary on the
Simpl. Categ.
To/rica, and 41, 7, Schol. in
quotes from him. Adrastus of Aphrodisias (David, Schol. in Ar. 30, a, Anon. I. c. 32, b, 36 Simpl. Cateq. 4, 7, 1. c. 45 Ach.
;
Ar. 61, a, 22, from a commentary on the Categories, quotes one or two unimportant and erroneous observations. His compila tion seems to be referred to by Pliny, Ifint. Nat. Prcrf. 24. In this case Sotion must pro bably have lived in the middle of the first century, which would harmonise well with the theory that he was the author of the Ai6it\ioi eA.7xot, and the brother of Apollonius men tioned by Plutarch. His own brother Lamprias is also described by Plutarch, Qu.Conr.
ii.
who is named together with him (Galen, De Libr. Propr. c. 11;

;
Tat, Isag.c. 16, 19, p. 136, 139),
vol xix. 42 sq. Porph. V. Plot. 14) was probably not far re moved in point of time this
;
appears partly from the above juxtaposition, but more espe cially from the use made of
p. 309, 4)
him by Theo 8ruyrnams (infra, for Theo was a con

;
2,
2;
;
cf.
i.
8,
:!,
as a Peripa
tetic
he likewise describes his friend the grammarian from
"A8pa<TToi>)
temporary of Hadrian (infra, If, p. 335). however, he is the author of a commentary on the Ethics of Aristotle and Theophrastus (PJiil. d. Gr. II. ii. 855) mentioned ap. Athen. xv. 073, c (where our text has he may have been still alive in the time of Anto
ninus Pius.
rhetorician
Egypt (QU -Conr. i. 9, 1,1; viii. 8, 2, 1), Theo (vide, concerning him, DeFac. 25, 1 3 sq.) DC
Luna>,
Aristocles, the
of
placed
Ei. 6
Pyth. Orac. 3
man of Peripatetic tendencies. On the other hand, Favonius, who is spoken of c. viii. 10, 2,
I.
sq.,
as a
under
Pergamus, is by Suidas (sub row) Trajan and, Hadrian:

I".
l,as Sai/uLOVKaTaros
fpaffTTjs
is
Api<TTOT\ovs
whom Platonist, In shall discuss later on. the second half of the second
well-known
probably only the
according to Philostratus, Soph. ii. 3, he was a contempo rary of Herodes Atticus, there fore somewhat earlier, but had only occupied himself with the
Peripatetic philosophy in his youth. What Synes. Dio. p. 12 R, says of Aristocles desertion of philosophy for Rhetoric must
we
century
Aspasius must have
30o
ECLECTICISM.
comment arie
on
Aristotle
s
CHAP.
XI.
( out
works,
and
among
these bis logical
books seem
chiefly to
have occupied
me ns
tatorx of Aristotle
works.
the apply to him and not to Messenian. About 140-1 50 A. I). lived C a u d i u s S e v e r u s, he Marcus Aurelius teacher of H: cf. (Capital. Ant. P/tHox. Galen, Df Pr.-rnnt. c. 2. vol.
1 t
as public teacher of the Peri patetic philosophy in Athens; besides Pan his the Prefect
(/. c.
xiv.
G12) and
Premi(Galen,
vi.
.S(i5,
irer.es
Sat/it,
lUi").
of
fit.
Mytilene
v.
11: vol.
xi v.
and A gathocles and Uutinus, mentioned i\v Lucian, Demon. 2 .. 54: at the same time and later Herminus, accordincr to Alexander,
1 .
),
Under the same emperor
Aphr. an. Simpl.

4!>4,
DC
Ctflo. Schol.
ft,
:?1
the teacher of
.sv/<y.,
this Peripatetic, and, as it would seem, the disciple of Aspasius, Lu appirently the same that
cian. ///.
/<>/
and his successor Commodus must be placed the teachers of Alexander of Aphrodisias, Aristocles of Messenc (ride and Sos Irenes. That Alexander was instructed by the latter, we learn not only from
if>fra}
r>r,,
c ills
man
of
bad character (concerning: the which, ac -ordinir to ( con this passage, Ilerminus stantly had in his mouth. Alex ander the teacher had written
<ih
himself (Ihh-nrol. 110, /.V.,and from Phil tp. A mil. Pr. xxxiii. //, SclioL hi Ar. 15S. 7;, 2S), but also from the editor of his commentarv on the Met<ij>lni$ies,
p. 432,
<iori<-*,
12; P-on. 741,

Thernist.
7>.
4S P,k.;
and from
112 Sp.,
K>ok,
who
T)e An..p. (piotes his third
;t
commentary much
,
in
use).
is
7rep! uJ/ecos.
The statement
Contemporary with him K udein us an acquaintance

(
of
(5
!>ekk.)
vcrrepos yap ~2.&(ny4vris
ralen
s,
wh
11
>
\vas
r<-at
e<l
in
in
.
an
>">
\\\f^dv^pijv
illne-s
n. c. at
((
bv that physician
mi"
in
rf
his
(il
.rd
NY/,
year
vol.
t
rden.
(i<
D,I
Pi
.i
:
u-iiot. c.
/I
T(f xpovif. is either a mistake of the epitoniis; or Und-r Septi a clerical error. mus Suverus, and (as Xumpt
xiv.
).")-<)
*.
\">i!i
li
shows.
/.
c. p.
1
!>S)
bt-twi>en
.i.S
TndCx).
Likewis
of
/"
/>
tho C
(Philtf^.
)
inu<t
t ,
and
nilvc
21
1,
de in us
x i i>
Lin-ian
r
ir>
disias
A exander of Aphro -,vas made the head of

ic scliool in
1
.
the Peripatel
(xti/trn. p.
lived at this date

cs-idiMi Iv
,\
l!:i-
he
i*
-. i).
lie,
Athens and not,

I
an iinaLrinary person.
of
is
some otherwise unknown

patetic
!!i
eriis
contemporary
(\(\\
.Marcus
called
in
tlie
Ari-totle.
Aurclius
;
,
-ISO)
(
A lexwliom
c.
-ant
words
i/ea
repos
,1
( >r
of
Aft-f/f
C,i>7
I)anri<cu=i,
(lal -n
>;
describes
>ni.
!)
/
Pru-nnt.
in! tilth
,
(f>L\
irri
i(pi)u
t<t
ApirrroTfAous. Syrian
,}($"Jio!.
D"
A
:
i.
1
1,
vol. xiv.
to
I
21^) as he ichnr of the Consul Flavins

x/y.
ii.
,
,.,.
thus (who
xiv.
vol.
is
also
named
///>>/.
Ar. not onlvbvtho ]-)assa_ e itself, but a comparison of it with

in
t
n. xiii.
1
in
sv.i.
//.
).
as
is
proved
l>y
in
vol.
5I2.
and
//
Alex.
MttH/th.
7! 5,
IS
.yy.
Pi-.tpr. 1,,
xix.
15 .^.). arid
Likewise, as David remarks in
PERIPATETICS OF THE FIRST CENTURY.

the attention of these commentators.
307
But what we
CHAP.
XI.
are told in this respect about the Peripatetics of the
was named
Cat. Scliol. 28, a, 21, Alexander Aristotle, olov Sev-
Be Ttpov ovra. ApKTTOTeArjz/. sides these Peripatetics, whose dates may be at least approxi
mately
fixed,
Or. 5, 17, would indeed agree with his sceptical bearing to
ward soothsaying.
nite signs
ever,
More
defi
are wanting,
how
good
others are named, of
many whom we
Christ. h ai cu s
that Diogenianus was described by Plutarch as a E n a r m o s us, Peripatetic.

t
can scarcely say more than that they must belong to the first
whom
Aspasius
blames
;
(ap.
two
centuries Among these
after
is
Arc
(erroneously regarded by FaImic.Biblwtli. Or. iii. 536, Harl. as a Stoic), from whom Stobaeus
(Cat. Schol. 61, a, 22; 66, a, 42; ft, 35; 73, ft, 20; 74, ft, 31) quotes observations on the Categories, doubtless from a commentary on that work in the first of these passages he
;
Alex, in Mctajth. 44, 23 Bon. 552, ft, 29, Bekk.) because Eudorus and he had altered a reading in the Met(ij>h</sicx, was also probably living in the
first
century.
ft,
The philosophers
Dt>
quoted by Alex. Aphr.

154,
o\
An.
Socrates (prob
ably the Bithynian Peripatetic
Archaicus and distinguishes Sotion as disciples of the an Andronicient commentators

cus, Boetlius, &c.
named in Diog. ii. 47); Virginius Rufus, and perhaps also Polyzelus (I. c. 162, note); Ptolemy, concerning
ft,
whom cf. P/iil. d. C,r. ll.ii.54; A r t e m o n he collector of A ris,
Perhaps Ar chaicus is the same person mentioned as the author of a work on ethics in Diog. vi. 90. Also the following: Deme
totelian
Letters (Ibid. II. ii. 562), who is probably older than

;
trius
83), if
of
Byzantium (Diog.
v.
he is not the other De metrius named suj>ra,p. 124, 1 Diogenianus, from whom Eusebius (Pr. Ev. iv. 3 vi. 8) quotes long fragments directed against Chrysippus doctrines of Prophecy and Destiny, perhaps from a treatise ire pi fluapfj.fv ns he may be the same person as Diogenianus of Pergamos, who appears as one of the speakers
;
Andronicus Ni candor, \\ ho, according to Suidas (Alirxpitav), wrote about the disciples of Aristotle; Strato, the Alex andrian Peripatetic (Diog. v. Gl in Tertullian, De An. 15,
;
it
is
not this
of
Str;tto,
but
the
also
pupil
Erasistratus,
named by Diogenes, who

tended).
is in
Concerning the two last-named philosophers:, it is not certain whether they lived
br orc or after the Christian of Tralles, J ul i a n u s era whcse theory of the movement of the heavens by the Platonic world-soul is discussed by Alex.
;
in Plutarch, De Ptjth. Oniculis. viii. 1, 2; Qit. Conr. vii. 7, 8; at any rate, what is put into his mouth has nothing to con tradict this theory, and Pyth.
Aphr. ap. Simpl. De

ft,
Caelo, 169,
42
Scliol.
491
ft,
43.
Whether
he was a Peripatetic or a Pla

2
303
ClTAP. XI.
!
ECLECTICISM.
In the second century is very unimportant. Com works of Aspasius century we hear of several 2 mentaries on the Categories, on the treatise ITS pi
first
:
spfjLijveia,!?*
Heavens,"
7
on the and the
Physics,
the Books about the

G
;
Metaphysics
but though he
seems to have carefully expounded the writings of have paid attention to the Aristotle, and especially to has been handed down of various nothing
readings,
of any independent investigation inforWe have more precise philosophic questions. 8 From his treatise on iiiation concerning Adrastus.
his that indicates
9 the arrangement of the Aristotelian works, there are quoted observations on their order, titles, 10 A commentary on the Categories and genuineness.
Adraxtus.
tonist, and whether this quotalion refers to a commentary on the Jfcun /i.^ or to the JinnltK
<>f>
;i
commentary on the
Alexander
r n/r
Tiui--nx,
cannot be discovered from the

passage.
1
r,43. a, 31 23: 310, lO^P.on. 701, b, 11 Bekl 552, b, 20 The Scholia on the four of the first books and parts seventh and ninth books of the
;
;
yn nuiticlit
has
(
an<l
tiit
/,Y///r.x-,whirh
Ila>e
of
^gac and
])\ibli>hed
in the
German
xxviii.
Sot ion,
-
Galen,
;
11
:t
f//
,t
supra, p. 30 K 2. TAbr. Projtr. c. vol. xix, 42 .sv/. Boet. DC Interpret, cf. Tnto the edition of Meister.
i<ixxu-(il
Journal,
vols.
Mr
xxix., claim to be extracted

;
from a commentary of Aspasius but they are otherwise of no

H reat value. h ( oiicernir.u
ri.)"-tlius
repeatedly
expresses
(ii
him
ritlc
Martin
much
1
dissatisfaction
p. 41,
on
Tiieo.
Snivrii.
Ast/ vnomid,
S7, 17 Meis.)
with his inter

1>:
p. 71
pretations.
1
Simpl. Wit/*. 28,

:
"
0(1,
a.
Aous
l,b;
h; 133. / a HJS, IDO, a T.2, It
1
fi/fi-;/.
pauuaTa ^(Sim])l. I /tt/s. The designa 4, C

Cafrr/. 4,
tion
is
2,
13">,
less s])ecilic. of
ApifTT.
]\
/>;
172,
;
<J
y
:
TT.
1(1
TO.^. Ti]s
^>tXoo"o^)ias).
214, a
21 ., a
4.
7,
According: to Simpl. Catctj. he wished to place the

l>,
( titt
2:5
210,
tf,
44
1>,
Karst.
;
>
/////.
//?
cf.
:
.
04,
:-U
51
:5,
&,
10.
.,
(of which 1. c. 4, 3() ycfinl. in AH.it. HH, ^/, 142, /y, 3-S,he imMit ions
ifor tcx
;
Alex. Mctaph. 31, i3; 44,
a second recension) before
all
ADRASTUS.
is also
Physics,
mentioned, and from a commentary on the 2 Simplicius gives us a detailed statement

1
CHAP.
.
and of concerning the conceptions of substance essential and accidental quality, which well ex
definitions and expressions. plains the Aristotelian also perhaps wrote on the ethics of Aristotle He
and Theophrastus. 3
If
we add
to this all that
we
mathematical knowledge, his writings on harmony and astronomy, and his Commentary on the Timaeus, and what has been
are told concerning his
4 we must allow that preserved of these writings,
the other writings of Aristotle, and next to t hem the Tojjioa and
;
plicius,
to
he, therefore, like some others, entitled the Categories Tpb ruv TOTTUV (Anon. Schol. 32, b, be pre 36, whose account is to
:
ferred to that of David, I. c. 30, a, 8, as David, or perhaps his transcriber, evidently confuses the statements of Adrastus and the pseudo-Archytus). In the same treatise he had men the tioned forty books of four Analytics, of which only are genuine (Phil d. Gr. II. ii. 70,
his opinion the Physics and its principal divisions (Simpl. Phys. 1, b 2, a cf. Phil. d. Gr.
1),
however, does not seem have had the commentary itself, which he never quotes, in his possession, but to have borrowed the passage from Por phyry, who, as he observes, had mentioned it. The extract from Adrastus probably refers to the words ou5e \4yfrai onep
:
and expressed
title of
306 sq. and Gr. II. ii. 855. 4 He is described as a mathe matician by Claudiau Maraert. l)e Statu An. i. 25, if the Adrastus he mentions is the
3
Cf. su/tra, p.
d.
Phil
on the
same person. From his com mentary on the Timeout, Por phyry (in Ptol. Ilarm. Wallis,
;
II.
1
ii.
86).
;
Galen, Libr. Propr. 11

sq.
xix.
42
2
His Har tion on Consonance. mony, in three books, still exists

in
Opp.
iii.
270) quotes a defini
Phys. 26, b. That this cussion is taken from a com mentary on the Physics is clear from the words with which 6 5e Simplicius introduces it
:
-
dis
MS. (Fabr.
Jiill.
Gr.
first
iii.
459, 653).
of these books, the quotation ap. Prod, in Tim. 192, C; 127, C; and probably also ap. 198, E Ach. Tat. c. 19, p. 136 (80), are
From
the
T 3
(ap. Arist. Phys. oirep bv 186, a, 33) irapeT}A06j/

,
i.
^v
bxiyov TUV TrpOKeûcVcoi
\;c.
bim-
doubtless taken; a treatise on the Sun is mentioned by Ach. Tat. c. 19, p. 139 Lastly,
(8i>).
310
CHAP,
ECLECTICISM.
the praise accorded
l
by Simplicius to this Peri But he nevertheless entirely justified. patetic seems to have deserved it rather for his faithful
is
transmission and intelligent elucidation of Aristotle s doctrines than for any new and original enquiries.
As
in
the isolated definitions which have been

as
handed down
his
he almost
entirely
follows
Aristotle, so in his general
view of the universe and
The universe, the of Grod, he is allied with him. of which he describes according to the construction
pattern
in the
of
Aristotle,
is
essential nature for the best,
formed by the highest and is moved thereby

it,
manner belonging
to
namely, in a
circle.
consequence of the contrast between the terres trial elements and the various influences which the
planetary spheres in the multiplicity of their move ments exercise upon them, is the change in our
world
but in saying this, Adrastus expressly himself against the opinion that the heavenly guards bodies are created for the sake of that which is
;
meaner and perishable

earth
is
their -end in themselves,
they have, on the contrary, and their influence on the

All
4 only an effect of natural necessity.
Martin has shown

thc
greatest
part
(/.
.)
that
Stcnet;?, ai/
Theo s astronomy is borrowed from a treatise of Adrastus; and that this is the commentary on the Tiniffux is proved by Hiller, Jl.kchi. Mas. N. F. xxvi. 5S2 The same writer shows sqq. that Chalcidius has adopted a great deal from this commentary into his own. 6 Cat. 4, 7 Atypoof
1
:
T^TLK Yule the dissertations on the spherical form of the universe and of the earth, the place of the earth in the centre of the whole, the smallness of the earth in comparison with the whole, in Theo iSmyrn. Astron.
c.
3
4
1-4. L. c.c. 22.
"A5p.
L.
c.
Beneath
the
moon
HERMINUS.
Adrastus sought likewise to maintain in principle the Aristotelian theory of the he connected by means of ingenious spheres, which with the theories of later astronomers. modifications
this
is
Aristotelian.
CFAI-
He
therefore seems, irrespective of his mathematical and other learning, to have been merely a skilful and defender of the Aristotelian theories.
expounder Not even as

:
much
as this
can be said of Herminus.

tends from the upper to the lower limit of a hollow sphere, concentric with that of the fixed This sphere turns from stars. east to west in the direction of the ecliptic, but more slowly than the sphere of the fixed stars (or perhaps also, says Adrastus, it is drawn round in this direction by the sphere of rixed stars, while its own motion is from west to east); at the same time the sphere which holds the planet, corresponding with the Epicycles of Hipparthe chus, moves itself within that the so hollow
sphere,
and reigns change, generation, TOVTUV Se, (pfjeriv destruction ra irXavu^va (Adrastus). curta ravra 8e \eyoi ris TWV acrrpwi us TUV Ti/uiorre pcwj Kal bv,
. oi>x
Otltav
Kal Kal
Kal
atyOdpTuv
afiiwv aytvv>iTwi> re eW/ca rwv e AarQvr\Tu>v
rovcvv
Kal
eirLKypuv
/uey
TTftyvKorcav,
aAA
ws
^Kfiwv
rb KaAAifTTOV Kal apiffrov Kal ovrws e xo^Tw^, fjiaKapiurarov aei
8m
TWV
8e fi/ravOa Kara
(n>jJL$t$T}Ki)S
tKeiv&is fTTOfj-fvuv.
The
circular
movement
supposed
rest,
of the universe pre a central point at
and therefore an element the natural motion of which was towards the centre but then there must also be one
;
the motion of which was to wards the circumference, and also elements lying between the two. These elements are in their nature changeable; their variation is really occa sioned by that of the seasons, which is, on the other band, conditioned by the changing position of the planets, espe moon (of. cially of the sun and Phil. d.Gr. II. ii. 440, 4(58 *q. In Theo, c. 32, with which cf. c. 18, and Martin, p. 117 */. Adrastus here assumes that each planet is fastened to the surface of a globe, which ex
1
a circle the planet describes diameter of which extends from a point on the outer boundary of the hollow plane the opposite tary sphere to inner boundary, point on its the centre of which, therefore, the conis distant from that of cm; ric spheres as far a.s the r.-idius of the sphere bearing the planet. Adrast us had, there in his theory taken ac
fore,
count of
eccentrics.
the
hypothesis
of
The theory, apart
from its other deficiencies, would cnly explain the ap
of the sun parent revolution and moon, as Martin observes,

p. 119.
ECLECTICISM.
What we
are told of his commentaries on the logical

]
is sometimes unimportant, and sometimes displays an external and forinalistic treatment of logical questions, with much misunder
writings of Aristotle
2 He de standing of the Aristotelian propositions. rives the infinity of the motion of the heavens
1
Among
these the
C
commen
is
tary on the
dtfjories
most
commonly quoted: r/rfr the following note and Simpl. in

Ottcf/. Xc/toL in Aritt. 40, a, 17;
22 David, ScJ/oI. 28, 14). leaves it undecided whether there are only so many highest kinds as Aristotelian Categories
/.
:
1>,
He
42, u,
5
I:!
40, 47,
e
?,()
1
1>,
15 (14,
b,
Basil.)
p.
3,
h,
;
50,
H J,
777.
and
Das.
Porph.
Also oH, a, ticlwl. 58, b, 10. the commentary on the treatise TT. l!oet. l)e Inter Ep/jL-riveias pret, (cf. the Index of tlie edition of Meiser); Amniun.
;
(Simpl. ,S //,//. 47, It, 11 ^y//.). It is ohserved DC Interpret. 1 that the psychic processes desig nated bywords are the >ame in all 1/ut Herminus would not admit this, because in that ca.-e it would not be possible to take the same expre.-sioii in
,
different senses.
I.
He, therefore,
TO.VTO.
100, Also the following note, ft, 5. /. c. and ap. Alex. Anal. I ri. 28, //, concerning his commen
4:i,
JJe Interpret.
a,
Xcltol
c.
10, a, 0,
instead of
-j/vxvs,
jruai
TraOrjuara,
rc-ads
,Sc///.
Tavra
ii.
(I)oe t.
l)e
;
Interpret.
l)e
p.
)31>,
25
.sv/c/.
ileis.
tary on the A/tult/ticn; and Alex. Top. 271, 274, ///, in the
Topicii.
-
lol,
Ammon.
;
Intt
/>-
St lml. 101. ft, 0). In pret. 21, a regard to the so-called infinite
rantl, (tcxcli. d. Lof/.

[
\.
545
y<iq.
jTheMib>tance of the (juorum llerminu^ s Lo<j}c tations is as follows. The treati>e on
propositions, lie distinguished three cases: the predicate or the subject, or both, might be infinite notions (neirativelv ex
the Cdteyories, which he con sidered as the foundation of Dialectic, and, therefore, with
pressed):
but he erroneously
lirst
compared not merely the
Adrastus entitled np bruv TOTTUV (David, Scltol, in Ar txt. 81, ft, 25, according to whom he thus explained the precedence of the
class, but also the second and third, with the corresponding-
negative judgments p. 275 .M ). He instituted a fruit less enquiry concerning Anal.

(!!(.."t.
doctnne
c
of oppo>ites, Cutaj. treats neither in an ontological manner of the hi^lic^t lo

),
Pri. 20,
//,
.\~ ,
as to wliich cr.nc/f
ception
in
svlloLrisms
tlie
kinds
c)f
tlu;
llcal,
nor
merdv
of the parts of discourse, hut of the designations proper for ("fh class uf the Heal (1 orph.
|-/77.
second figure was the ]irimarv and which the subordinate conception (Alex. Anal. Pri.
215,
1
/y,
,n
Srltol.
AY/.).
153,
b,
27
rantl,
555
4,
b; tichv!. 31,
ft;
cf.
/.
c.
SOSIGENES.
31,3
CHAP. not from the operation of the first moving principle a devia- _ but from the soul inherent in them
! ;
tion from Aristotle and an approximation to the Platonic doctrine which Alexander had already From the commentary of Achaicus Ackaicm. contradicted. 2
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
but we get a very favourable idea s of his mathematical knowledge and the care with
4
;
which he applied it to the elucidation of Aristotle, from his commentary and criticism of the Aristo
telian theory of the spheres.
6
In regard to philo
sophy, however, the

1
most considerable of these

could not decide. An observa tion on Aiialt/t. Pr. i. 9 is given by Philop. Anal. Pr. xxxii. //, Schol. 158, b 28, after Alexander.
5 Ap. Simpl. De Cwlo, SchoL 504, b, 500, a, 40 498, a., 45 41 (219, a, 39; 223, a, 29; 228,
; ;
Z>,
Simpl.
De
Ccelo, Scliol. 491,
45 (109, 1), 45 K.), according to a statement of Alexander, which, however, seems to have referred not to a commentary, but to the discourses of Her&,
31 minus as in I. c. p. 494, sqq., an utterance of Herminus

;
1>,
15
K.),
where
Simplicius
concerning a reading of Aspasius is also quoted from his

discourses. shall find, however, that this opposition did not extend to the theory of a particular soul in the heaven of fixed
We
seems to follow Sosigenes, not merely in that wherein he ex but pressly appeals to him, throughout. Cf. ps.-Alex. MeBon. (807, , taph.677, 25 xqq. 29 Br.), who also names Sosi genes at the conclusion of his
;
stars.
3
discussion.
The passages
relating to
4 From a commentary on the Categories, Porphyry, f&7-
this .are given infra, p. 327.
b Such enquiries concerning mat hematics and natural science were contained in the trea
tise
of
Sosigenes,
irtpl
ufyfws,
2,
him
sqq.
after (Sohol. 31, ft) and Dexipp. in Catrg. p. 7, Speng. gives his reflections
"20
from the third book of which

Themistius (Phy*. 79, a) takes the concerning something shining of many bodies in the dark and Alexander (Meteorol. 1 1G, rt) quotes some observations
;
on the question whether ^the

Xfy6/u.fvov is
<pw))
or a n-pa
yfj.a
or a
vorj/j-a,
on which, however, he
314
ECLECTICISM.
younger Peripatetics are Aristocles and Alexander for they alone have left us discus of Aphrodisias sions which, starting from the details of logic and the whole physics, proceed to enquiries affecting
;
CHAP.
XI.
theory of the universe.

Arixtocles
Aristocles of Messene, in Sicily,

2
the teacher
of
Alexander of Aphrodisias, is chiefly known to us from the fragments of an historical work of his
from the eighth book concern ing the halo round the sun and moon.
1
supra,
and (2) it is p. 307 highly improbable that a tran scribe;: should have changed the
;
Suid. A.pi(TTOK\.
universally
That he was
so, is
asserted
totle for the
known name of Aris unknown name of
in the older texts of 8irnplicius
(that retranslated from the Latin), De Carlo, p. 34, I; and 25, has fol Karsten, p. 69, lowed it. But in the collection of Academic Scholia, 11, a, 30, we read, on the contrary o Kara AAer5pos, avrov SiSffxrKa&oi/ Apwrorf\f]v, alsoap. \T\\\. c. Julian, ii. 01,1): i ro ivvv AAe âySpos 6 Apuffj.adf]rr]s-, and similarly in Alex. DC An. 144, a, svy. {rule, to the i nfra, p. 3 5, 4), acc >rding printed text Aristotle is named as the teacher of Alexander. every Nevertheless, there is reason to suppose that the older text of Simplieius is right, and not that of the Academy; and that even in the two other pas sages ApL(TTOK\tovs is to be read, and not Api(rrorf\ovs. For (1) there is no trace of any Peripa tetic called Aristotle, who, ac cording to the dates, could have been the teacher of Alexander of Aphrodisias; that the supposed
1>,
whereas the converse might very easily happen, and has often happened. For ex ample, Muller, Fraym. llixt. (ir. ii. 170; iv. 330, shows that, ap.
Aristocles,
ps.-Plut.
and Apostol.
ApKTTOTeArjs
Parallel, 29, p. 312; xiv. 70, we find

;
o>s
rbi>
<pf]al,
whereas Stobieus,
(.
and Arsen.p. 385, give correctly Api(TTOK\ris (the Simi historian of Rhodes). larly, the Scholiasts on Pindar,
Flwil.
(i4,
37,
tween the two names,
lluctuate be of which that of Ari>tocles only is cor rect. Hoche, According to

Olf/n/p.
vii.
Of!,
Prtff.
ii.
two manuscripts have

;
Api(TTOTe\7]s instead of ApitfTOK\?IS, and in lioi t. J)e ] ntcrpr.
^leiser (p. 2) was the lirst to correct the statement of the Basel edition (p. m) that Plato was at lir.-t called
ii.
r>(\,
30i>,
On the other hand, Aristotle. cases where in the various Hose, A rixt. Pzeiidepigr. 01 5 ,sv/.,
assumes the same mistake, the matter is very questionable, as Heir/ shows (} erlor. bchr. d.
Arist. 295).
of him in Syrian comes to nothing, has been observed
mention
ARISTOCLES OF MESSENE.
preserved
815
as
by Eusebius
and these contain,
CHAP.
might be expected in a work of the kind, no original and enquiries into philosophy. Aristocles criticises
combats the doctrines of other schools the Eleatics and the Sceptics, the Cyrenaics and the Epicureans, and even the materialism of the Stoics while, on
;
the other hand, he defends Aristotle against many 2 the whole work must have contained a charges
;
complete
critical
philosophers.
The language
is
review of the systems of the Greek of this Peripatetic con
cerning Plato
nevertheless remarkable.
He
calls
him a genuine and perfect philosopher, and, as we can judge from the scanty excerpts
possession,
in
as well
in our
expounding
his
doctrine,
himself
3 He seems to assume that the agrees with it. Aristotelian philosophy in the main Platonic and more fre coincide, a statement at that period
the Platonic school. quently to be met with in 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 pas sage from
1
Alexander of Aphrodisias,
xi.
we
are told
Prffp. Ev.
xv. 2, 14.
is,
3; xiv. 17title of this
21
2 5iiio-
The
work
according to Ens. xi. accord(bv<rio\oyias, xv. 2 to Id xiv. 17, 1

Trepl
;
14
Suid. Apto-ro/cA.
irepi
0i\o-
and Schol. 15. Suidas names a work on E by him in nine books. he elsewhere ascribes seems to belong partly to Aria tocles of Pergamos and partly
1.
c.,
further
t<
ffoQias.
In Eusebius
(I. o.~)
there
;
are quotations from the seventh and eighth books of this work from the sixth n Suid 2T<8 book. The Se ica jSijSAfa *. ok. are mentioned by Philop. Philop
<J>iAo-
to the Rhodian. 2 Cf Phil. d. Gr. II. n. 8

.
37,
43, 3.
:
* on the other Eus. xi. 3, 1 2 relates to Socrates hand, 4 This passage is found in tl
ECLECTICISM.
that in order to escape from the difficulties of the Aristotelian
comes
all
to
man from
doctrine respecting the reason which without, Aristotle set up the
following theory.
tilings,
The
divine reason, he savs,

is
is
in
even in terrestrial bodies, and
con
its
From stantly working in the manner proper to it. in things arises not only the rational operation
capacity in man, but also all union and division of substances, and therefore the whole conformation of
the universe whether

for
itself
it
affects
this
alone,
or
in combination
immediately, with the in
fluences of the heavenly bodies, or whether nature
originates primarily from those influences, and de
termines
all
things in combination with vovs.
If,
then, this activity of vovs, in itself universal, finds in any particular body an organ adapted to it, vovs
works, in this
second book vep}
u>t
body
as
its
inherent intelligence, and

seem
what
p.
vj/ux^s, p.
144,
strange
follows,
in
themselves,
have,
been derived from
and especially or
\[^n,
asserting that the second book, -n-fpl \lv \-7js, was not written by him.: for even in that rase it could only be the i-iidiitYi of the second half of
in
/<
-t
Alexander s work. Torstrik, however, has given no reasons or his judgment, and it does
should be ascribed to Aristotle and not to a teacher of Alexander, who took them from his mouth, though not himself agreeing with them. That this teacher can be no other than and that conseAristoeles, quentlv ApmTOKA.e ous should be
1
not seem to me justified. After Alexander has here treated of
substituted for has already been

2)I>randis
Api(TTOTt\o-js
shown
(p. 314,
the passive and active intelligenee in the sense of Ari>totle, he thus continues, accordinir to our printed text tfitovcra Se IT* pi
:
i-">
b.
OvpaQev napa A.pi(TTOTe\ovs oifcrwG zuyi If these words

.
drr I .ndcr (1 r u elnxclicn J liUnx. ii. 208) declares himself in agreement with the observaions on t his subject in mv iirst
((^cxcJi.
tn icJicJiinff
edition.
ARISTOCLES.
there arises an individual intellectual activity. This capability for the reception of vovs is, as Aristotle
believes, conditioned
317
CHAP.
bodies,
and depends
by the material constitution of especially on the question
whether they have in them more or less fire. The corporeal mixture which affords an organ for active
intelligence
is
named
potential
intelligence,
and
the operation of the active divine intelligence upon the potential human intelligence, whereby the latter
raised to actuality, and individual thought is that the all-pervad realised, consists only in this of the divine vovs manifests itself in a ing activity
is
:
special
manner
in
particular
bodies.
Alexander
himself observes respecting these theories of his master, which he seeks to reconcile with the Aristo 2 that they have considerable affinity telian text,
with the Stoic doctrine
3
;
nor can we conceal from
ourselves that vovs working in the whole corporeal
world, and especially in the fiery element, closely approximates to the Stoic reason of the world, which
same time the primeval fire and, as such, the As the Heraartistic and shaping force of nature. clitean hylozoism was rendered more fruitful at the
is
at the
the doctrine of appearance of the Stoic system by Aristotle concerning vovs, so now we see that doc
trine in the Peripatetic
school
itself,
even in so
as Aristocles, entering distinguished a representative

Loo. LOG.
.
cit.
144,
:
&,
Med.
\e |tr Se
T0l/ /\e->e
3
"
*
?>*
Cit.
Ka.1
T\\V
reiv
e 3o/cei /tot
r6rf TOVTOIS, rbv

<P
TV
eV rtf rp(r(f Trepl
^vx^ 5
TOIS trpoffoiKovv
(-eiovv)
l s at OT <*is tlv tlva 6f~or OVTO., us rols airb rrjs ffroa
vo * v K
*"
ISoer, &C.
318
ECLECTICISM.
into a combination
CHAP.
XI.
with the Stoic
theory of the
1
universe, which prepares the way for the later union of these systems in Neo-Platonism. Alexander The Aristotelian doctrine of Alexander of Aphro(if Anliro2 This vigorous Peripa disias is purer and stricter. disius, called the celebrated by posterity under the distinguished tetic,
( (iinttii
n-
tato/
and
names
1
of the
Commentator and the Second Aristotle, 3

137
sq.
Cf.
sitj).
p.
How down
fixed
was from being the only phiu-opher of that

far
Aristocles
period
who intermingled
Aris
to us. His date can be by the statement in he 2. Fitfo, mentioned }). From his native city, Aphro;><il,
$></>.
totelian with Stoic theology is also shown bv an utterance of

his
disias
contemporary Athenagoras. This apologist, who was so well
acquainted with Cireek philo sophy, says (Si//>/ili(\ c. o, p. 22 1\) of Aristotle and the
Peripatetics: eVa &yovres olovel
/.taros
A])hrodisium, cf. 12, h Iittrrprd SI, a: 161, It: Simpl. DC ( b; 23 K), his invariable 1C.8, surname is (he de scribes himself in Mit<iiili. oOl,
(not
Ammon.
!)<
>].
A</>po8irneus
.on. 7CS, a
20,
J>r.
K52.
by
the predicates iVî/^s

\CVKOS
:
(pi\6(ro(pos
crvvfCTTT^KoTa.
Xeyov<Ti
T~bv
Aphrodisias
doe>
but A(/)po5((Tiei;s) is thereby

api>ear.
which meant
uei avTov TO aiOfpiuv (TW/U.O. VOU.ioVTS, TOVS T6 TT\ai (jCU.eVOUS KOL T IJV crQa^puv rav dcrrepas
6fby,
not
(I."*)
Concerning
his writings,
(if. v.
-idc
ti/iq.
Fabric. Jllbl. and the pa>sages

in
CLTrXavuv
Kivovu.ffct
KVK
there
3
(|tlo!ed. Cf. Svrian
and David
p. !?07,;?.;
<>
the
\6yov, avrov ufv ov

Ktvov/ufvov
aiTi iv 5e
r?]s
KLvrifftccs ytvo/ufvov.
passages quoted
Iff .\!l.
]
If this
rovrov dees
.].
Simpl. TOV ApHTTOTf;
\H-JS
fi
1
f^riyT]Tr]s
:
AAe |.
ThemNt.
A\e|. a
1"),
1><
precisely correspond cles, conception of the Deitv is here treated in a IdStoic manner, as the \\
Ari>tr.
l. b
A<ppoî(rifvs
soul
onlv
th.at
is
the body of
ncit
tlie
u-orld-soiil
formed
by
all
parts of the world, but merely But the heavenly spheres. Alexander himself did not
i>v
also called o fr)as Olympiolv: Id. dor. W-trorvl. a: ii.

yqrri^.
is
He
- in! 77?T?;s
<.</.,
.")
1>>7,
On
tin-
other hand, by the

-rokeii
Id.),
lrjc/
:
with Aristotle) place the seal

Deit v outside the furthest but in it (rir/f inf/ ii.
i).
s
777x1; s v l i.
of
(i/t/i/.
12,
of
-]ihere,
."
who makes some remark on Alexander s com ment arv, a far earlier man is
-~>
:;_".,
Concerning Alexander sonal historv nothinir has

J
(
per
a-
meant, a teacher of the author, we .-ce fiMm the mode of
come
(quotation, e^Tj (not tpâlv).
We
ALEXANDER OF APHRODIS1AS.
has unquestionably
319
won for himself great merit by on the Aristotelian works, a great his commentary he has furnished with detailed exportion of which as carefully entering into the words
1
CHAP.
,/
Se
planations,
cannot, therefore, infer from this passage that the commen tator on the Meteorology is dis tinct from the philosopher of
Aphrodisias.
this would rather point to a later revision or to gaps in our
tion
Alexander s com mentaries were read by Plotinus together with those of to his Aspasius, Adrastus, &c.,
Plot. 14). pupils (Porph. V. 1 The still existing commen taries of Alexander, which are
now
on
collected in the Academy edition of the commentaries

Aristotle, and
Meantime it is a ques whether by the ^77717rfa in Ol. i. 187 Alexander is meant, and whether the passage which Olympiodorus quotes from him (evidently at third hand) really stood in his Meteorology at any rate Simpl. (De Ccelo, 95, a Schol. 492, b, Ideler also de 1), on which
text.
; ;
have appeared in a new and improved form of text, embrace the following
works: (1) Book I. of the First Analytics; (2) on the Topica
vide Brandis, (partly revised, the treatise alluded to p. 297, of
sup. p. 112, 1); (3) That this teorology.
to the pends, certainly refers commentary on the books of
the heavens
(4)irepl
cu<r0^<rea>s.
quoted by Alexander himself (De An. 133, a; Qn. Nat. i.

of edition 19, end, p. Thurot, 1875). On the Meta on physics, the commentary
2,
on the Me
commen
another tary was not written by Alexander has been already stated (sup. p. 304, 2, and 3 18, 3). Also the citations of Olympiodorus from the Aphrodisian har monise almost exactly with our
cf. Alexandrian commentary Olymp. i. 133, Id. Alex. 120, IdrhT a; 01. i. 202, where
;
;
has been preserved the rest in a shortened form the tirst part, and ex tracts from the second, are of Bran printed in the Scholia and both at length in the
Books
;
i.-v.
entire
dis,
separate edition explanation of the (roQurriKol which likewise bears IA67XO the name of Alexander, is cer I.e. tainly spurious (cf. Brandis,
,
of Bonitz.
An
finds a difference that is quit o between the cita

;
p.
298).
:
groundless, tion of Olympiodorus and our commentator (Alex. 82 a Ol.

i.
on the quoted
following
commentaries works are (1) The Categories, by

Lost
. ; ;
293 sa. Alex. 100, ft 157; Alex. 124, ft; 01.

;
01.
ii.
ii.
200;
Alex.
132,
a).
is
tributed to the latter which is not to be found in our com
something
therefore, here and then- at

If,
a. Simpl. (Cateff. 1, a; 3, De Ccrlo, 76, 23, 7, and often Categ.S, 15; I, 26 K; Dexipp. 40 9 3 55, 13 Spene. David, Sc hflL 61, ^ 8: 54. ft, 15, 26;
;
;
<,:,.
//:
47,
81,
ft,
33.
(2) Flepl
32,
ft ;
^rjve/as(Ammon. De Interpret.
12,
ft
;
mentary
(Ideler,
I,
c. I.
xvii.),
14,
23,
ft
46,
320
ECLECTICISM.
well
as
CHAP.
xr.
the
2
writings,
//:
~>l,
1>:
His own thoughts of the author. are no more than explanations however,
1
:
81, a
101,7;; lt4.
1
1>
7.
P.oet.
7>f
Interpret, [very fre
title
quently]: cf. Mich. Fphes.

loo, ci). of the
(:})
/V>vtf
the Meiser
Scliol.
in lex.
Gt5, 12 P.on. 70I, 7y to Alex. (Ju. Philop. (ri nn. (t ( //.

r.
l.">,
Fr.
LI
c/
^\<it.
ii.
14,
in
A/
ixt.
c/
18,
Ii
/y,
^Y
jHixsini).
(8)
];:,
:
The second book

Analytics (Philop.
:>:
J)ic/,
Ainnia (Simjil.
/>
7A- J;/.
c-f
<z
2T),
27,
7>,
jitixxim
;
Jr. 188, i, /v /////. .!, r/, 47; Anon. J^trix [a commentary under Alexander s name, but much later, concerning which
///
]
Themist. ])f An.

7;c
1)4,
1C,,
An. A 10;
."UO,
P,,
(>
Pliiloj). I. p s .:
Alex.
Mi-taiiJi. 47:!,
i>.")
40.",
2S
410,20;
28; the
witli
;
15on.
1>,
cf. P.randis,
1.
c.
p.
</,
290]
10,
Scliol.
7I ,5,
c/,
;>2
78!!,
is
[731. ft, 2. Fr.

)
;
188, a, Ii); 101,

j)x.ii>i.
ft,
28
iirst
passage
;
(4)
The Second Ana

I>r.
wanting
him]
lytic*
i>
Bon. 745,
:!0;
Ps. -Alex, in Ifetaplt. 442, 7 Philop. in

/>,
Coinni. in
P.onitx, Mtitnpli. xxii.
cf.
J
I
l-.r.
om-
7WM/^////f.>V7/o/.l%,r/,
/,.
2IK5, 6,
jHJxxini; ^1 mil. J*xt.

tt:
;200, 18; 211, A, 84 Kustrat. in J. ilir. ii.;

:>;5
mentaries on the smaller an thropological writings are not mentioned with the exception
of the still existing commentary ensn. Concerning some
])>
a
/.
.">.
a, o
:
11,
c/,
cf.
Fabric.
Lor,,
<.
(>M
Prantl
(5)
7V///*.
supposed commentaries on the

Rhetoric and Poetics, ? ,,], FaThat Alexander (!l!7. expounded other writings besides those of Aristotle we cannot infer from the absurd statement of David (Sr/n>/. in. Ar. 28, a, 24). that he com mented, not only the works of Aristotle the but Stagirite, those of the other men of that name also the discussion con cerning the harmonic numbers of the Tinirrux mentioned bv Philop. ( I), An. 1) 0) must have bei-n found in the commentary on the 7>,Y///.xv of tli r Si/l. Cf. on this point and against
l)ric.
Oil"),
: 1
/,r.vr//. //.
i.
C.lM
IS).
On
;,
/>
the T/V/yx/Yx (Sinipl.

;
4.
5,
/>
ti,
/-/,
and
many other passages, esjiecially the three first bonks: Philop. :* M, 28 X, Phil*, P., It) This commen 4 D. T. tary seems to have been the principal source from which that of Simplicius is taken; and the fragments of (lie pre: ] ;
philosophy, especially, which t, i\ e such uTcat value to the work of Simplicius, would
r
So;-]-alic
to have been altogether, or chielly, borrowed from it). The treatise on the heavens
appear
(T>)
Metewol. (Alex. Alex. Mt tapli. Bon. [807, a:

:
7<5.
<!77,
s.n\ 27: (178,7

I \ 1
Hitter
dis,
/.
(iv.
i i;i)
depreciatory
P.ran
judgment of Alexander,
c.
>;,
b,
Fr.]
p.
278;
Sinipl.
1
i
!)<
C l-lt.
..
>,
Scliol.
I. ii
:
408,^;
I.
.sv/y.
I,,
DMIIIMS.
1
c.
45
/;,!!]:
/
Al<-.r.
<>///>/>.
in,
470.
ir)_t7:
!*.->.
28
Afctti/ili. J^-fff.i.;
(li-r
L</.
Prantl,
(, csrli.
Genera stf/q.et jwsaini. (7) tions ct Corruptions (Ps.-Alex.

7>/
i.
C,21.
\\ e
]
(Assess
four of thusc
ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS.
and apologies
manner, in his
treated of logic,
for
still
1
Aristotle
doctrines.
In
this
existing commentaries, he has meteorology, and metaphysics in

;
Writings
besides the commentaries -rrepl ^VXTIS, 2, B. (ap. Themist. Opj). Venet. 1534, p. 123 sqq.} IT. 1 63 tl/j.ap/j.fvrjs (ibid. sqq. et pass. latest ed. Orelli, Zur. 1824)
;
a treatise -mpl Sajjuovwi f Michael or whoever may be the author

of
this commentary, printed with Simpl. l)e Aniina, on the
treatise
irepi TTJS
Kaff virvov
:
/j.av-
anopLWV Kal B. (qiifcstioncs natnAv<recoi/, 4, rales, ^c., edition of Spengel, Munich, 1842, who in the pre
fyvffiK&v Kal ridixwv
with Fabricius, gives all informa tion respecting the title and earlier editions) /u.iews irepl (attached to the Aldine edition of the Meteorology, and imper fect in the commencement). On the other hand the Problems,
face, together
c.
I.
661
sq.,
another trea tise against Zenobius the Epi curean (PMl. d. Gr. III. i. 377) in which, according to Simpl. PJuj. 113, b, he had sought to prove the distinction of the Above, Below, &c., to be a
riKTJs, p. 148,
b)
natural distinction. The trea tise, however, on the seat of the the i)y e IJLO vi /cbv, alluded to in commentary on the work irepl
<*><nv
Kivf)(Tfws, 154, b, 155, a,
is
larpiKuv Kal (pvffiK&v Trpo/SAûaTWV, 2 B (cf. also Fabric. (562 sqq. and, in respect to Busemaker s edition in the fourth volume of Didot s Aristotle, Prantl, Munch. Gel. Anz. 1858, No. 25) and a treatise on Fevers
not distinct from Alexander s dissertation, De and the An. i. p. 140 xqq. fj.ovo/3i&\iov, quoted by Eustrat. in Eth. N. 179, a, in which it is proved as against the Stoics
doubtless
;
(Fabric. 664), certainly do not belong to Alexander. Among lost writings are mentioned A treatise on the difference be tween Aristotle and his dis ciples in regard to syllogisms with premisses of unequal mo dality (Alex. Anal. Pr. 40, b, 83,
:
a;cLPMl.d.Gr.II.u.22^ ,t\ns is no doubt the work referred to by Philop. Anal. Pr. xxxii.
b; Schol. 158,
,
that virtue does not suffice for happiness, is the same as the portion of the work bearing the same independent title, p. 156 sqq. Concerning an essay on he virtues, which still exists in MS., a very doubtful treatise on the powers of stones quoted by Psellus the allegorical inter pretations of myths (Ps. Alex. Probl. i. 87) which are cer
t
;
tainly
(
spurious,
and
some
28 (ei/ nvt /u.oon the other hand the \oyiKa (Alex. Anal. Pr.
b,
83,
SeJwl. 169, a, 14)
must
it
;
be something distinct from the words eVi irXtov efpTjrcu

eV
ûot
Arabic treatises mentioned by nsiri, all. erroneously no doubt, attributed to Alexander (ride Fabric, v. 667 *q. 658). Concerning his logic, ride Prantl, Gesch. der Loflik, i. 622
1
roTs
a"x_o\iois
seem
to
me
TO?S \oyiKo?s to be a gloss. Also
sqq.
But, except his definitions
on the relation of the individual
322
ECLECTICISM.
two books concerning the and in many passages O f enquiries into natural science, he has devel the anthropology and psychology of his master in he the first three books of the last mentioned work
soul,
;
CHAP,
XI^_
consist
wholli/ of
apologies for Aris

totle s
has discussed
fourth
and
com mentarie* on
many
"
and in the physical questions, of the Peripatetic ethics, in definitions
many
opposition
to the cavils of the Stoics
in
-,_,
i.
18,
them.
he defends the necessity and eternity of the world in the treatise ire pi pigsws against the Platonists ; combats the Stoic doctrine of the mutual interhe
bodies in the treatise on destiny, he penetration of defends the freedom of the will against the StoicThe weaknesses of his adversaries are fatalism.
1
treatise with acuteness and skill, pointed out in this but we cannot expect to find in it a thorough and the human will. Alexander searching enquiry into 2 chief stress on the practical results of fatalism, lavs
among which he
does
for
not forget the theological
himself are not exactly fitting, arguments which does away with Providence namely, that fatalism 3 and the hearing of prayer; he also repeatedly and
and the
of
fn.m importance to be derived The most noteworthy porit, tion (though in fact this is to be found already in Aristotle)
is
infra
universal, to be spoken there is not much of

:
neî
ii.
flfj.apuf^s. cf.
,sv/.
:
J)c
.
An.
;
p.
.V.
(jn.
Xat
\.
ii.
4 gqtj.-, iii. 13. 18(5 -svy//.) and,
Tennemann (v. more concisely,
the distinction of the analytic

3, ft:
(iv. 265 */.), give extracts from the former treatise. It is unnecessary to enlarge further
Ritter
and synthetic methods (Anal,

Pr.
ct
.
upon
tise
Xtit.
;
(
t
hi.
i.
p.
it in this place, as the trea contains no thoughts es-
the discussion L3 s#. Speng.) the sulicontrary opposition (Boot. J)e Jnt,T]>r. ii. ]r,S Meis.); and the asscr
sentiallv
on
has been
silile
]>.
generally accesthrough the edition of

(it<>,
new made
and moreover
,sv/.
tion that only the categorical and legiti svllogisnis are pure
Orelli. J)r I
3
c.
10
tt/jff.
tic Fatu, 17; tic
An.
lG2,rt.
mate
(Top- 0).
THEORIES OF ALEXANDER.
emphatically insists on the principle that the unimankind, and the innate ideas
1
323
CHAP.
versal opinion of
which express themselves especially in language, are a sufficient and irresistible proof of truth. The
Peripatetic here falls back upon immediate con sciousness in the same way that we have so often
noticed in the popular philosophy since the time of Cicero. More original theories are brought forward
by Alexander in the discussions of some other meta physical, psychological, and theological questions.
The
doctrine of
as
Aristotle,
of
mind,
divine and
seen, has much obscurity, and human, his sayings about the relation of the deity to the world, as well as those on the relation of human
we have
reason to the divine reason, and to the inferior parts But of the soul, labour under a mystic vagueness. this itself is connected with the fundamental deter
minations of the system concerning form and matter, and can hardly be removed without a recasting of
Therefore, while Alexander is intent upon a conception of the Peripatetic doctrine, which shall
these.
set aside the mystic
element as much as possible
and establish an altogether natural interconnection

of
phenomena, he cannot avoid considerable devia
tions from the doctrine of his master, however little
he
may
confess
it
to himself.
Aristotle
had indeed
declared individual
1
essences to be
;
cf. c. 5, 12,
DeFato,c. end
2;
;
c.
c.
14, bejrinniiu:
De An. 161, a. Speech, howonly ever, is not itself inborn the faculty of speech is so ( Qn. JTat. iii. 11 ; Boet. De Iiiterjir.
;
contradictory statement of Ammonius (/te Interpr. Schol in Ar. 103, b, 28) is rightly rejected by Prantl (/. c.
624, 27).
32,
p.
3">
the truly SubThe 93, M). *,/,/.:
Y 2
ECLECTICISM.
CHAT-.
stantial, but at the
same time
lie
had declared the
Aristotle
Universal to be the proper object of knowledge; he luul conceded that forms, with the exception of
iicular
"ersal"
from pure reason and the deity, are not separated the proper matter, but he had nevertheless sought
and
Alexander goes a essence of things in them alone. Of the two conflicting definitions that s tep further.
the higher reality belongs to the? individual and the he gives up the second higher truth to the universal,
ne
(herein departing from Aristotle
not only for us ), but in itself, prior to the universal, for if the indi 2 and vidual were not, the universal could not be ;
1
by
is
consequently he not only includes incorporeal natures, such as the Deity, under the conception of indi 3 vidual substance, but also holds the individual to
be the proper object of universal conceptions yet in these universal conceptions, only those determina;
1
Cf. PJiil.
(1.
C
:
<5
\\\\]\
tliis.
r>4.
cf.
.vyy.
1.")
Doxip|x
Sp.
,vyy.)
Cat.
c.
///
>
11
2
.
LL
/y,
(>>///.
ueWoi Sim]). Cat 1\, /3 AAe âySpos eVraGb a Kal rrj (pvcrei ruv /caOe /carrra virrepa ra KaOoXov
iivw*K^^^"^,
Ar.
.~)t),
who com
pares Alexander in this ropivt \vith r.()i tlnis (xiijt. Ill), 2); and
Pa\
ro 8e tv
T<!>
nl.
in
Cat.
S<-lx>l .
">1,
//.
10.
We
ha\e
no
i.
riu ht
waiv,
eli/cu /cai TTJV
orav
Ae7??,
credit
to thtê
rrfuso utterances (as

to
(\"2:]~)
oixriav
ra Koiva irapa
.
.
Prantl
does
l
l>ecause
ruv
tcatf
tKarrra
Aa,a/3aj/etJ/
Alexan
(cf.
p.
I><>i
-r
No maintains the
of
/)li
KOIVOV yap ovros, (prjCTLV, o.vayK.v\ Kal rb aroiuiov eivai, ev yap

KOLVIHS
iiietirpnreality
t.
the concrjtt
.
T<ny
in
I*<>/
,sv
Tvtinxl.
ra
5e
~arop.a
arou-ov
Koivljv, 6176
/,/^
.
uvros, KOivuv
T<\
Trepieêrai ov Travrws ro
eirl
*
.").">,
in):
for the &TO/JLOV is not
TroAAoTs.
<
necessarily something corporeal (rcVA iM xt note), and as Boe;
r/Y.
Trp:)T(pas p.ovi ovcrias
^ e IO * a T ?^ / /3ov\6fJivos tlvai ras aroC

:
>A
^ re
tlm>
(/. r.)
says, (jtioting
from
ruv KOIV&V.
,
/UTJ
ovcruv
yap Ta.-j
dTofiaiJ
owSev eTâi Suvarat,
Iv a\\uv.
In agreement
Alexander, even from the corlie concept ion of incor ]toreal poreal form can he abstracted. * Simpl. Cat. 21, /3: o n
t
FORM AND MATTER.

tions of the individual are brought under considera tion which are equally present in several individuals
i
325
HAT
XI.
The universal conceptions are present. therefore, as he observes, universal only in the in from individuals ; as telligence which abstracts them
or
may be
soon as this ceases to think them, they cease to exist it is only our thought which releases the forms
:
bound up with matter from matter, and gives
to
them
sein).*
reality in their absolute existence (fiirsichThis indivisibility of form from matter

ical
A\favopos
rb
voyrbv
^
:
Kal
ei Srj
ovof
(V T
tffriv
CLVTUV
n
TO.
vovs,
rj
elSos
&Top.ov ovaiav Eld. 2 ,\, y

a>s
efyf
vot iffOai avro is

KOLVO. TTJV
TOV
elvat viroffracns.
l
yap
8e
AAe.
(i>
e |r)7e?TCU
TTJV &TO/J.OV
(J.fv
virapiv
oixriav,
<piXoTi/ji.ov/ui.fvos
ai>Tij
rb irpwrus
KLVOVV
1
TiBfvai,
x^
this,
e7r ^-
Tfpai. at airopiat.
Alexander shows
i.
QH.
eV TO?S KadfKacrrd re Kal (i>v\ois 77 J W IS eêt, voov/uLfva Of X P Koivd re Kal Ka06\ov yivtrai, Kal Tore eo-rt vovs orav vof.rai. fl
Nat,
3.
The generic con
oe
(Tl.
relate ceptions, he here says, neither to individuals, nor to self-subsistent absolute an universal, aAA do-lv ol ruv ev TO?S KaOfKaffTa Kinvcov, TWV KaOfKaffTa Kara ra fv }) avro?s KOLVO. \eyovrai 5f ruv Kal rwv KOIVUV ol opurort vov Tb xptVat rbv Q.vQpwjtioi,
6pi<rpol
.
. .
&(TT( ^WpttrflfPTO TOV VOOVVTOS aVTO. VOV (f)6(i-
ny voo iro
oiiSe
fcrriv
perat,
TO.
^76 tv T$ voeiaQai Tb
b/j.oia
flvai avTols.
e|
Of TOVTOIS Kal
oirola.
effrt
TO
ft:
a<f>aipeo~tos,
^.aQ-np-ariKa..
TO.
/j.(v
Loc. yap tvv\a

ylvfTai
a>v
cit.
florj
143,
v-jrb
TOV
vov
j
voT\fj.a.r<i3V
vorjTa
orjra.
x u P^C
*XP
rjs
ovra dvvdu.fi aura rf/y

foriv aurfjy
fvfpytia
TTOV
(the essential
atrb
nature
of
v\r)s 6 vovs,
man)
&\\uv
Se TOV
TUV
ffvv ols
Kal
KO.&
8e
avrbv
siv 6
no doubt, should be ws ixpeffr^Kev, omitted], KOI

oi>x
Cf. &C. Br. 37 also Mctaph. 763, The discussions 41)3, 30 Bon. 26, refer to in Xat. QH. i. this relation of the e^T? eruAo
irate?,
ft,
;
1",
avToIs) (1. vorjTa avrbs
pt6 Tb avra
flvat,
6piff/j.bs
vo-hfj-aTOS
elvai
So/eel Kal
H>,
to their substance.
o>s
Alexander
KOIVOV.
2
Of. Simpl. Phys.

i:U>,
De An.
/j.6vov,
ft
ruv yap
avTuv
\6yw
flvai
TW
cb&opav
t Arjs
:
rbv
airb rr)s
u^J
x w P L(r P ov
OTO.V
vorJTai TO, Totavra
here shows that Form is in sub eV vKoKfiftfvtf stance, not not as if in something i.e. which existed without it, and to which it is superadded, there fore not Kara ffv/j.&ffir]Kbs (cf.
ECLECTICISM.
CHAP.
XI.
mast hold good

the
soul
is
also of the soul, the
more decidedly
Alexander maintains the Aristotelian definition that

nothing
1
else
than the form of the
closely
As the form of the body, it is so bound up with it that it cannot exist without. it, its origin and constitution is conditioned by the body, and no activity of the soul is possible without a corporeal motion. 2 Even the highest activities of
organic body.
as to the meaning of this expression, Phil. d. Gr. II ii. 308, 1 ) for matter became this definite
yivouivTi.
-i]
TOVTOIS (the parts of the bodv) Kal eo~Tl TO rra /xa Kal
TOVTOV
Kpitcris
aiTia TTJ
iLvxy
substance
first
through the
;
in
and strumentality of Form Form, on the other hand, is only that which it is, as the
funn of this body. Similarly Alexander explained Time, in partial agreement with Aris
totle (Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 401) as something existing only in our idea, and he called man
Trot7]T?;s
apxys ytvfo~ws. as we can sec from the fact that the constitution of our souls corre sponds to that of our bodie^
TT]S e
:
&? Se
flvou,
(pa/m.fv
TTJS
io-l
,
OVK
avTiiv,
.
.
.
KaQ*
avT-f]V
a\\a TOV
ircio-ai
yap
a!
TT}$
TOV xpuvov (Themist. An. 220, 1(\ Sp.)

1
DC
ct
;
DC An.
DC
123, a
\tif.
121,
It,
TOV {UVTOS lO-iv. Cf. (Jll. Xt. ii. 2 Simpl. P/it/n. 225, a and the Aristotelian concerning doctrine which Alexander here
;
JHJSK; cf. Qif. i. ii\, p. 83.

-
i.
17, p.
<>1
follows,
On account
120, a.
AII.
The con
,
tinuation of the proposition UTL pl(TTOS I] ÎvXV TOV (TCtf/ULaTOS

aX<*-
of not
>oul
vol. ii. b, 5!7, of this indivisibility and body Alexander will allow their relation to be
cf.
<5.
apprehended according
</
to
the
Oil
(O~Tl
that
>i<tent
(I I bit/. the soul is not a self-subsubstance, but the form
vJ/l/^T/.
12.~>,
analogy of that lietween the ar tist and his tool ( Phil. Gr. IF.
.
of the body, is plain from its activity; ov yap oiuvre tvfpyeidv TWO. yevecrOai xwpis ^VÎKIIV
ii.487), for tlieartist is separate from his tool but the soul is
;
This is h fn s. then proved in detail, and the inference drawn ws TOV (rw/uiaTos its form) KOI ecTTi rt (namely avTov. /xarTjr yap pi.o~TOs
(T j}fj.a.TLKT]s
;<Tea
a.x<*-
the liodv, and especially in the central orân, as its form and tin; force inherent in it the ot her parts of he body can only
in
:
t
be regarded as orirans
127.
13,
tf,
//
:
])(
J>c
A/r.
cf.
Sim].l.
An.
//:
Alex, a
K TOV
oi
ef?;
a>ifTT7
uTjSeu/ai TOCV oiKficcv

Oai 61 Ti
c. c/f.
1
-ii>,
^pa>aez-
The
eVi
opydi ov.
soul
is
is
TIS KOI
ovcria
THE
SOUL.
327
the soul form no exception to this. The Aristotelian doctrine of the parts of the soul is also defended
CHAP. XI
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
by Alexander
depends upon this
2
;
and whereas Aristotle had

its
dis
tinguished vovs as to its origin and decidedly from all other faculties,
ordinates
in
it
essence very
Intellect
Alexander co
rest.
in one
series
with the
man
exists primarily only as a disposition
vovs
3
V\LKOS
KOI
(j)v<7iKos
merely potential thought.

of this disposition, there
of thought intelligence as as an active power, the vovs The *ouj
Through the development

arises the real activity
an operative quality,
the
ETriKTrjTos or vovs rcaO S^LV*
But that which

intelligence
effects
development
it
of
potential
and
to actuality as the light brings colours, the brings vovs TTOITJTIKOS, is, according to Alexander, not a
part of our souls, but only the divine reason operat ing upon it, and in consequence of this operation conceived 5 by it. Thus the mystic unity of human
1
De An.
Loc.
128 sqq.
it
2
3
cit.
128, a, b
Perhaps
may
146, a. 141, a. be in con;
the Arabian and Scholastic philosophers derived their wellknown doctrine of the inttllectvs acqniitvtr. 5 Loc- cit. 130, /;; H3 b, sq.;
13l, b: atrae^s Sf (6 TTOIIJTIKOS vovs~) Kal ,1*77 fj.ffj.iyfj.fvos V\TI
&>v
nection with this, that Alexander, according to Simpl. DC An. 64, b, would admit no pure self-consciousness, related to
vovs
as
such;
;
for
he taught
rivl
teal
faflapTts fffriv, tvipytia
that vovs conceived directly the and itself only Kara elSrj alone ffv/uL&efiriKus, SO far as it is one with the 4 Loc. tit. 138, a, sq.] 143, J. In these definitions of Alexander lie the source from which
eft>7j.
&v
VTT
Kal elSos
x w P^ Svvd/m.fws
5e
*ov
Kal
U ATJS.
TOIOVTOV
StSfiKrat
Api(rTOTt\ovs
:
rb
irpurov
ainov & Kal Kvpiws eVrl vovs, &c., TOVTO S^ rb voT)r6v p. 114, a OT 4v4prf rrj avrov Qvfffi Kal yfiav vovs, atnov yiv6uevov r$
323
ECLECTICISM.
reason with the divine
side
is
CHAP.
XT.
is here broken on the one and on the other the deity man, operating
;
upon him.
The human
;
soul
is
therefore an abso
the souls of the gods (i.e. no doubt the heavenly bodies) could only lie called .souls in an improper sense (O/ACOVV/JLCOS). In accor dance with this our philosopher the seat of
lutely finite essence
places
reason, to which Aristotle

2
organ,
in the heart, 3 like
had denied any corporeal the Stoics, and says, uni
versally and unconditionally of the human soul, what Aristotle had said only of one part of it, that 4 it The attempt which passes away with the body.
v\iK(S vw rov Kara ri)v Trpbs rb roiovrov fi$os avatyopav x w p C LV re KCU /j.i/u.e io Oai xai voslv KOI rwv
L
fW\b)V
f.l.fVOS
a"f]p.a.iv6/J.v6v eari rov vov d e z ep7eia vovs, 6 eariv 6 6vpa6ev, 6 jravTf \fios ... o Kvftepvuv rb
eificcv
f:Kao"rov
KOL
fcrri
noit iv
vorjrbv avrb,
6upa9ev
VOVS 6
TTOniriKOS,
\eyo~ OVK &!/
C oncerninjr his explana tion of the particular in the Aristotelian passages concerned,
irui>.
fjiopiov Kal
ovvauis TLS
rrjs 7/^6X6-
cf. llnd.
l)i1
l)t>
Q.
4,
5,
pas fyvx^s, e|a>0ei/ yivo/Aevus (V 71/uuv, brav avrb vow/uiev
aAA
8; also Simpl.
An.
Cf.
J)t-
(U, I.
An.
128, a.
tfr. Il.ii.r.CS.S.
&v
XwpLrTTos 5e errriv TJU.WV TOIOVTOS t lKorus. On account of this
J>/ii/.t/.
An. Ml,
a.
Observe
assertion, Alexander was fre quently attacked by later com mentators, cf. Tliemist. J)c An. not Si), thouu (where,
// li
here also the Stoic f]yefj.oj/iKbv and the Platonic XoyirrriKljv in stead of the Aristotelian vovs.
1
Loc. rit.
l
127.
tf,
<>:
<>?ra
5e
.
.
from A m 101 us) Alexander s general

11 li
;
evideiitlv alluded to): Simpl. Vliifx. 1, a; ;V., a I An. F, 11 (T, liilop. 8 .} 7 II, Q, (quotation
lie is
;
])<
named,
rov (rd\uaros oLxwpirrrov tlj/at rov crwaaros rb roionrov eTSov Ka.1 crvufyQeipoiro
T]
dvx
flSos
rw
"2
&:/ TO?
frd\uarL.
10,
rov
,<//.
(TU)fj.aTOS
ii.
omj 76 avrijs d$6s trrriv.

il/uxil
(f>6ap-
fit/.
vovs
I
is
thus
/.
<.,
view of summed up b\
(.),
-2
:
Atif.
1O:
}]
vv
fw\ov
a.vrb
fiSos ov a.5vi
flvai.
arov avrb
I
Ka.6
hiloj).
O,
-jrp-arov
yap
ATJS SeTrai irpbs
rb
its
<jr)jj.cnv6iJ.V()v
Ae"yei
rov
vuv
T\JV
fJvai, ravrrfs
rl
ov
(namely
Sufdu.fi vovv, osTrep fcrriv eVt TOCV

TraiSccv
/Jitvov
Sfvrepov crrifj.a.ti OTOV Suvdufi \Jftj rov ôD] 6

. . .
.
f^LV VOVS. USTTCp TeAeict i o.vQo^ Kwv

.
KO.B
O
. .
67Ti
TWV
rpirov
form) aSvvarov avrb xa.d avrb flvai. Alexander here infers that the soul cannot move itself, in and for itself: but it also follows that it cannot exist
GOD AND THE WORLD.

is
320
seen in these definitions to refer phenomena to
CHAP.
"VI
natural causes
tural
by rejecting everything superna
be also perceived in the doctrine of the Aphrodisian on the relation of God and the world.
may
All
that happens in the world he derives, like Aristotle, from the influence which diffuses itself
t -i<(tion
and
from the Deity first into the heavens, and from but this whole thence into the elementary bodies
1
the world.
process is conceived entirely as a process of nature ; in each of the elements there is more or less
animate
force,
according
as
its
its
higher or lower
coarser or finer position in the universe, and nature, places it nearer or further to the first bearer
without the body.
This denial
ingly Alexander again refers the 55 Aristotelian) tytffei ital ope ei Tivbs ovffias (the spirit of
their sphere) must be moved in a direction contrary to that of the fixed star heaven, but, at the same time, must be carried
of immortality, which Alexan der in his commentary on De An. also tried to prove in Aris
totle, is often
mentioned by later
;
;
writers, cf. David, Sclwl. in Arist. 24:, I, 41 2G, &, 13
Philop. Q, 4.
1
De An.
A,
5,
E,
8,
round by it a double motion which was necessary, because

could not there otherwise be in the world beneath the
The motion of the heavens

Alexander explained, Aristotle, by supposing
itself,
like
moon
also
that the (TW/JLO. KVK\oôpt]riKbv had a longing to become as like as possible to the highest, eternal, and unmoved substance
a regular alternation of generation and passing away (Qn. Nat. i. 25). Alexander
(which, however, according to Simpl. Pity 8. 319, 6, he did not, like Aristotle, conceive as out side the heavens, but as in herent in the outermost sphere as a whole) and since a long ing presupposes a soul, he says that the 0e?oi/ ffufia Uptyvxov KCU Simi Kara tyvxriv KivovfjLfvov. larly each of the seven plane accord tary spheres (to which
;
from differing (herein to Aristotle) attributes a soul the irpwros uvpavds, in which the had longing, which Aristotle
ascribed to matter itself (Phil. d.Gr. II. ii. 373*0.) must have its seat his contradiction to Herminus (ride supra, p. 3 13,1) con sists only in this that Herminns derives from the soul what according to Alexander, is the effect of the first moving prin
;
ciple.
330
ECLECTICISM.
of this force
CHAP.
the sky
and
it
is
likewise divided
among
the bodies
compounded
;
of these elements in
less
greater or lesser measure
they have a more or
perfect soul, according as they consist of purer or impurer substances and, particularly, according as
element, fire, is mixed In this divine power the essence of up nature consists; 2 but Providence or destiny coin
or less of the noblest
in
more
them.
Therefore, though Alexander does not admit destiny in the Stoical sense, he is as little inclined to favour the ordinary belief in Pro
vidence.
cileable with the
free actions,
cides with nature. 3
This belief seems to him not only irreconfreedom of the human will for
as
he points out, the Deity Himself cannot foreknow, since His power does not extend to
the impossible 4 but is also opposed to right con For it cannot pos ceptions of God and the world. be supposed that the mortal and meaner is the sibly
is
the activity of the higher of Goda means existing for the sake of the merely 5 nor can we say of the world that it former;
end, and
1
(
t
ht.
(Ju.
]."().
Xat. Xut.
T?IS
ii.
/.
:?.
<K)
theory (ride xitprn,

;
p.
327, 5:
47"),
r. p.
l)e
An.
TTJS
32S), 1).
I."):
.randis, Sclml.
ti,
:
Ofias
8vvd/j.(w<>
a.
eTrl
tv TO? ytvvriTui
O.TTO
(TU/U.O.TI eyyivoijifi/ris
so far us the deity
TOVTOVU. T. 0. is combined
TTIS irpus
TO Qelov [sc.
(Tu>/j.a\
with the
\oiirbv
(pvati
e/i/cu
<f>v<riv,
u-tluT.
eV
/.lei-.
According to
")4,
</
/<>,
ft,
L 3,
Karsti
Simj)!. DC l), Alc.Xiin-
T]]V
t!/j.ap/j.vr)i
rolv
even identitied the Deity with the aether, for it is here said (ap.Arist.Z?e6V/^,i.3; 270A,8)
del
1
ouevots elvai \fyeiv, a-y TO.V-TOV fiu.apu.tvriv re Kal
yu
wliicli
is
then
urtlu-r
tf
:
discussed.
7V
An.
1(52,
referred the atfa.va.Tov to the 6eiov crte/na, ws TOVTOV iiVTOf TOV Bfov. only tlie reading of
h>
AeiTrerai apa T^JV fl/J,np/J.fvr]V a.\\o ?/ T^V otKfiav (pvmv
/JLf]8fV
tlvcu
>ut
l>randi>
is
compatible with
tlie
s
eKaarov, \ c. 4 lh Futo,
-
c.
ii.
30.
context, and with Alexander
(Jii.
^\nt.
21, p.
128 sqq.
OPINIONS ON PROVIDENCE.
requires a providence for its constitution and maintenance ; on the contrary, its existence and con
33l
CHAP.
a consequence of its nature. If, therefore, Alexander does not wholly deny Providence, he
dition
is
confines
it
to the world beneath the
moon, because
for this world alone care is taken
side itself
existence
which is and order, through the world
by something out destined to maintain it in its

of planets
2
;
and
is
if
he
also opposes the notion that Providence
he only an accidental operation of the Deity, with considers it just as little an activity working
of Nature, fore design, but only as a consequence cannot call known and fore-ordained by it. 3
We
these opinions on
telian
;
entirely un-Aristoas they follow the Aristotelian doctrine but
Providence
of the only on the physical side, they give proof whose explanation naturalism of the philosopher, of the life of the soul approximates to the Stoic universe Materialism, and his whole theory of the to the standpoint of Strabo the physicist.
Alexander of Aphrodisias
is
the last important Alexander
teacher of the Peripatetic school with

Cf the quotations from Adrastus, supra, p. 310, with whom, however, Alexander does not wholly agree; for he supposes the planets to have their double motion for the sake of the
.
whom we
are
importamt
Peripatctic.
earthly sphere, ride supra, p. 329, i. LOG cit ii 19 2 Loc. cit. and i. 25, p. 79 *q. According to the second passage the conception of Providence
1
a more remote sense to the whole material world, 3 11 QH. Nut. ii. 21, p. Alexander here 131 sq. serves thatthe question wheth a0 avr Providence proceeds or Kara ffvê^K^ has never
<
been more closely invest igatec by any of his predecessors he himself gives the above decision but hypothetically, only
;
manifestly expresses his

opinion.
own
can only have been applied
in
3312
ECLECTICISM.
Of the few who are mentioned after acquainted. him in the first half of the third century, all without
1
From
second
the
half of tin third cen
exception were insignificant. half of the third century the
From
the
second
tury
tic
tin
seems gradually to have

the Neo-Platonists,
Aristotle
s
lost
itself in
Peripatetic school the school of
Perijxitc-
School
Is f/ra-
d ud II merged
i/
we
in
still
which the knowledge of in O was also zealously maintained writings hear of Peripatetics; 3 and there we re not
;
tli at
of the
wanting
men who commented
on the Aristotelian
Neo-Platon i ft fit.
writings and followed their doctrines in particular 4 branches, such as logic, physics, and psychology ;
1
Longinus ap. Porph. V.l
lot.
self
in the
Peripatetic philo
philosophers of lime whom he there enu merates, mentions three Peri patetics Heliodorus of Alex
20, his
:
among the
andria,
Ammonias (according
T.
to
Philostr.
Sopli.
ii.
27,
(5,
he
was probably
I
in
Athens), and
:
tolem:eus.
Of these only the
sophy that his native city wished to make him head of the school in that place, seems to have displayed his chief A strength in mathematics. fragment from his naKoves -n-epl TOV Trarrâ is quoted by Ku>ebius, /. c., 14 a fragment like *fjf/.
.
first left
of
full I.e.
philosophical writings the other two, Longinus
remarks that they wen- indeed of knowledge, especially

(of
Ammonias
whom
Philo>tr.
confirms this testimony), but only wrote poems and de clamatory orations, to which they themselves would hardly have attributed so much value as to wish to be known to pos
wise, ap. Fabric. Bllil. Cr. iii. 402 w., may, perhaps, belong to him: but the fragments ap. Iambi. TlieoL Aritltixet. (r index) are from an earlier Ar.atolius, the teacher of Jamblichus.
u!<
:i
Thus,
Vide xnjira. p. following
!>02.
"2.
lotinus,
came
Porphyry,
ius,
1
Jambliclms.
Syrianus,
Themi>t
>exippus,
by these productions. Porphyry, ap. Kus. J r. llr. x. i$, also mentions as his con 1, temporary in Athens. rosenes the Peripatetic, perhaps head of the M-hool there. Kven Anatolius of Alexan
terity
1
Ammonias, Simplicius, tlie two named Hympiodorus, and ot her

(
who became bishop of Laodicea about 270 A.D., and, according to Eus. Ilitt. JJrcI. vii. !52, (i. so distinguished himdria,
Neo-Platonists, to \vhom we hiloponus: in the P.oethus, and t lie philoso phers quoted by him. Viet or in us and Ve-vlius Pra-textatus. Of these men, so far as they come within the scope of the present
must add
Ka>t,
exposition,
we
shall
hive to
speak later on.
EXTINCTION OF THE PERIPATETIC SCHOOL.

but with regard to any philosophers who adopted the Peripatetic doctrine in their whole theory of
the world, there are only incidental allusions.
1
33
CHAP.
We
meet with such a
Peri-
at the end of the patetic even

fifth
Vers. Isid. 131, was converted by Isidorus from the Aristo-
century in Dorus the Arabian, who, according to Damasc. ap. Suid. sub race, cf.
telian to the Platonic Neo- Platonic system.
i.e.
the
334
ECLECTICISM.
CHAPTER
XII.
THE PLATONIC SCHOOL IN THE FIRST CENTURIES AFTER THE CHRISTIAN ERA.
CHAP.
xir.
OUR knowledge
of
the
D.
Platonixts of the first centuries
A. D.
point where we last left that for half a century not even the
its
Academic school at the it becomes so fragmentary,

l
name
in
of
any of
last
teachers
is
known
first
to
us.
Only
the
decades of the
in
century does some light break
upon
this darkness,
and from that time onward we
can follow the school through a continuous series of Platonic philosophers to the times of Xeo-Platonism. 3
1
Cf Fabric.
.
lt-ll>l.
iii. 1
59 *qtj.
during Nero
03 A.D.
c.
visit
to
Greece
<)/(!<.
Xumpt, p. 59 .svy-y., in the trea tise quoted *n /int. p. 112. 1. Seneca, whose testimony must be valid, at any rate for Rome, goes so far as to say
:
is
4:9:
32,
narrated, Drf. 20 33 3S 1C,

:
:
1>,
At/itJat.
c.
31, ].
8).
70:
Tlu-ntistokl.
I".
end: Eunaji.
:
S/>li.
Pron-m. 5
With him Plu
Atf/.
ft
3
(Ju. vii.
32, 2
rftcrfx
ft
Acat/t mid iirlttorfu naUin/i

:
tarch is connected, of whom we shall speak more at length

later on. Aristodemus, of Êginm, wa.s a friend and coof disciple Plutarch, whom
After the latonists, men tioned p. lOO.sv/y., the next that

1
we know
of
is
Ammoniusof
Plutarch
calls,
e|
Atlr.
( of.
2,
Egypt, the teacher of Plutarch, who taught in Athens, probably as head of the Platonic school, and died there, after having repeatedly tilled the office of
Strateirus (Pint. viii. 3: ix. 1,
1
:
rwv
~>v,
AKaSrjuias ou vapt/j.,uai>f(TTa.Toi>
aAA
6pyia<TTTiv
n\a.Tuvos,
whom
in
in this place,
and to and in the

(A".
treatise against
Epicurus
(
t
hi.
Si/in/t. iii.
i,
2. 5.
FA. c. 1 xtj. p. 385, where posed conversation with him
5; a sup
J)<-
P. îicr. v.) he has given a part the conversation. Under Hadrian seem to have lived the Syrian A poll on i u s, men-
LATER PLATONISTS.
111 its
335
mode of thought it remained

which
it
true,
on the whole,
CHAP.
XII.
to the eclectic tendency
had struck out since
tioned as a Platonist by Spartian.
Peloplaton,
Hadr.
pupil
2,
and Gaius,
in
in Antioch,
whose
Coffti.
Galen heard
8,
Pergamum about 145 B.C. (Galen.

An. Mori).
vol. 5, 41
;
and who taught Rome, Tarsus, and other places, and also stood in favour with Marcus Aurelius V. & ii. (I hilostr 6i M.
:
In the vide infra, p. 337, 3). eighth year of Antoninus Pius
i. 12); Albinus, the pupil of Gaius (the title of a (145 A. D.) Jerome ( Citron. EUS.} treatise spoken of inf. p. 337, 3, places CalvisiusTaurus,of describes him as such) whose in Berytus (Eus. I. c. Suid. TaCp.). structions Galen attended in or Tyrus (Philostr. V. Soph, ii, Smyrna 151, 2 A.D. (Gal. De but as, according to Libr. Propr. 2 vol. xix. 16 for 1, 34) Gellius, N. A. i. 26, 4, he had further details concerning Al Plutarch for his teacher, and, binus, ride inf. p. 338 sq.) De according to Philostr. I. c., metrius (M. Aurel. viii. 25) Herodes Atticus, who was con Apuleius of Mad aura, and Under sul in 143 A.D., he must have Maxim us of Tyre. come forward some time pre Hadrian lived The o of Smyrna Astron. 5 Gel (cf. Martin, Theon. viously (Zumpt, p. 70). sqq.}, as we know from the fact lius, also his pupil, often men see from N. A. that astronomical observations tions him. of the 12th, 13th, 14th, and 13, 1 26 ii. 2, 1 vii. 10, 1 Hadrian are that he was at 16th years of ,q.; xvii. 8, 1, the head of the school. Con quoted from him (cf Rossbach cerning his writings ride infra. and Westphal, Metrik. dcr Gr. 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 (JVfyr/./i.) 26, A, and in the title borne by his as a Platonist residing in Rome principal work in several manu TO. Kara rb /j.adr)fj.ariKbi (as such he describes himself scripts, in c. 18). Sextus, of Chas- Xpr)(n/J.a (Is T}]V TOV H\a.Tiavos the first book of this ronea, a nephew of Plutarch s, avdyvwffiv teacher of Marcus Aurelius and work is the Arithmetic, which the se Bullialclus first edited Antonin. Verus (Capitol. Suid. cond, the Astronomy, edited Verus. 3 3 Philos. by whom, by Martin; the three remaining mdpK. and 2e|r. books are lost. Procl. (I. f.) however, through his own mis take or his transcriber s, Sextus seems to refer to a commentary the of Chseronea and Sextus Em- on a Platonic work, perhaps M. Aurel. Pn public (cf. Theo, Antrim, c. piricus are confused 16, p. 203, and Martin, p. 22 sq. V. Soph. ii. 9; i. i); Philostr. Dio Cass. Ixxi. 1 Eutrop. viii. 79). Under the reign of Mar Atticus 12 Porph. Qu. Homer, 26, cf. cus Aurelius, besides Alexander of Se- (Jerome, Chron Eus.ot the 16th p. 276, 2) 176, A.D. who was called year of Marcus
Aurel.
We
;
"
leucia,inCicilia,
330
CHAP
XII.
Philo and Antiochus. But, in the first place, this did not prevent individuals from protesting against such overclouding of pure Platonism and, in the
;
second place, after the commencement of the first century, there was united with this medley of
philosophic
doctrines
in
increasing
measure
iluit
religious mysticism, through the stronger growth of which the eclectic Platonism of an Antiochus and
Porph. V.Plot.U; further de infra), must be placed Daphnus (a physician of Ephosus, Athen. i. 1, } II arp o c r a t o n of Argos, a scholar of Atticus (Prod, hi Tim.
<
tails
century there lived in Athens, Theorlotus and Knbul us, two SidSoxoi of the Pla tonic school, of whom the latter
third
!:>,
was still alive after 2(!3 (Longinus ap. orph.

1
[".
A.n.
l>l,>t.
]>
Suid.
,v<y.
Kill)
core},
according
Kataapos,
20;
Porph.
himself,
/.
c,
!.->,
to Suidas,
(TV/UL^LWTTJS
perhaps the grammarian, name sake and teacher of A erus, so 2. described by Capitol. I Suidas mentions as written by
where the few and unimportant writings of Eubulus are also mentioned). To them Longinus
adds as Platonists had written much,
(cf. inf.
.
(7.
c.)
who
him
v-jro/j-vrj/jLa
els
HXaruva
in
5.>7,
3),
Eu elides Democrit us,

;
twenty-four books, and Ae|eiy

riAaTct. j oj in
and
two books.
In the
-ontained no doubt, first was what Olympiodorus in Wiiidon.

>.
Proclinus, in Trons of Democritus, also mentioned by

in ^fctti/)Ji.
Sc)n>l.in
Syrian
S .H
,
?>.
Ar.
.V.),
ScJiol.
38
F. in
A Irlli.
p.
In 48 Cr. quotes from him. the time of Marcus Aurelius,

also
to
he wrote commentaries on thi J /cili tiiilrx (Olympiodoi-us /// .!/

tliat
31.
we hear
eil
p.
seem to have lived Xu menius, Cronius,and Celsus,

be
>poken
I0. ), Cr.)
and the
/>/Wr
(JbnJ. in
3S, F).
Plnrd. p.
15!),
end,
of
hit
er
on
at
the end of the second century Ce n so r inns, attacked by his contemporary Alex. (Aj>Jir. ( )n.
t
.\nt.
i.
I:!)
for a
statement con
Kpicurus theory of colour; perhaps also Apollo])hanes, mentioned liy Por-
cerning
When A/ci AAos lived ( () uoted by Procl. in Tim. Hi!), F. in connection with a theory on Tim. 41, D), and whether he
on.
Of A mmonius. Sakkas, Origen, ar.d Long in us we shall ha\-e to speak further
was
earlier or later
than Plo;
]>hyry
(:i]>.
Has.
/// .sY.
Keel
vi.
be ascertained nor are the dates of M axi m us

tinus.
cannot
10, 8) as a philosophical writer,
of Nica-a (ride-
inf.
p.
:5:?7,
with the Platonists Xumenius, Cronius, and Lorginus. In the first half and middle of the
and of Sever u s nnf. exactly known.
;})
p.
330^.)
COMMENTA TORS.
his successors
337
was developed into Neo-Platonism.
CHAP.
The
forth
opposition to the intermingling of other points
of view with the Platonic doctrine, was chiefly called and nourished by the more accurate knowledge
its
of
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 writings of Plato ; and if the scientific activity of the school did not throw itself
with the same zeal and exclusiveness into the works of
its
founder as the Peripatetics did, the study of those
works nevertheless prevailed to an important and

considerable extent.
Among,
later writers Plutarch
Commentthe writ
stands in the
closest
connection with the earlier

1
expositors of Platonic writings 1
inasmuch
as he not
Plato and
study
f*
"f
numerous passages refers to sayings of Plato in a general manner, but has also thoroughly discussed certain points of his doctrine and certain sections of his works. 2 As commentators of Plato, Gaius, Albinus, 3 Taurus, and Maximus are likewise mentioned among
merely in
S,
Thrasyllws, Eu*<?.)
EvK\fiSr]S KCU
t
erri ira
iii.
dori/s (vide sup. p.

2
610 Especially in the U\aTUVLKa and the treatise irepl

In
the
Scholium, ap Fabric,
:
158,
says
rbv
yuev
nxdrwi/o
inro/jirn-
fj.ariôvffi
irXttaroi.
Xprj(ri/j.w-
fragment
Class. Ant.
of
I.
the
xiv.
commentary on the Republic

ap. A. Mai,
Proclus names as expounders of the mythus in Bep. x. (514

.</.
PM. 14 names Porphyry among those whose commenI"
Torpos,
(contemporaries of Simplicius), &c. Gaius also

n><5/cA.os,
rSiv
TI\aTwviK(t>v
5
ot
Kopvtyaioi,
Nou,uV
Os,
AA#Ti/os (as, accord;
ing to Freudenthal, Hellenist. Stud. 3 H. p. 300. the MSS. give
Mai
substitutes AA/cTiw), Fcuos, 6 NIKO.CVS, ApTroKpariav,
taries Plotinus had read; an exposition of the Timaeus is no doubt referred to in Procl. In from Taurus, Tim. 104. A Gellius (X. A. vii. 14, 5) quotes the first book of a commentary on the Gorgias and also (xni.
;
33S
ECLECTICISM.
others.
CHAP,
Of Albinus we
possess, in a later
1
an introduction to the Platonic dialogues, and an

doctrines epitome of the Platonic
20) his oral exposition of the Symposium; and from the first book of an exposition of the Timieus, extracts are Driven in the JJeMer Scholia on Plato, p.
Soy/jLaTuv
2
hitherto falsely
(by the
]>art)
modems
flsayuyij.
for
It
the most
lias
(|ue>tion
now been
placed
beynnd
430 .^.andby Philop.
Di- JFAt
;//.
Mundi,
quoted
vi. 21.
From
the same
bv Freudenthal s tho rough examination (/. r. 275 xyj.) that its author is no other than Albinus, with who>e in
it troduction entirely corre sponds both in form and eontent, and to whom many of the doctrines brought forward by and the supposed among them some that are very remarkable, are expres.-ly attri buted. The alteration of Al binus into Alcinous was (as Fr. the p. 300, 320 shows) so much more possible as all our manu scripts are derived from the same ancient copy; and in this an AXKivov may have been AA/3iVou read found, or an
Alein<>u>,
source comes, no doubt what is by Iambi, ap. Stob.
Ed
1
1,
900.
This treatise, included by Hermann in the sixth, and by Diibner in the third volume of his edition of Plato, has now been subjected to a thorough investigation, and newly edited
on the basis of more perfect manuscripts by Freudenthal (the Platonic Albinus and the
false Alcinous, Ih-lh-n. XtiuJ. B H. pp. 241-327). Tts title runs thus in the best MSS. fhaywyrj nxdrwvos fiifiXov (Is TT\V TOV
:
AXfiivov
form, however, as Freudenthal has slmwn. p. is only a badly exe 217 cute* 1 and mutilated extract.
s<iq.
Its Trp6\oyos. in its present
text,
AAKiVof, and may have been changed, when the book was
transcribed, into AA/aVoou. P.ut even this treatise of Albinus we possess according to all the evi dence only in a later revision,
The same writer proves,

,vy..
p.
257
that
c.
1-4 of the prologue,
and Diog. Laerl. iii. 4S-02 have emanated from one source, which was earlier than Thrasyllus (concerning
which considerably shortened the original work and repro duced it not without some cor
a Paris Codex (/. c. rections names p. 244, now imperfect), in its index Albinus third book
;
whom
ride
siij).
p. 102,2). Astoitscontentsr?V/f Alberti, Jfftrin. Mnn. \. F. xiii.
irepl
TUV
nxdruvi
apecrKovruiv.
70 ftfjq. Some further details will Gr. 1 F. i. 427, 3. be found Plril. This work is called in the "MSS., almost without exception, A.\Kiv6uv SiSacr/caAiKta (or \6yos
<1
But that Albinus in his treatise made plentiful use of more ancient works we see from the agreement for the most part word for word of his twelfth
in
them
the transcripts of some of also dsaywyr] ds T^V fyiXoTUV n\dr. ffoîai riA. or E7TiTO,urj
1
chapter with the passage from Arius Didymus (ap. Kns. Pr. Er. xi. 23; Stob. Eel. 330), which Diels has now proved
i
more minutely (Lo,eutjr.
447).
ALBINUS-SEVER US.
put forth under the name of Alcinous. He also com posed commentaries, but we know nothing of them. The commentary of Severus on the Timceus we know
1
CHAP.
XII.
2 through Proclus.
pocration in explanation of Plato have
mentioned 3 Phcedrus are

;
1
Theo and Harbeen already commentaries on the Timceus and

writings of
also
The
quoted
from Atticus; 4 from
Among the more celebrated commentators of the Platonic writings, Albinus is reckoned in the passages quoted snji. p. What writings he ex 337, 3. pounded, and how his commen taries were made, tradition does not tell us perhaps he merely
;
these citations have amply suf ficient parallels in the supposed Alcinous, and less exact paral lels in Procl. in Tim. 104 A an 1 Tertull. De An. 28 (cf. Freu
denthal, 299 sq.\ and though follow uncondi it dees not tionally from this that they refer to that particular treatise, it is not unlikely that Albinus
explained a number of Platonic passages in one dogmatic work, probably that mentioned in the index of the Paris Codex named in the previous note (Freudenthal, p. 244), nine or ten books of a summary of the Platonic doctrines according to the discourses of Gains ( A\fiivov [add. e/c] rwv Yaiov
rtav
repeated and copied there, as other writers in those later centuries
may have
what he wrote
are accustomed to do, and as he himself transcribes from his predecessors. Moreover, though
this
same work
is
alluded
to
32,
by
Priscian, Solut. p. 553, ft, as Lavini ex Gail scholis
cxemplaribns Platonicorum dogMat urn, for the translator read instead of AABINOY, <AAB. Freud. 246. According to its
contents, that which Procl. hi 311 A, Tim. 104, A; 67, C
;
the circumstance that three of the utterances of Albinus relate to passages of the Tim tens and are quoted in a commentary on that dialogue, might serve to corroborate the theory that they originally stood in a similar commentary, yet I must con cede to Freudenthal (p. 243 */.) that this is not thereby rendered
more probable.
2
In Tim. 63,
88,
70,
78,
quotes may have been part of a commentary on the Timasus the passage we find ap. Tertull. De An. 28 sq. may have been taken from an exposition on the PJtfpdo and that in Iambi.
; ;
B;
D:
168,
D;
186,
192, B D; 198, xq ; B. I shall recur to this on. philosopher later 3 Vide supra, pp. 337, 3 335, 187, 304,
B;
BE
;
336.
4 Concerning the first, cf. the Index to Procl. in Tim. the other is mentioned I. c. 15, A.
;
ap. Stob. Eel.
i.
896,
may have
come from an exposition of the Eepublic. Meantime most of
:J40
ECLECTICISM.
Numenius and
devoted
the
to
CHAP. \I I
Lonjjimis,
besides
other
treatises
the Platonic writings, commentaries on

!
Tima iis
Democritus
and
and from Longinns contemporaries, Eubulus, explanations and dis
cussions of several dialogues. 2 The 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 certainly have arisen that much in later times claimed to be Platonic was
which had
far
removed from the real opinions of Plato, and thus we hear of several individuals who protested
the
prevailing
against
to Hie
int
confusion
of
the
various
systems. Platonic
Taurus wrote upon the difference of the and Aristotelian philosophy, and against
1
the
wit-
Stoics;
but as to his
own conception
of the
Platonic system, little has been handed down to us, an( | no noticeable peculiarities or characteristics 5 are
multitude of commentaries and
expositoiv
writings,
and also
those
88l>,
;
from
///
statements
like
I ini.
S7
P>.
quoted ,sv/ym7, p. 887, H on the lectures of Taurus

/
>/
1,
and
di
the Index to Prod.
(iaius,
and Porph.
I".
Pint. 14.
to have taken Misquotations from Xmnenius.
He seems
Taurus also read Aristotelian writings with his scholars (ap.

(iell.
out of a commentary, and not from the other writ inp-i of this
Platonist.
xix.
t>,
xx.
4,
the Pro-
lilems).
Whether
Croiiius
had written commentaries cannot Iw decided from Porph.

I
/nf.
4.
Concerning;
rit/r
xiij>.
p. Dilt).
//.
Democritus, concerning
inus,
ap.
The former, according to Suid. raup. the latter according toGellius,.V..l.xii.o,5. Heals, ., according to Suidas. composed a treatise Trepl (TUU.O.TWV nal arrui/uarcoy
"
"
Kuhulus.
Porph. This
:i
I".
ride
I>lt.
l.on.Li
\\\>
and manv other works. learn from his disciple,
L O.
we
infer
from the
TA UR US A TTIC US.
exhibited in
it.
341
Atticus also, like Taurus, set himself
CHAP. VTT
i nf/itll f
Platonic against the tendency to amalgamate the and Peripatetic theories. In the fragments of a
treatise
which
he
devoted
to
this
purpose
he
Ta
ir
"*-
who is appears as an enthusiastic admirer of Plato, anxious about the purity of the Academic doctrines
;
tticttg
attacks the Peripatetic system with passionate pre it with the lowness judice, and especially reproaches 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
eternity of the world which particularly to opposition, the latter so much the
thorough training for philosophy, and could not endure a merely rhetorical treatment of x. 19: xvii. it (JV. A. i. 9, 8 20, 4*?.); that he did not de;
move him
more, as
apportioned the five senses to the four elements, putting that of smell midway between water and air: and that in opposition
to Aristotle s aether, he made the heavens to consist of earth
spise sions, and special physical investigations (vii. 13; xvii. 8; xix. 6); that he did not wish to eradicate the emotions, but to moderate them, and therefore condemned passionate disturbances of the feelings, such as
subtle
dialectic
discus-
and
From Iambi, ap. fire. Stob. Eel. i. 906, we learn that his scholars were not agreed as to whether souls were sent upon the earth for the completion of the universe or for the manifestation of the divine
1
1
anger (i. 26, 10) that he abhorred Epicurus doctrine of pleasure and denial of Providence
;
fe.
of (ix 5, 8), to pass over points vii. 10, less importance (ii. 2 14, 5; viii. 6; xii. 5; xviii. 10;
;
Bus. Pr. Kv. xi c. 13, and probably also in In the first of 12. c. passages the subject t treatise is indicated
4-9.
further appears from the fragment ap. Philop. J)rJRter*. 3f. vi. 21 that he, with the majority of contemporary
xx. 4).
It
words
irpbs robs
5* TWV
jn
Apia
rori\ovs ra IKftrwos \nriff\vov /ôw. What we find in the superscription of

tors
Platonists, denied a beginning of the world in time and from the fragments in Bekker s
;
and
in xv. o, 1
&&ap.
Plato and course to
Moses
Eusebi
9.
belongs,
of
lin,
ad Plat.
I.
p.
436
gq.
and
Philop.
c.
xiii.
15,
that he
transcribers. 2 xv. 4, 5,
li>
ECLECTICISM.
he has here to contend with
school.
1
CHAP.
:i
portion of his
own
Together with the Aristotelian doctrines on immortality he also contests the statement that
the sonl as such
its
is
unmoved,
in order to
uphold
the
in
stead
;
the but
Platonic
lie
moving
as
conception herein limits existence after death
of
Self-
and represents this uniting itself at each entrance into earthly life with the irrational sonl dwelling in the body, which is now first brought into order, so that he conceived
to the rational part of the sonl,
:1
the origin of the individual in a similar manner to that of the universe. He, no doubt, also opposed the Aristotelian conception of God, but of this
are
as to his own theory, we tradition tells us nothing told that he made the Creator of the world
;
identical with the (food, but discriminated the other
ideas as creators of
Some
tions
1
things from Him. other quotations from his commentary on the

1
particular
TimcbUS
to
are of no
importance; from his objec

definitions
the
Aristotelian
.
concr
A jrainsl
the a-ther of \ris-
whole, and
at
views eonneeted totleand t)i therewith concerning the stars,

lit: appeals to Kus. xv. 7. S; tin: tinagainst eternity of lie world, to /. c. c. (I. nevertheless would not admit anv end to the world, as we
l
>ut
dr inite
ct
Tim. Sd
1
I
were formed eporh (I roel. F; S7, A: lit;, F:

its soul,
/
//
.i,
I):
.,
17<>,
A:
-"><,
Iambi, ap Stoh. i. S04); but thev inav nevertheless be imperishable ( C f. Tim. 41. A) through the will of the Creator
l>
/>/.
shall
presently
tind.
He had
roel.
-
/.
c.
iiol.
!>.
[>,).
the same forward brought views in his eoimnentary on the Tne unordered Timrrux. matter (he here says, following lutaivh) and the, im1
Kus
I
I
xv.
4 N/yy.
:i
roel. ;H
roel.
;
1,
A; Iambi.
!:;,(
:
/.<.
010.
/.
<-.
111,
C; A;
110
;>
IJ
cf.
1
i:?I,
C.
S7,
(
,
Ap.
7.
(
:
rocl.
II
:}!.">,
p:-rfeet
Mini
that
moves
it
:;<.
D:
S;!.
I.);
1>;
lL 0, I);
St ltol.
are certainly indeed uncreated, orld a
1S7, i:
2. U,
Syrian
ATTICUS.
343
his polemic to
Homonyms we
}
see that
he extended
CHAP.
are to be But no important expected from this, because he himself stood nearer to the eclecticism which he combated than he was
logic also.
results
aware.
He
is
angry at the admixture of the Platonic
doctrines with the Peripatetic, but he himself inter them with those of the Stoics when he
mingles
of goods an opposes to the Aristotelian doctrine which only differs in words from avrdpfcsia of virtue, 2 Still more clearly, however, that of the Stoics.
does he betray the standpoint of the later popular that the happiness of philosophy in the proposition man is unanimously recognised by the philosophers
as the ultimate
3 end of philosophy.
It
was precisely
this onesided practical standpoint which, together with the indifference to a stricter scientific method, had called forth the eclectic amalgamation of contra
Atticus, however, does not seem dictory doctrines. to have proceeded very scientifically. His objections com to Aristotle chiefly consist, as we have seen, in about the moral and religious corruption of his plaints doctrines ; to Aristotle s deepest and most thoughtful that by which discussions he opposes arguments like world origin of the to reconcile the
he
tries
with
its
eternal
his
existence
temporal namely, that

;
God by
4
reason
of
even Omnipotence could preserve
destruction what has come into existence from

and Simpl. Catty. 7. 5. 8, a, 42, b. Porph. &y. 9, a Schol.
.
on the Categories. Bus. xv 4, 1

;
d. Log. (Pranti, Gesoh.
i.
18, 2
L.
These seem to have been taken from a separate treatise
7x*.
b. o
i-ij. in Jim. 3CH
.; cf.
344
ECLECTICISM.
The philosopher who treated argument so lightly and derived his ultimate decision so recklessly from practical necessity, had indeed no right to raise
objections to the fusion of the several systems, of
CHAP.
which that very necessity had been the determining

cause.
Fdei-ti-
^lUiedln
ascenc
This eclecticism, then, constantly maintained its eric y with the majority of the Academics.
^
Men
are,
like Plutarch,
Maximus, Apuleius, Xurnenius,

but
their
indeed,
Platonists,
Platonism
has
absorbed so
many foreign elements that they appealas the promoters of the tendency introduced merely by Antiochus. As these philosophers, however, will
again engage our attention among the forerunners of Neo-Platonism, other details respecting them mav
be omitted for the present.
Jn respect to Theo of
Smyrna
M<
<>,
also it will suffice to

1
remember
that, as
we
have already noticed, he 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 prefers to follow the tradition of the old and
new Pythagoreans. 2
Concerning Nigrinus, there

;
is,
in spite of the Nigrinus of Lucian, little to say the of him shows us a man of excellent dispo description
sition,
who took refuge

p.
!5<>0,
in
philosophy from the luxury

jttTJTiKTjs
I.
Sn/>.
Adrastus
is
and
-rrepl
1
/j.ov(TtKrjs is
no
also
made use
of in
DC
Mi<x.
doubt chirlly
ic
c. (5; c. 13, ]). HI. H7: c. L 2,p. 117: c. 40, p. ir, .. What Theo says in his
indicates in
yt hairoivan, as l)c Mtm. c. 1. c.

Ill
2, ft jHixxini.
first
ihilosophy,
the
is
regard to his Xeo-1 ythau oc.

t
D<
liook, on numbers and the ivlationsof tones, generally quoted under the two titles, Trepl apiQ-
ean element
iiinent
J///.S-.
especially pro;
in
DC Ar itli.
c.
38 sqq.
NIGRINUSSE VER US.

and immorality of his time, and found in it inner but the discourses which satisfaction and freedom
;
345
CHAP.
Lucian assigns to him might just as well have been Xi put into the mouths of Musonius or Epictetus. We Serern*,
have
still
to speak of Severus
and Albinus. Severus,

1
whom, indeed, we can only place conjecturally in the second half of the second century, is described
having explained Plato in the sense of the Aris 2 From a treatise of his on the totelian doctrines.
as
has preserved a fragment in which the Platonic doctrine that the human soul is com
soul Eusebius
pounded of two substances, one capable of suffering, and the other incapable, 4 is attacked with the obser
ableness
vation that this theory would annul the imperishof the soul, because two such different constituents
necessarily again dissolve their unnatural combination. According to this, he does
must
real opinion.
not seem to have recognised this doctrine as Plato s Severus himself described the soul,
The first to mention him are lamblichus and Eusebius. But there are as yet no traces of the Neo- Platonic period in the quotations from him. Proclus, Tim. 304 B., observes in respect to the opinion quoted ifif.p 346. 3, of Severus, Atticus, and Plutarch, that many objections to it were raised by
1
38 Aristotle, Metaph. xiii. 2) opposes the doctrine that the mathematical element according to Plato, was in material bodies; but this is irrelevant, Plato s since such was not opinion e* 5e 2^^pos 4) &\\os ris r&v krrepov tfrywaptvuv ra H\drwvos IK TTJS Trap O.V-TV -ry
;
ApiffTorf\fi
futB^fMuri
a7ro5e/|ets
KOTTJXTJ^WS
roly
the
Peripatetics; which also points to the fact that Severus was older than Alexander of Aphrodisias, the last author known to us of the Peripatetic
school.
2
Karaxpuvrai wpks ras
ruv
-jrpbs
QWIKW amW,
TOVS apxaiovs.
;
ovSev rovro
8
4
Prtep. Ev.
xiii. 17.
Pftil. d.
b,
Tim. 41 *qq. 69, Gr. II. i. 690
C
sq.
q.
cf.
Syrian (Schol. in Ar. 880,
-40
ECLECTICISM.
and primarily the world-soul, as an incorporeal mathematical figure, the constituents of which he represented to be the point and the line, while of the two elements from which Plato compounds the world1
CHAT.
J
soul,
and the
he connected the indivisible with the point, divisible with the line. 2 A bep-innino- O f the ^
t~)
proper sense he did not admit, even if the present world had been begun he thought with the Stoics that the world, eternal in itself, changed
its
;
world in
its
this doctrine to the
condition in certain periods, and he appeals for mythus in the Platonic dialogue
of the
Statesman?
There
is
a reminiscence of the
Stoics also in this, that he declared the
Something
which
isolated
(rl) to be the highest generic-conception, below
stand
Joeing
and
Becoming.
However
these statements
may
be,
in
that Severus departed
they nevertheless prove many respects from strict
Platonism.
Hut we have much more numerous and
striking proofs, especially in his abstract of the Platonic doctrines, 5 of the eclecticism of Albinus.
Quite at the beginning of this treatise we find the

St>ic
definition of
wisdom
(c.
1
as tin* science of things
and the Peripatetic division of philosophy into the theoretical and the practical
divine
j,
human and
2),
Tim.
:i.
(c.
preceded
;*;">,
by Dialectic as
Part
/;
i.
third
will
division
r nlr
ii.
ii
Iambi,
/
a]).
Stub.
KSC,
</.
SC>L
co]ieei<
doubtless only a to the exjre..-ioiis
Procl.
xy.
3
//
Tun.
/.
K: hs7, A
gfj.; ir.S,
of Plato. Procl.
70.
p.
A
,
cf.
PlnL
<L
Procl.
c.
8S,
1)
Gr.
"
III.
\"n/r
i.
in
~1.
1").
That
the
world not with-
xuj>.
p. IJiiS,
]>.
^taiidiny might be iuiperishable
ALBINUS.
(c.
347
3).
Albinus then, like Aristotle, divides theo-
CHAP.
-
retic
philosophy into Theology, Physics,

*
and Mathe-
matics, without, however, himself keeping to this
arrangement
(c. 3,
7)
and practical philosophy
also,
like the Peripatetics, into Ethics,
(Economics, and
Under Dialectic he first gives a theory of knowledge which combines Stoic and Aristotelian definitions with Platonic, and unites the fyvcriicri
svvoia of the Stoics with the reminiscence of ideas.
Politics (c. 3). 2
In regard to the faculty of knowledge, he distin guishes in man (corresponding with the Aristotelian doctrine of the active and the passive vovs) a double
reason, that which
is
directed to the sensible, and
that which
sequently
Sub directed to the super-sensible. 3 the whole Aristotelian logic with the
is
syllogisms and the ten categories with various later additions of the Peripatetics and Stoics, is foisted 4 upon Plato ; and the Aristotelian and Stoic ter
In the minology is unscrupulously employed. section on theoretical philosophy three primary causes are enumerated Matter, the primary forms, and the
:
Instead of an exposition of the mathematics we find at c. 7 only an extract from the utterances of Plato s Republic
1
not very clear, concerning v6ijand aurtfrjtns, \6yos eVio-TTj<ris
/u,opt/c2>s,
and
;
Sot-affTiKhs.
C. 5 gq.
i.
r irfe Prantl, Gesch.

#q.
;
on mathematics and their vision of mathematics.

Similarly
tion, c. 6,
1
;
di-
d. Log.
610
Freudenthal,
I.
280
3
sq.
the
Introduc-
Cf.
Freudenthal,
;
c.
279,
spoken of sup. p. 338, concerning the Peripatetic

Albinus makes use
I
classirication vide Phil. d. Gr. II.

ii.
176 sqq.
3
So also in c. 25 cf. Tertull. An. 29 a Platonic argument for immortality (Phcedv, 71, C sqq.) is defended with an
281.
;
Dt>
of no Platonic divisions.
Aristotelian definition concern-
pass over some further observations which are

C.
4.
ing the cvavria

II.
ii.
(cf.
PhlL
d.
Gr.
215,
noteX
348
("HAP.
ECLECTICISM.
creative principle, or the Deity ; the Deity is de scribed in the manner of Aristotle as active Keason
(c. 10),
which, unmoved, thinks only itself. A three the fold way is assumed to the knowledge of God
:
way
are
of emancipation, analogy, and elevation explained as eternal thoughts of God,

;
ideas
but, at
their sphere, with the same time, as substances artificial things, or tilings contrary the exception of to nature,
is
restricted
to natural
clas>es,
and side
ideas, as their copies, the Aristo In telian forms inherent in matter find a place.-
by side with the
use of an regard to matter, Albinus says, making 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 had a begin phers, he describes the world as having only because it is involved in constant Becoming, ning
and thereby proves itself the work cause 3 and he rigidly concludes from
;
of
tin
a
s
higher
that the
world-soul also has not been created by God, but is It does not, however, agree very similarly eternal.
well with this, that the world-soul should
lie
adorned
sleep, in
by iod and awakened

(
1
as
it
were from
deep
In the
second the
lias in
vi-\v the
author passage from

5<>S
P>
Plato s /tt jrtihl-ic, \\. the third, another

Xi/mjttixit/iti, 1>OS, (. c. .), 1O,
.
in
forms imitated from them etSrj. 3 To this passage or a similar one, of a commentary on the
or tin7Y J/t/jwtt/jHwi* C. Proclus refers in Tim. Precursors of Albums in the theory mentioned above are
///<-///*
<>7
from
the
like
II.
:-i
.sv/c/.
Albinus,
/// /.
<l
some others
(rif/r /
<lr.
i.552, 2), calls the ideas iSe cu
the
named
in
Phil d.Clr.
Il.i.
(!(j(i,c/.
ALBINUS.
order by turning to (rod, to receive the ideal forms and that Albinus cannot altogether free from him
}
349
CHAP.
_
himself from the notion of a Divine formation of the 2 That he assumes universe having once taken place.
the existence of inferior gods or demons, to whom the guidance of the world beneath the moon is con
and that he regards these beings in the Stoic manner, as elementary spirits, cannot surprise us in a
fided,
It is also in accord Platonist of that period (c. 15). the eclecticism of his age that he should ance with
introduce into the Platonic ethics the Aristotelian

definition of virtue as /zeo-oT?^ (c. 30) ; that he should virtues the Stoicplace among the four fundamental of the Platonic in place prudence
Peripatetic
wisdom,
virtue
is
and appropriate the Stoic doctrine that 4 capable of no increase or diminution, and
with certain modifications also the Stoic theory of Some other instances might be the passions. 5
Albinus here follows however, was more logical in disputing the the world (cf. PMl. eternity d. Gr. III. i. 168 sq. ) for before the world-soul had awaked out of sleep, the world as such could not possibly have existed, 2 Besides what has already
1
C. 14,
tuted) and defined quite in the

Stoic
Kal
Plutarch, who,
"of
manner as
eVio-TTJ^Tj
;
/ca/cou/
KCU ovSerepcav
a.ya6wv inc. 30
the relation of $p6vn<ns to the virtues of the lower parts of the soul is spoken of in a way that reminds us altogether of Aristotle s Ei.h.
Gr.
4
II.
.
ii.
N. vi. (ride PMl. 502 sqq.).
d.
been stated, we find these words

in
5e
1.
c.
p.
170,
o-wfjLa
3,
Herm.
TTJS
\l<vxris
ourV
rbs
3
rb
raOeia-ns (K rov peffov rov K 6ff/Liov ...
Cf c. HO, and concerning corresponding Stoic doctrine, Hid. III. i. 246, 2. 5 C. 32, where Albinus
the
peats Zeno
(Ibid. III.
s
i.
TTfpiKa\v\l/ai
&ff
and
/J.(v
T)
yap
e /c-
definition of ird6os
^re-
"rros
e,ueti/ev,
5e eVrbs
KVK\OVS eT^Tj. is In c. 29 the called the TeAetJrrjs rov \o-yurels cirra

<t>p6vr)(rts
225, 2), while he opposes the reduction of the emotions to Kpicreis (ride I. c.
226
sq.)
but
enumerates
(1. c.
the
riKov
the
(for which subsequently Stoic wenoviKbv is substi-
same four chief emotions as

the Stoics held
230).
ECLECTICISM.
adduced,
_
1
CHAP,
but the previous ((notations

to
will suffice
to
show how inclined Albinus was
combine
alien
elements with the old Academic doctrine, which, however, he followed in the main, and 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 representa

tives of his school, 2
in respect to
and if we may infer anything him from what we know of his master
he
3
Gains, agrees in one of his exposi tions of the Platonic philosophy, it becomes the more evident that the mode of thought lie exhibits
with
whom
was still very prevalent in the Platonic school about the middle of the second century of our era.
1
Cf.
Cf.
Freudenthal,
$<!/>.
278
3
;
.w/y.
Siijt. p. 33;), 1.
p.
33",
and
Freudenthal, p. 243.
351
CHAPTER
ECLECTICS
XIII.
WHO BELONG
DIO,
TO NO DEFINITE SCHOOL
LUCIAN,
GALEN.
hitherto
discussed
existing
CHAP.
ALL the philosophers we have

reckoned
schools,
themselves under one of
the
though they allowed themselves many de The number partures from their original doctrines. is much smaller of those who belong to no particular
school, but, assuming a more independent attitude, borrowed from each and all that which seemed to
F
Eclectics
particular
scll
l
-
them
true.
For though the internal unity of the
schools and the logical consistency of the systems
were greatly relaxed, yet the necessity for some standard of authority was much too strong in that
period of scientific exhaustion to allow many to ven ture on freeing themselves from the custom which
required every teacher of philosophy to be con nected with some one of the ancient schools and its
tradition.
The philosophers even sought to shield themselves with the authority of antiquity, where they were conscious of divergence from all contem
porary schools, as
we see in the Pythagoreans, when they claimed
case of the Neoto be a continua
tion of the ancient Pythagoreans, and in that of the Sceptics when they professed to continue the
ECLECTICISM,
school of Pvrrho.
There
are,
therefore,
but
few
out
arc
among
the philosophers of that time
who stand
side the traditional pale of the schools,
and these
invariably task of their

it
men who had not made

life,
philosophy the sole but had occupied themselves with
merely
in connection with
for
some other art
or science.
opportunity with philosophy was afforded at that period partly by the natural sciences, partly and especially by
rhetoric
An
such incidental occupation
which was constantly and zealously culti vated, and was included in the public education.
!
When
man had
learned from the rhetoricians the
ornate form of exposition and discourse, he could only find an adequate content for it, as the different
branches
of
instruction
were
then divided,
with
the philosophers.
to advance
It was, therefore, hardly possible
beyond the merest outworks of rhetoric
without in some way taking a glance at philosophy, and though this, no doubt, was done in most case s
hastily
and
superficially
enough,
yet
it
could not
but
happen
that
1
themselves more
1
some individuals should occupy seriously and permanently with

Further details are to
in
1
numerous the .-cl ools and teachers of rhetoric were in the times of the Emperors: how lively the inof rhetoric
How
lie
found
suj>.
the writings quoted

,
p.
1.
To students of rhetoric who

thing of phi-
low
from
pupil.all
streamed to them
example, refer
i.
from -ides, we see Phi lost rat us Vitfr Sajiliintdruin.
!.
lO: xvii. 2
the
last
passage,
DIO CHRYSOSTOM.
the claims of philosophy. In this way, towards the end of the first century, Dio, and, about the middle of the second, Lucian, went over from rhetoric to
353
CHAP,
xm.
But neither of these men is important philosophy. as a philosopher to detain enough Dio, very long.
after his banishment, de no longer merely a rhetorician, 2 but before all things a he also philosopher; 3 assumed the Cynic garb but his philosophy is very to such moral simple, and confines itself
sired indeed to be
;
surnamed Chrysostom,
Clirysostout.
exclusively considerations as were at that time not only to be

The sources for our know ledge of Dio s life are, besides
1
own writings, Philostr. V. Soph. i. 7 (the statements are quite untrustworthy in his F. Apol. v. 27 sq. V. Sojsh.i. 7, 4, also seems not to be historical) Synes. Dio; Phot. Cod. 209; Suid. sub voce; Plin. Ep. x. 81 sq. (85 sq.y, Lucian. Peregr. 18; Paras. 2; Schol.inLuc. p. 117;
his
; ;
countries, as far as the Getse, returned after the murder of
Domitian to Rome and (accord ing to Themist. Or. v. 63) stood high in the favour of Trajan. 2 Dio often repeats that his hearers are not to seek rheto rical graces from him like every true philosopher he de
;
sires to
aim
at their
moral im
218
provementto be
;
:
Jac.
a physician
Prooem.
p.
2,
Eunap. T Soph. and some later

.
biographical notices in Kayser s PMlostr. V. Soph. p. 168 sqq. and in Dindorf s edition of
Dio,
ii.
861 sqq.
JJibl.
have been
Fabric.
summed
V.
The results up after 122 sqq. by
Kayser (I. c.}. In this place it will suffice to say that he was born at Prusa in Bithynia,
and under Domitian (according to Emper. De Exil. Dion.

Braunschw. 1840, p. 5 sqq. in Dindorf s edition, Dio,
xxxviii.
sqq.
I.
the
date
is
82
A.D.) was banished or escaped from Rome where he bad taught rhetoric, wandered for many years through distant
his destiny led him from Sophisticism (i.e. Rhetoric) to philosophy, which he had pre viously attacked in a vigorous manner in some of his dis courses (KOTO ruv
<f>i\off6<p<av
how
to whom God has given the vocation of declaring to all, the doctrines of philosophy (Or. 13, p. 431; Or. 32, 657 He himself sqq. et passim). dates this vocation from his exile (Or. 13, 422*0.) likewise Synesius (Dio, 13 sqq.) shows
;
of souls (Or. 33 Or. 34, p. 34, R.; Or. 35) he comes forward, generally speaking, as a man
and
3
irpbs Movcruiviov).
Or. 72
1, p.
Or.
34, p. 33
cf.
Or.
60.
354
ECLECTICISM.
found alike in
outside
all
them.
the philosophical schools, but even With theoretical enquiries he did
not concern himself; his whole endeavour is rather and readers to upon the hearts of his hearers
impress the principles long acknowledged by the best, and
His notion to apply

of pliiloso2
them
to given cases.
cndeavour
th e task of curing gavs consists in firmities ; it
men
the
of
Philosophy has, he their moral ina
endeavour to be
is
His righteous man. namely, conceived by the later popular philosophy as an excellent teacher of morals, but with whom scientific thoughts and purposes are not
specifically
philosophic ideal
Socrates, as
him Diogenes, who.se emancipa he admires so unconditionally that he tion from needs to what was unsound and distorted pays no attention in his character, and finds even the most revolting
in question;
3
after
He told of him praiseworthy. things that are demonstrates that with virtue and wisdom happiness 5 he describes the virtuous man in his is also given;
4
1
truly:
fj.^
very Svnes., p. 14 .v/y.. ovv AtW toi6 6eu& 5

>ays
withthe Cynics, Phil. d.Gr.

2S5, 3: Philo,
*/>.
IT.
i.
p.
77
xt/t/.;
L,-r]fj.a(n
/j.evrx^ LK0 ^ fv (piAoaocpia

tyvrriKois
Musonius and Kpictetus,

250-272.
:i
xtijj.
p.
Trpo(rra\anrwpr)(TaL /urjSe irpoff-
ava.tr\eiv
o\|/f
rov
Kaipov
5e
Soyuaaiv, are nerarfeeiuivos

irpos
<j)L\o(TOo<ra
Of. 12 Cf. Or. \ 3, 423 .w/y. Or. 5 i, 55, 60, p. 312 374 *(/(/.
;
fsc
CLTTU (TO(pi(TTLKris
ui>a<reaL
and
4
elsi
where.
(),
.
Qidv)
rf,s
ffrous
Cf.
,.
8, 1, 10,
and the
ds
Trap
?)8os
reive*
KOI
TWI>
yppwwffOaL
cq>
uvrivovv
fuvrov,
vovQeTflv avQpwdai irpoairoKCificvv

-
coarse description of his supposed conversation with Alexunder, Or. 4. In Or. p. 2O3,
(>,
Diogenes
tlie
is
admired even
for
liil.
Or.
Trapa(TKfini ri]s -/Aa TTTjv. cf. ^/-. till i:i,

p.
:
excesses mentioned in I
/
.
7<>,
^ ^
5
II.
i.
71
and
.^//;
derinition
The same353,2. of the i.n.bluin of
0?-. 23,
274, 3. especially p. 515 *?.

*y.
0r.
0, 368
where the
<}>p6-
come philosophy lias already under our notice in connection
viu.ui and the fypovcs are discussed in the Stoical sense.
DIO CHEYSOSTOM.
he moral greatness and his working for others with the Stoics, that true freedom coinpoints out,
*
355
CHAP
XIII
_
cides
with reasonableness, and

2
;
slavery
with
reason
in regard to the appetites, passions,
un and
vices of
men, luxury,
avarice, love of glory,
and of
pleasure, anxiety, faithlessness, c., he makes reflec tions such as were usual in the schools ; 3 he recalls his
readers from the
mode
its
of life prevailing in society,

its
with
its
follies,
moral corruption,
artificial
4 he wants, to the simplicity of the state of nature ; discourses in earnest and rational words against the
5 immorality of his time, occasionally also, with the punctilious zeal of the Stoics, against things so
indifferent as the cutting of the beard ; 6 he exalts the advantages 8 of civil institutions, 7 gives useful advice to states, 8 discusses in the Aristotelian manner
the distinctions and relative forms of government 9 in short, he expatiates on all possible questions of
;
morality and practical
life.
But
in
these
well-
intentioned, verbose, and

sensible discussions, there
for
the most part very

real
is little
and indepen-
2 3
Or. 78, 428 sq. Or. 14, 15, 80. E.g. Or. 5, 192
had commended the Jewish

;
Or. 16, 17,
32, 66-68, 74, 79. 4 Cf. on this point, besides
Essenes (Synes. p. 16). 5 So in Or. 7, 268 gqq., where the degradation and danger of the public immorality so
universally tolerated, is very well exposed. 6 Or. 36, 81 sq. 33. Or. 36, 83 xy. s Or. 33 sq. 38. 40, et passim. 8 Or. 3, 115 sq. On the monarchy as distinguished from the tyranny (cf. Or. 1-4, 62).
2
the passages already quoted concerning Socrates and Uiogenes, the happy description of an innocent natural life in the Ev&oiKbs(Or. 7) that Greek
village history,
it
;
as
Jahn
calls
the purpose of which Synes. correctly estimates (Dio, p 15 In the same respect Dio
*</.).
A A
3 .:o
ECLECTICISM.
dent philosophy to be found; as soon as Dio goes beyond actual and particular cases he falls into com
CHAT.
monplaces which are treated

fied
in the spirit of a
1
modi
Plato Stoicism or of the ethics of Xenophon. was indeed, next to Demosthenes, his pattern of
-
style
and
in
Diu
moral disquisitions the influence

;
of
his
philosophy and writings are unmistakable

speculative
but of the
determinations
of
Plato
3 in system we find only a few scattered echoes, and regard to the Platonic Kepublic, Dio is of opinion
that
it
contains too
much
that
is
irrelevant to
1
us
We more proper theme the question of justice. meet with Stoic doctrines in his writings: commonly what he says about the kinship of God to the human spirit, on the knowledge of God that is
innate in us, on the natural interdependence of all 5 men, next to the Socrates of Xenophon reminds us
most of the Stoics
this
is
still
more
definitely the
is a
ease with the proposition that the world
com
mon house
duemoii to
gods and men, a divine state, a nature bv one soul, and with the tracing of the governed
for
"
man
own
internal
nature. 7
Kven the
formation
Stoic doctrine of the conflagration and

of the world
is at
it
least tentativelv
8 brought forward.
But
1
for
Dio
is
manifest that nothing

admiraOr.
18,
:>
is
of real
He
expresses
his
in
Or.
xij.
:
12:
ii
cf.
*//.
;
tion for 481.

-
Xenophon
rhilostr.
384
(i
.M
3<>7
especially p. Or. 7, 270.

;
3f>,
Cf.
Vittr
Sj>k.\.
88
;
Or. MO. 557; Or. cf. Or. 74, p.

\-c.
p. 83,
405;
12,
7, 3.
:i
390,
Such as
l
,
Or.
iio,
550;
cf.
PJKf.do, 02
4
and elsewhere.
Or. 4, Go Or. 30, 1)7

1
cf.
Or. 23, 25.
at/.
Or.
7,
267.
LUCIAN.
value except that Universal, which he claims for all men as their inborn conviction, and with the denial
of which he so severely reproaches the Epicureans the belief in the gods and their care for mankind. His standpoint is throughout that of the popular
357
CHAP.
XIII.
philosopher, which turns to account in a practical
manner
scientific results
which have become common
property, without
enriching
them
by new and
original enquiries. similar attitude to philosophy is assumed by 2 Lucian, though for the rest his literary character
is
taste
1
widely different from that of Dio, and in mind and he is far above him. Moreover, it was only
Or. 12, 390*0. All that we know of
office of secretary at the court of the deputy (Apol. 12. cf. c. 1, .15).
;
Lu cian s life and personality we owe almost entirely to his own From them (confin writings.
2
older tant
man he
filled
the impor
and lucrative
We
afterwards find
his
(litre.
is
him resum
Nothing
ing myself here to what is of most importance) we find that he was born in Samosata (Hist. Scrib. 24 Piscat. 19), and was first destined for a sculptor, but subsequently devoted himself to learned studies (Somn. 1 sqq. 14) and had traversed part of the Roman dominions with glory and profit as a rhetorician, when at about forty years of
;
ing courses further
long interrupted dis

7).
known concerning
his life. Suidas story that he, in well merited punishment for his abuse of Christianity, was torn to pieces by mad dogs,
is doubtless no more trust worthy than most of the similar
accounts of the mortes persecu tor-urn. It is possible that this

story (as Bernays conjectures, Litclan iind die Kymker, p. 62) may have directly arisen from
his conflict
age,
and by
his
own
(,<w/>.
account,
p.
through Nigrinus
334, 3),
was won over to philosophy, and began to write philosophic

dialogues (Bis Acais. 27 sq. 30 sqq.; Apol. 15; Nig / in. 4 xq. 35 sqq. Hermot. 13). The time
;
Kvves, of
whom
2)
:
with the philosophic he says himself

6\iyou
5etV
virb
(Pcregr.
of his birth cannot be correctly stated, nor that of his death. From Alex. 48, we see that he composed this work after Mar cus Aurelius death. As an
TWV KVVIKWV eyoa aoi 8if(nrd<Tdr]v KVVUV. w(TTTp 6 AKTaiuv virb Among Lucian s writings there
TU>V
are several which are spurious, or at anv rate doubtful.
-Q O
ECLECTICISM.
more mature years that he went over from from __ rhetoric, to philosophy, and he appropriated so much as might prove advan philosophy only for his personal conduct or for tageous to him either
in
his
CHAP.
XI
the new
form of his writings which
chiefly
har-
True philocharacter. lnlwpJnj inonised with his individual to his theory, in practical so n consists, according
T"
P wisdom,
}"
tied
will which temper of mind and bent of on the other is attached to no philosophical system h jmc the distinctive doctrines and other peculiari-
in a
i,
him unimportant, themselves upon them and and, so far as men pride Thus he assures us ridiculous. quarrel about them, that has made him disloyal to is that it
ties
of the
schools appeared to
rhetoric,
philosophy that he has always admired and praised himself upon the writings philosophy and nourished of of its teachers, that he has fled from the noise
the
courts
l
of
justice
to
the
Academy and the
Lyceum
cially for
philosopher the target
no school and no yet he has exempted 2 from his mockery, and chooses espe
of his wit those that through
their remarkable customs
excite the most attention and 3 But material for satire.
and obtrusive character offer the most tempt

as
ing almost
he confines himself
entirely errors of ethers
the satirical exposition of the and very seldom brings forward his
to
own
i
views, his standpoint

.">
may
the
indeed be generally
the
rruu.TToVioi
,
P lsciit
.o/.
L>0:
J>ixAcrns.
SpaTre rcu,
the
32,
-
and elsewhere;
cf.
the pre-
vious note.
References arc superfluous, his chief writings of irpZivis, this kind arc the
En \Kapo pevnTiros, and several A\teus, vovxos, funeral orations.
Epuorôs.
<
Among
Above
^ 1
:
all
the Cynics, sup.
/3fo>r
p.
1".K),
HU.
L UCIAN.
more determined, but cannot be explained by any If the treatise on of his convictions. precise account
at first much impressed Nigrinus be authentic, he was with the independence of the external, and insight into the hollowness of the ordinary life of the world,
359
CHAP.
_
which characterised the discourses of
this Stoicising
the impression to Platonist, but we cannot suppose his description the have been very lasting, since in Even the rhetorical phraseology is patent enough. he opposed with such Cynics, whom in the sequel he treats for a time not with passionate bitterness, out kindliness, and puts his satires and especially his attacks upon the gods of the popular belief into
their mouths.
praise
2
In his later years he bestows high
upon Epicurus for his freedom from religious 3 war against superstition. prejudice and his relentless But he gives utterance to his own opinion doubtless
he honours philosophy only where he maintains that as the true art of life, but that among the indeed
multitude of philosophical schools philosophy itself cannot possibly be found, since there is no token of it which does not require to be proved by a further
I see no sufficient reason in contents for denying this even such a superficial man as
1
;
genuine, as has been already
its
mentioned sup.
*
p. 297, 1.
c.
Alex.c. 17,
T?>
25
transient fits of disgust with the world. 2 So in many of the funeral discourses (No. 1-3, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20-22, 24-28), in the 3fenij>JMS, Zeus e Ae7x<f/i.; Catapl. C.
Lucian
may have had
rwv t
QIKTIV^ al
p6vq>
ai/5p>
Ka0ecopa/c<$Ti
T?;I/
eV
aurols
ical
dAT)0emi>
fit6ri.
C.
61
E-rriKovp V arfpl
6c<nreffiy
us
aArjflcSs
lepf
TTH>
tyvviv Kal
5
JUCT
aAêi as
TO.
p6vw Ka\a eyvuKdri
Bernays, Lvcian vnd diet Kyniker. 46 sq. On the other hand, the discourse on Demonax is not to be considered
;
cf.
Kal TrapaSeSw/c^Tt Kal Aeu0pa>T?7 TUV &iuXi\fffor<6V avrtf yevo-
300
ECLECTICISM.
that they all strive for visionary treasures, and waste their time with useless things; the best
;
CHAP,
.
token
is he who, conscious of his ignorance, abandons any claim to a specific wisdom, and, in stead of speculative cogitations, keeps to the moral
philosopher
advantages of philosophy.
limitation of philosophy to a system of which there is no question of any deeper scientific foundation, is here based upon a sceptical
ethics, in
The
view of the
human faculty of knowledge. We shall find

element
still
this sceptical in
more strongly developed
Favorinus, who must, therefore, be discussed among the adherents of the sceptic school. The
semi-philosophers from the rhetorical schools were none of them distinguished by any independent
investigations, but the tendencies of the period are nevertheless shown in them namely, the re
duction of philosophy to the useful and generally comprehensible, and the connection of this popular
Gnl-n.
philosophy with the mistrust of all philosophic systems which was spread abroad by scepticism. Far greater is the scientific importance of Clau
dius Galenus,- and though
Pisâf. 11,29, and the whole of the Jft riimtiiniis especially
1 :
it
is
primarily the art of

r\<t
Lltcru
;>77
(in lent,
in
which
fir.-t
c.
1."),
25
.sv/y.
:>"2
K/I.
70
l
f.
.vy<y.
81;
ct. Jtis Ai-cux. 1\.
characteristics
of
Lucian
also the as
.sv/y.
Driven by Bernays, /. c. 42 All the information
that
Fabric. Jlihl. (ir. v. Harl., revised in the first volume of Kiilin s edition of Galen, s. xvii-cclxv. To this history I will also refer, even in respect of Galen s
appeared
.-<(/(/.
can be gathered concerning Galon s life, almost entirely from his own writings, is to be found in Ackermann s Jl ixt.
writings, passing over the rest of -the voluminous literature
concerning him.
Uorn
at Per-
gamum
in
the year 131
A.D.,
GALEN.
healing to which he owes his extraordinary fame and influence, yet he also knows how to acknow ledge to the full the worth of philosophy, and
1
361
CHAP.
XIII.
His fame himself with it deeply enough, 2 to take his an a occupied plnpinan. 3 He place among the philosophers of his century.
himself indeed stands nearest to the

Galen, whose father was him a great architect and ma thematician, had received a careful education, and had already been introduced to phi
self
Peripatetic
lived to the age of 87 Suidas, however, says 70 years so that he probably died in 200 or 20 1 A.D.
; ;
losophy; when in his seven teenth year he began the study of medicine. After his father s death, he pursued both studies
in Smyrna, and medicine in several other places, especially in Alexandria (151 sqq.} and
In Protrcpt. I. vol. i. 3, he philosophy rb ptyia-rov TWV Oticav a-yaOttiv, and in another treatise (vol. i. 53 sq.) he de sires his fellow physicians to
1
calls
remember on
<f)t\6(TO<]>OS.
&PUTTOS larpbs Kal
returned from thence in the year 158 te practise his art in his native city. In the year 164 he betook himself to Rome, where he won great fame by
his success as a physician, and in 168 again returned to Per-
Galen had learned in his home, while still very young, the chief forms of philosophy as it then existed; from pupils
Philopator the Stoic, of Gaius the Platonist, and of Aspasius the Peripatetic, and
of
gamum, but was soon
from an Epicurean philosopher

(Cogn. an. Morb. vol. v. 41 sq.), later period he heard Albinus in Smyrna (ride supra, of Eudemus the Peri 337)
after re
called afresh to Italy by Marcus
At a
13; vol. xiv. 16) in the reign of Sevei\is(Tke? iac. ad Pis.c. 2, vol. xiv. 217, proves nothing against the genuine ness of this treatise). Accord ing to one account (that of the
(i.
A nti dotis
Aurelius and Verus. When he left Italy for the second time is not known and from this point there is no connected record of his life whatever. A discourse delivered in the reign of 1 ertinax is mentioned by him (J)e Libr. Propr. c. 13 vol. xix. 46 K) he wrote De
; ;
;
patetic, who perhaps was also his teacher (8iSd<TKa\, however, may be a mere title of respect,
De Pr (Piwt. ad
Epig.
c.
4, vol.
he says that he had gained more from him in regard to philosophy than to medicine c. c. 2, p. Galen s (1. 608). were philosophical writings very numerous but the greater
xiv. 624),
;
part of
3
them
is lost.
anonymous person mentioned by Ackermann, I. c. xl. sq.} he
Concerning Galen s philo sophic opinions cf K. Sprengel, Bei.tr. z. Gesch. d. Medicin, i. 117-195.
.
W-2
CH.VP.
ECLECTICISM.
school, but he has also taken so
much from
others
that
(
we can only designate

as
imrticter
vvhole
that
of
his standpoint on the eclecticism on a Peripatetic

at
nt ],h
phi-
lOfMpttlf. J:\-ln-ti"
""
y/ Jrer i pate.
once placed among the eclectics by the fact that he compiled an entire series of continuous expositions and excerpts from
foundation.
Galen
is
tic fat*;*.
Platonic and Aristotelian writings, and also from those of Theophrastus, Eudemus, and Chrysippus,
1
while at the same time he declares that none of

all
is
these schools satisfy him. 2
To Epicurus alone he
thoroughly antipathetic (as were the eclectics of that time almost without exception), and expressly
///v theory
The scepticism also of the New Academy appears to him an error, which he combats w ^h g reat decision. 4 He for his part finds man, in
opposes
him. 3
i/hmnr-
spite of the limitation of his
knowledge, sufficiently
;
endowed with means for the attainment of truth sensible phenomena we discern through the senses,
1
Galen,
;
JJi
L iln\
xix.
jrreat
c.
11
1 -i
1(5;
vol.
Prnjtr. 11 .svy.
c.
4(5
,sv/.,
where a
Loe.
fit.
number
p.
of
seldom, and almost always in connection with subordinate points; on the other hand, he
such works are named.

-
11,
with
the
immediate
H9 .vy., reference to
names (J)e J.ibr. Propr.c. 17. vol. xix. 4S) no fewer than six
works against Epicurus and
his
He doctrine of proof. sought counsel on the subject from the philosophers, but found licre as in other divisions
of
lo<:
doctrine of pleasure. In the treatise irepl apirrrrv

SiSarr/caAi a?
(vol.
vol.
v.
i.
10
Ci>//.
against
7V<v.
Favorinus.
!K i
<>,
xyy.) an.
i(;
so
much
even
strife
among
the
c.
,sv/y.
He
-U.
them and
within
h<>
also wrote
])>
upon Clitomachus,
c.
I>ro/>r.
Pyrrlionism if the certainty of the mathematical sciences had not

\i]>on
several >chools, that liave fallen back
would
il>r.
12,
p.
kept him from 3 in Galen,

\vritiiiLfs
it.
those
of
his
which have been preserved, mentions Epicurus but
His chief complaint against the scep:ic- is that they could not establi>h their standpoint wit hout appealing to the judgment of others, and presupposing in them the capability of deciding
between true and
false.
GALEN.
the deceptions of which may well be avoided with ., the super-sensible i the necessary circumspection discerned by the understanding and as the sensible
,
.
303
CHAP.
XJII.
perception carries with it an immediate power of conviction (hdpysia), so also the understanding is in possession of certain truths which are established
immediately and prior to all proof; of certain natural principles which verify themselves by univer
agreement through all this, which is self-evi dent, the hidden is known by logical inference.
sal
;
The
criterion of truth, therefore, for all that is clear
itself, is the immediate certainty, partly that of the senses, partly that of the understanding ; and the criterion of truth for what is hidden, is
through
agreement with the immediate certainty, which

1
is
This appeal to the directly certain, to the clear. senses and the unanimous opinion of men, this
empiricism of the inner and outer sense, corresponds entirely with the standpoint of Cicero and of the
later eclectic popular philosophy.
the three principal divisions of philo- High t on 2 sophy, Galen ascribes a high value to logic, as 3 the indispensable instrument of all philosophical
Among
48 108
DC
v.
Opt. Disc. c. 4, vol. i. De Opt. Secta, 2 i. Cogn. an. Pecc. I. c. sq. Jtippocr. ft Plat. ix. 7 vol. 777 sq. As principles that
sq.
; ; ;
De
either assent to, or thing, &c.

2
deny everys
Concerning
Galen
logic
i.
ride Prantl, Gesch. der Logik.
559 sqq.
3
are immediately certain, Galen (Thcrap. Meth. i. 4; vol. x. 3tt) names the apx^ ôyiKai, that magnitudes equal to a third magnitude are equal to one another, that nothing happens without a cause, that we must
De El em. ex Hippocr.
i.
;
i.
6,
vol.
460, Quod Opt. Mfd. Sit Constit. Qit. Philos. i. 59 sq.

c.
Art. Med.
8; end,
i.
253
;
sq.
Hippocr,
1
;
Plat. ix. 7 vol v. 782.

et
end,
3G4
CHAP.
ECLECTICISM.
enquiry.
He
of logical treatises,
himself has composed a great number but what remains of them 2 does
1
remainder.
not cause us to deplore very deeply the loss of the In the doctrine of the categories, which
all
3
to be the beginning and he appears to have attempted logic, a reconciliation between Aristotle and the Stoics 4
he with others declares
foundation of
otherwise the categories have for him only a logical and not a real importance. 5 In the syllogistic and
apodeictic part of logic, which are to him of most importance, he tries to attain the certainty of the
geometric method
:
Cl
in regard to matter, he places

15. Prantl (500, 70) is different opinion. David (Schol. in A?-. 20) ascribes to him live
1
For the catalogue of these

;
of
4
cf. Gal.
,vy.
*fj.
-
Libr. Propr. 15 sq. xix. 41 .?y. cf. Prantl, p. 550 sq.

Di>
c.
:
1 1
47
.. a,
C<rtc-
The
TT]V
>hort
treatise
IT.
TV
45, a
fforn 8
oucria, Trocrbv, iroibv, irpos
Kara
xiv.
\tiv
5S2 .yy.), which

208,
ft,
ffotpKr/uLdrcav (vol. is quoted

8,
//.
by Alex. Sophist. El.

(ScJwl.
n, irpos ri TTOJS eô^. which does not indeed altogether agree with the division mentioned
14;
:>12,
ft,
20).
s
elsewhere
lL".t
Hut nowhere else are Galen
logical writings and commen taries mentioned \)\- the Greek commentators (with the excep tion of the passage quoted ? (/ /Y/,
:
and
the
xy. tlie
:
l;it
Mfili. ii. 7: 150) of the outrun and of (rvfji&efiriKo-Ta ter division into fVfpyftai.
(TJur<ij>.
:
14J
n-dO-n,
and
D(fF.
Siatiffreis
lint
it
can
cf.
.
hardly be a mere invention;

Pit!*.
ii.
MG5,
*
1
1).
1C;
viii. Oil!
Tin- ran.
:
Miili.
Viii*.
ii.
7:
ii.
x.
.)
;
15
IS
!)>/.
viii.
022, 024.
Whether Galen
written not
had
himself
is
on
Cdtft/orics
<|uite
the clear
He discriminates verv de cidedly between tlie 7j/oj and the that which c-ategory falls under the same category
;
may belong
(/-*// /x.
to separate
ii.
it
trem-ra
from bis own expressions
(///ft/-.
DijT.
,v/.
OL L
J ro/ir. 11, p. 42). The meaning seems to me to be that lie did
0:!2.
What
xy.
Prantl,
p.
505
i\
((notes
not actually write commen taries on them, but only some
concerning the differen tiating of genera into species belongs to the older Peripa
"
observations on the difficult questions they contained. This would explain the vTro/j.vîuara on the Categories mentioned c.
tetics.
IAir.
/
\>
Projir.
11. p.
c.
30
,vy.
cf.
7()
t.
Form.
G;
iv.
O .i5
GALEN.
himself on the side of Aristotle and Theophrastus and against Chrysippus; but that he himself out of the five syllogistic forms which Theophrastus had added to the Aristotelian first figure, 2 formed a
fourth figure of his own, 3 is very doubtful. What has otherwise been imparted to us from the logic of
305
CHAP.
__!_
Galen, or
is
to be
found in his writings,
is
in part
it
so unimportant,
and in part
so fragmentary, that
may
suffice to refer the reader for further details to

s
Prantl
careful digest.
#**
Also in his physics and metaphysics Galen even

as a physician
and naturalist chiefly follows Aristotle andmeta without however being entirely fettered by him. pty** baited on He repeats the Aristotelian doctrine of the four those of
*
causes, but increases
their
number
to five
4
<H
addition of the middle cause (the ov). Plato and Aristotle, he regards the final cause as the
by the Like
tirely
the knowledge of them forms, he the groundwork of true theology, that science says, which far surpasses the art of healing. 6 In follow
most important
ing the traces of the creative wisdom, which has formed all things, he prefers to dwell on the con
7 but he is at the sideration of living creatures ; same time convinced that if here in the meanest
Hippocr.
et.
Plat.
ii.
2
ii.
B.
v.
213.
2
3
Vide Phil.
d.
Gr.
II.
fourth this Concerning was figure of Galen s, which formerly only known on the
vide the StaAe/crt/c^ p. v* sq. exhaustive of investigation Prantl, p. 570 sqq. 4 De usu Part. Corp. Hum.
t
now confirmed and
authority of Averroes, but is explained by a Greek fragment of Minas in his edition of the EiVo7&>7^
13 vol. iii. 465. LOG. tit. Loc. cit. xvii. 1; vol. 360. 7 Loc. cit. p. 358 sqq.
vi.
;
iv.
et
passim.
3J5
ECLECTICISM.
portion of the universe, and in these base and unclean substances, so wonderful a reason is at work,
this
CHAP,
\ T IT
must
also be
its
in
overflowing measure
in the
heaven and
glorious
stars,
which are
1
so
much more
In what manner it is and admirable. he does not enquire more inherent in the world
to closely; but his expressions indicate a tendency the Stoic conception, according to which the sub
stance of the world
is
permeated by the divine
mind. 2
rialism
;
He
opposed, however, to the Stoic mate for he shows that the qualities of things
is
3
are not bodies;
he likewise contradicts the
Stoic-
views on the original constitution of matter when he defends the doctrine of Plato and Aristotle, of
the four elements,
against the Atomists and the
ancient physiologists, and among these, especially, of one primi against the Stoic-Heracleitean theory
tive matter.
4
What we
are told of his objections
discussions concerning space, against the Aristotelian 5 is unimportant. Galen s deviatime, and motion,
1
Loc.c it.
P. 358
:
TIS
KTfrd(rdai
So/m
vovs, for
how
?
ris
OVK kv tvBvs
fveOv/j-^dri
vovv
nva
5vvafj.iv
could it otherwise be heated ami illuminated by the sun

3
f\ovra
yris
Bav/jLa&riiv
tTriftdvra rr)s
(Juod
1
fKTfTdffBai Kara -navra ra to the u6pLa\ this vovs comes

fi>
corjtorca
4
Qualittltcs 15. xix. 4G3

i.
it!
J/i-
,irj</.
DC
I
Constit. Aiiiy
iMT)
c.
Mfd.
Jh<
c.
earth from the heavenly bodies^:

ols
*/.;
.,
*,/,/.;
L lr-
etKos,
o<rw
irtp
frrri Kal
r]
wcntix,
1.
\\\\K//(J.
Tliougll
TOV
ffwuaros
roffovrw Kal TTO\V rov Kara ra yr)iva <rwfj.ara fie\riu re Kal aKpifieartpov. And even here, before all things,
in tlie human body, (v /3opop<^ rorrovru, there is a vovs trtpirrbs
;
ovaia KaQapwrfpo., TOV vovv evoLKflv
the views of the Stoics are nut
how much
stars
!
more, then, in the tlirough the air OUK 0X170$
named amniiLr tliose combated here, the Heraclcitean doctrine of primitive matterwhich Galen o]iposes is also heirs (Dc El. i. cf. also lli[ij)ucr. tt 4, ]. 444) Pldt. viii. 2 sq. v. G55 5 In respect to space, he de1
; sq<j.
fends (ap. Siuipl. Phijs. 133, b;
GALEN.
tion from Aristotle in respect to the soul and
activity
its
TT
367 CHAP.
X*"
seems of more consequence, but even here his utterances sound so hesitating that we clearly see how completely he has failed to attain a fixed As to what standpoint in the strife of opinions.
is
^_
the soul
in its essence,
whether corporeal or
in
he not only corporeal, transitory or imperishable, 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

live
;
is
an immaterial
essence, and can
him questionable
corporeal
without the body, seems to could in for how, he asks,
distinguished from each other ? how can an incorporeal nature be spread over the body ? how can such a nature be affected
substances be
by the body, as is the case with the soul in madness, 2 So far drunkenness, and similar circumstances.
Themist. Phys. 38, J) the definition controverted by Aristotle that it is the interval between the limits of bodies a misconception of Aristotle s observation that time is not without motion; and the objection that Aristotle s definition of time contains a circle, are mentioned by
;
Da
701
7
;
Feet.
;
sq. v.
De Hipp.
:
653
its
ing to
or,
ov<ria.
6 iv. Plat. vii. the soul, accordis either TO olov

c.
;
Form.
et.
avyotiSfs re
/cal
cu 0ep
/j.ft>
aaca/jLarov
?/"
re
[8] rb
ffa>/j.a,
avrris eTvat TOUT/ TO

/j.e(rov
5V
ov
u-pos
T#AAa
a"(a/j.ara
169 ft; Simplicius, Phys. 167 a Themist. Phys. 45, a\ 46, a

;
ft, 20; 26) and an objection against Arist. Phys. vii. 1 242, a, 5 in Simpl. Phys. 242, b. Simplicius here (p. 167, a) refers to the eighth book of
(Schol. 388,
;
Koivwviav \a/j.0dvei. On the other hand, the Pneuma is neither its substance nor its seat, but only
its Trpurov
opyavov
(1. c. c.
p.
606
2
sq.).
Quod Animi
Seq.
sq. sq.
;
Mores Corp.
;
Temj).
sq.;
viii.
Galen s Apodeictic, and it is probable, therefore, that all these remarks were to be found
in this work.
785 127
3; 5; iv. 775 De Loo. Aff.ii.o

c.
3(58
ECLECTICISM.
we might be
doc-trine,
;
inclined to
according to
which the soul
endorse the Peripatetic 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 corporeal substances, and as to its immortality there could then be no question.
1
as little does
2
G-alen does not venture to decide on this point, and he purpose to affirm or to deny im
It
mortality.
the origin
this
of
the same with the question as to He candidly ac living creatures.

is
knowledges that he has not made up his mind upon On the one hand he finds in the subject.
the human body a wisdom and a which he cannot attribute to the irrational power on the other hand vegetable soul of the embryo
formation of
the likeness of children to their parents obliges him O to derive the children from that soul if we further
-L
assume that the rational soul builds up its own body, we are confronted with the fact that we are
most
stitution
imperfectly acquainted with its natural con 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
himself more
Galen declares occupations. decidedly for the Platonic doctrine of
base
(Jii.
All.
;
Moirx.
ir
<
,vc. C.
3:4;
c.
rb \oyiar iKbv~\ o&d

<?x
us OVK
c.
t<rriv
p. 77)5
\
.svy.
780.
1
u
3
SiaTeiWrrflcu.
l)t:
s</^.
eyu
8f
^ hovd
*"l
and/.
Hcrriv
c-
3:
Fui.
Form.
G,
iv.
us
[aQdvarov
683
GALEN.
the parts of the soul and their abodes, which he also no doubt combines with the corresponding
1
369
CHAP.
his uncertainty in regard to the nature of the soul necessarily, however, casts doubt also upon this theory. Nor will our philo
;
doctrine of Aristotle
3 sopher decide, he says, whether plants have souls, but in other places he declares himself decidedly His
for the Stoic distinction

(ftvcris.*
between the
ifrvxh
and the
theoretical
^
l
con-
the less surprised at the vacilla- a^seUss tion and fragmentariness of these definitions when and out f
shall
all
We
be
we hear what value Gralen attributes to theoretical
The question concerning the enquiries in general. unity of the world, whether or not it had a begin
ning, and the like, he thinks are worthless for the
practical philosophers ; of the existence of the (rods and the guidance of a Providence we must indeed
try to convince ourselves, but the nature of the Grods we do not require to know : whether they have
a body or not can have no influence on our conduct; in a moral and political point of view it is also in
whether the world was formed by a deity or by a blindly working cause, if only it be acknow ledged that it is disposed according to purpose and
different
1 Of. besides the treatise De Hippocratis ct Platonis Placitis, which discusses this subject in no fewer than nine books with
wearisome
diffusiveness,
Qu.
by Galen, De Hipp, ct Plat. vi. 2, and I. c. 2 In Hippocr. dc Alim. iii. 10 xv. 293 In Hippocr. de Humor. \. 9 xvi. 93.
;
Animi Mores, &c., c. 3. That the three divisions of the soul are not merely three faculties of one substance, but three distinct substances, is asserted
K
4
De Substant.
iv.
757
;
.?</.
Facult. Nat. c. cf. in Hippovi.

;
cratis de JKpidem. Libr. Sect. v. 5; xviii. b, 250.
De Natur. Facult.
i.
l;ii. 1.
B B
370
CHAP.
"V
ECLECTICISM.
design.
T
TT
Even the question which he has
so fully
discussed, concerning the seat of the soul, is only of interest to the physician, arid not to the philoso
while conversely a definite opinion regarding pher the nature of the soul is only necessary to theoretic
l
2 philosophy, and neither to medicine nor ethics. certainly require no further evidence that a
We
philosopher
enquiries
so
who measures the value

entirely
of
scientific
according to their direct
and
utility, could not advance beyond an But we shall greatly deceive eclecticism. uncertain
demonstrated
ourselves
if
we
therefore expect from
him indepen
dent ethical enquiries. Galen s numerous writings on this subject 3 are all lost, with the exception of 4 but what we learn from occasional utterances HisetMcal two
;
writings
CITC uLL lost
but two
goods into spiritual, bodily, and external; and in himtohare another connection the Platonic doctrine of the four
cen an
eciectic
///
not very important,
or another, concerning his ethical contains merely echoes of older doctrines. opinions, Thus we sometimes find the Peripatetic division of
j
place
fundamental virtues,
proposition that
all
and again
virtue
virtue
"
the
in
Aristotelian
consists
is
the mean. 7
The question whether

1
science or sometic
1
:
Da
1Iii>j>ocr.
ft Pint. ix. G
In
11,
Ifi/)]>tn-r.
:
Humor,
i.
B. v.
-
77H
.sv/.
end
l)c Siihxt.
Fitciilt
Xdt
TO
/j-ecrov
&(nrep yap trrrlv aiptruv eV TTUCTIV,

d/iercu
rrou.
xvi.
10
])c
P/
i>i>r.
Jj\l>T.
13; 17.
(fievKTov.
8e
Trarrcu
eV
DC anlini jicccaa?iimi niorfrifi. toriiw (lifjHatioiH. (ttf/iie niedcla.

:>
e|co
ror
/.te
liese
\vord.s
Protrci>t.
<;
i.
LG
.sv/.
Dt
;
Ui
/>j>i>t
r.
ft
Plot.
vii.
directly to corporeal conditions, but tiny have a universal application,
refer
indeed
.sv/.
v. o
-t.
GALEN.
thing else, Gralen decides thus in the rational parts of the soul it is a science, in the irrational merely a faculty and a quality or disposition. The eclectic
: 1
371
CHAP.
tendency of the
man
thus shows
itself in this
portion
also of his doctrine.
De
Hippocr. et Plat.
v.
vii. 1
v.
468
595.
B B 2
INDEX.
ACA
A CADEMICS of the first cenXJL tury B.C., 75 sqq. of the first centuries A.D., 344
ANT
Alexander of Aphrodisias, a Peri
patetic, 306,
stotle,
n.,
318
called the
of,
Commentator and Second Ari

319
;
Academy, the New and the Old, 80 Philo, and the New, 81
;
sqq.
commentaries
- in Imperial times increasingly tends to belief in revelation, 194; eclecticism of the, 34, 355 sq. Achaicus, his commentary on the categories, 313 Adrastus of Aphrodisias, a Peri
;
various theories and doc trines of, 323; Aristotle s doc trine of the Universal and Particular, how treated by, 324 his doctrine of the soul and the soul and vovs, body, 326 327 relation of God and the
321
his commen patetic, 305, n. 308 sq. ; taries on Aristotle, views on the universe, 310 /Elius Stilo, L., Koman disciple of
world, 329 Providence, 331 the last important Peripatetic, 331

;
Alexander of Damascus, a Peri

patetic, 306, n.
Pansetius, 11
Alexander of Seleucia, a Platonist,

gave
his
Êmilius Paulus,
sons
Greek
instructors, 8
Ammonius,
;
JEnesidemus, 22 Êschines, a disciple of Carneades, 5 Êther, theories concerning the, 124; 133; 341, 5; 342, 1 Agathobulus, a Cynic, 294, n. Albinus, a Platonist, 335 his ecclecticism, 346; his commenta his division ries on Plato, 337 his doc of philosophy, 347 trines, 347 concerning Matter, the Deity, the world, the worldsoul, demons, the virtues, 347349 his importance among the later Platonists, 350 Alexander, a Peripatetic of the
;
called Peloplaton, 335, n. of the New Academy, teacher of Plutarch, 102, 2 334, 3 336, Anatolius of Alexandria, Bishop of Laodicea about 270, A.D., dis tinguished himself in the Peri patetic philosophy, 332, 2 Andronicus of Rhodes, head of the Peripatetic school in Athens, 113 Aristotle s work edited by,
;
. ;
first century B.C., 124, 1 Alexander of JSgse, a Peripatetic,
instructor of Nero, 304, 2
diverged from Aristotle, 116; but was on the whole a genuine Peripatetic, 117 Animal food, to be avoided, ac ar cording to Musonius, 225 gument of Sextius against, 186 Annaeus Serenus, a Stoic, 196, n. Anthropology, Cicero s, 169 Se neca s, 219
115
; ;
374
INDEX.
ANT
ATH
Archaicus, a Peripatetic, 307, n. Aristo, a disciple of Ant iochus, who went over from the Academy- to the Peripatetics, 105, 2; 121 Aristoclcs of Messene, a Peripa
314; fragments of his great historical work preserved by Eusebius, 31 5 his admiration for Plato, 315; his conception of Keason, hum;in and divine, 317: was a precursor of XeoPlatonism, 318 Aristoclcs of IVrgamus, a Peripa
tetic,
;
Antibius, 200, Antidotus, instructor of Antipatcr of Sidon, 54, n. Antiochus of Ascalon, disciple of Philo, c:illed the founder of the fifth Academy, 87 his doctrines virtue and knowledge, 87 cri terion of truth, 88 dicta of the senses not to be discarded, 89
;/.
; : ; ;
scepticism
;
self -contradictory,
1)0 maintains that all the schools of philosophy are vir called tually in agreement, 91 by Cicero a pure Stoic, 92; divides philosophy into three his theory of know parts, 92
; ;
tetic, 305,
it.
Aristodemus, a Platonist, 334, 3 Aristodemus, teacher of Strabo,

Aristotle,
j
ledge, 93 trines of
his ethics, 95
life
;
doc
nature, 9G 96 virtue and happiness, 97; his position in regard to the Stoics and Peripatetics, 98 school of, 99; other disciples of, 100 Antiochus the Cilician, a Cynic,
;
:
according to the highest good,
commentaries on, 112,

;
304 xqq. assertion of his agree ment with Plato, by Antiochus, 91; by Cicero, 103; by Severus and Albinus, 346, 347 Aristus, brother and successor of Antiochus in the New Academy
at Athens, 100, 1 Arius Didymus of Alexandria, the Academic, 10G Arrian, author of a Meteorology,
294, n.
Antipater
of
Sidon,
n.
poet
and
philosopher, 54,
Antipater of Tyre, 71, it. Apollas of Sardis, of the school of Antiochus, 100, n. Apollodorus of Athens, leader of the Stoic school in the first
258, 1 Arrian, the Stoic, 258
Artemon,
a Peripatetic, 307, n.
century B.C., 53, n. Apollodorus 6 KriiroTvpawos, com pared with Epicurus, 27, 28
Apollonides, friend of Cato, 72, n. Apollonius, a freedraan of Cassius,
72, n.
Asclepiades of Jttthynia, relation to Epicureanism, 29 atomistic theory of, 81 Asclepiades. two Cynics of that
;
name, 294,
H.;
301, 3
Asclepiodotus, a Stoic, 71, n. Asclepiodotus of Niciva, a disci

ple of
Apollonius, a Apollonius, a Apollonius of Apollonius of
Peripatetic, 304, 2 Platonist, 334, 3
Aspasius,
n.
Panajtius, 53, n. a Peripatetic,
305, n.
Mysa, a Stoic, 53,
his
commentaries on Aristotle,
Ptolemais, 72, n. Apollonius of Tyre, 71, n. Stoic instructor of Apollonius,
308 Athenodorus, son of Saudon, 72, n. Athenodorus, surnamed Cordylio,

71, n.
Marcus Aurelius, 198, n. Apuleius, on the Cosmos, 129 the author of the treatise KOff/uLOV, 131
not
irepl
Athenodorus the Rliodian, 124, 1 Athens visited by llomans, 13 proposal by Gellius to the philo-
IXDEX.
ATH
sophers in, 16 public teachers of the four principal schools of philosophy established in, by Marcus Aurelius, 193 Attalus, teacher of Seneca, 195 Atticus, his zeal for the purity of the Academic doctrines, 341
; ;
;
376 CEA
Cicero, his writings on Greek phi losophy, 14 on the Epicureans, 25; his philosophic studies, 147 ; his philosophical works, 148 his scepticism, 149, 151 Cicero and Carneades, 152, 157 his objection to dialectic, 153 his
; ; ; ;
opposition to Aristotle s defi nition concerning Homonyms,

342, 343
Atomistic theory of Asclepiades, 31

L. Lucilius, 55, n. Balbus, Q. Lucilius, 55, n. 74, n.
;
theological opinions, 154 sq. 167 ; his view of philosophy, 156 his theory of knowledge, 158 doc of innate knowledge, 159 trine
;
;
moral disposition innate, 160 his doctrine of a moral sense,

;
BALBUS,
Basilides, 54, n.
Basilides of Scythopolis, 198, n. Boethus, Flavius, 306, n. Boethus of Sidon, the Peripatetic, his disciple of Andronicus, 117
;
commentaries on Aristotle, and divergences from him, 119 on

;
160 his criterion of truth, 161 on the immortality of the soul, 161, 170; dialectics and physics, 162 his criticism of Epicurean ism, 162; his ethics, 163; criti cism of the Stoics, 164; his uncertainty and want of origin
; ; ;
the immortality of the soul, 120 Boethus, the Stoic, 35 his deviation from pure Stoicism, 35 attitude to the Stoic theology, 36 to the doctrine of the conflagration of
;
the world, 37, and prophecy, 38 Brutus, M., a disciple of Antiochus,

100, n.
nature of God ac ality, 166 cording to, 167 human nature belief in Providence, in, 162 168; anthropology, 169; on Cicero a repre freewill, 171 sentative of eclecticism, 157, 171 Cinna, Catulus, a Stoic, instructor
;
;
nALLICLES,
\J
Carneades,
for ethics, 5
75, 4
his predilection his influence at
Rome,
arneades, the Cynic, 291, 2 end Cato, Seneca s opinion of, 230 Cato the Elder, 15, 1 Cato the Younger, 74, n. Celsus, a Platonist in the time of
of Marcus Aurelius, 198, n. Claranus, a Stoic, 196, n. Claudius Agathinus, of Sparta, disciple of Cornutus, 196, n. Claudius Maximus, Stoic, instruc tor of Marcus Aurelius, 198, n. Claudius Severus, teacher of Mar cus Aurelius, 306, n. Clitomachus, 5. Commentators of Aristotle Critolaus, Diodorus, Andronicus of
Rhodes, 113, 306 of Plato, 337 sq.

Cornutus, L. Annseus, a Stoic, banished by Nero, 196, n. 198 sq. Gotta, C., consul in 76 B.C., dis
;
Marcus Aurelius, 336, n. Censorinus, 336, n. Chrcremon, teacher of Nero, 195, 1 Chairs, institution of public, by Hadrian, 189 Chrysippus, on the treatise irepl K6(TfJLOV, 127
Chytron, a Cynic, 301, 3
ciple and adherent 100, n. Crassitius, Lucius, of
of
Philo,
Tarentum,
the
member
of Sextii, 181
the school of
376
CRA
INDEX.
61
Crassus, Cornelius, a prolific writer of the school of the Sextii, 181 Cratippus, a Peripatetic of tlic
first century B.C., 122 Crescens, a Cynic, accuser of Justin the Martyr, 294, v. Crispus Passienus, a Stoic, 196, n.
in the treatise
;
-n-fpl
KLXT/JLOV,
132
all
things are full of gods

;
and (Epictetus), 265
Albinus
on, 349 Dercyllides, the grammarian mem ber of the New Academy, 102, 2
Critolaus, the
most important
re
presentative of the Peripatetic School ill the second century

B.C.,
113
Cronius, a Platonist, 330, n. Cynicism, revival of, soon after the beginning of the Christian
era,
289
Destiny, submission to, man sdut v, 271 (Epictctus); 284 (Marcus Aurelius) Dio, 100, .; 121, 2 Dio Chrysostom, 353 his notion of philosophy the endeavour to be a righteous man, 354 ap proximation of Stoicism, 355 Plato next to Demosthenes his
;
Cynics, the, of the Imperial era, 288, 290 mentioned by Julian, 301, 3 last traces of the, 302
,
pattern of style, 35G his general standpoint, 357 Diodorus, a Peripatetic commen tator, 113 Diodotus, instructor and friend of
;
D/EMON, 266 (Epictctus)

Aurelius)
the divine in man, 278 (Marcus

;
r>3,
Cicero, n.
Damocles of Messene, n. Daphnus, a Platonist, 336, n. Dardanus, disciple and successor

of Panaitius, 53, n.
Diogenes, a Cynic, in the reign of Vespasian, 294, n. Diogenes of Seleucia, his opinion as to the conflagration of the world, 35
Diogenes of Tarsus, an Epicurean,

friend
of
28, 2
Demetrius,
a Seneca, 291
;
Cynic,
;
ciples, 293
his his
moral prin contempt for
knowledge, 293 Demetrius, an Epicurean, 28 Demetrius, a Platonist, 335, n. Demetrius Chytras, a Cynic,
301, 3
Diogenianus, a Peripatetic, 307, n. Diognetus, 198, n. Dionysius of Gyrene, a geometri

cian, 53,
ti.
Demetrius of P.yxantium, a Peri

patetic, 307, n.
Dionysius, Stoic of the first cen tury A.D., 196, tt. Dionysius, Stoic philosopher of the first centurv J .C., 7 1,//. Diofimus, of the school of Panictins, 54,
)i. ti.
Demetrius the
53,
;/,
P>ithynian,
a Stoic,
Diphilus, a Stoic, 53,

;
Democritus, a Platonist, 336, ti. Demonax, a Cynic, 29-1, n. his his efforts to eclecticism, 297 liberate men from tilings exter abstained from mar nal, 297 riage, sacrifices, and. the mys his ready wit and teries, 298
; ;
;
Divine assistance to man, understood by Seneca, 243
how
"PCLECTICISM.origin and growth

J_j
of, in
Greek philosophy
cha
practical influence, 29!)
Demons, Posidonius in regard
to,
racter of, 17; presupposes an individual criterion of truth, 18; eclecticism and the philosophy of revelation, 20; seep-
INDEX.
ECL
contained germs of Neo-Platonisru, 23 eclecticism among the Epicureans, 24 sq. the Stoics, 31 sq., 246 sq., 189 the Academics, 75 sq., 335 the Peripatetics, 112 sq., sq. 304 in Cicero, 146 in Seneca, Eclec 224, 225 of Galen, 362
ticism, 21
; ; ;
377
GAL
of Cicero, 163 108 of Varro, of the Sextii, 185 173 of Seneca, 226 of Musonius, 251
; ;
;
tics
belonging to no particular school, 351
Eclectic School, the, 111 Egnatius, Celer P., a Stoic, 197
of Epictetus, 268 sq. of Marcus of Galen, 370 Aurelius, 286 Eubulus, a Platonist, 336, n. Euclides, a Platonist, 336, n. Eudemus, a Peripatetic, 306, n. Eudorus of Alexandria, his Platonism, 103; his digest of the Categories, 104; his Encyclo
; ;
Ennius,
his
acquaintance
;
with
pedia, 104 Euphrates, teacher of the younger

Pliny, 197, n.
Greek philosophy, 7 Epictetus, 197, n. date and per sonal history of, 257 his con ception of philosophy, 258 doc men are to be trines, 259 sq.
; ;
;
Evil external, Seneca s view of, 229 Epictetus on, 270 Demonax on, 297 Marcus Aurelius
; ;
on, 284
made
philosophers in behaviour rather than opinions, 260 his opinion of logic and dialectic, 261; natural philosophy, 262; religious view of the world, 263 belief in the perfection of the world, 263 opinion of the popu
;
FABIAN attitude of Faith,

; ;
181 Panastius to the popular, 50; of Cicero, 169 of Seneca, 244 of Epictetus, 264, 265 of Marcus Aurelius, 282 Fannius, C., a Roman disciple of
;
US PAPIRIUS,
soothsaying, religion, 264 265 daamons, 266 immortality of the soul, 266 freewill, 267 innate moral conceptions and man s indepen principles, 268 dence of things external, 269 duty of absolute submission to inclination of 271 destiny, Epictetus to cynicism, 272 his cynicism modified by his mild his love of disposition, 274 mankind, 275 Epicureanism, the later, at Rome, 12 Epicureans, in the first two cen turies B.C., relation of the later Cicero on the, to Epicurus, 26 25, 162 the, averse to science, 194 Equality of men (Seneca), 242 Ethics of Pansetius, 47 of Posidonius, 67 of Antiochus, 95 of Eudorus,104; of Arius Didymus,
lar
;
Pansetius, 55, n.
Fatalism of the Stoics opposed by Diogenianus, 307 by Alexander of Aphrodisias, 322 Forgiveness of injuries, Seneca, 241 MarcusEpictetus, 274 Aurelius, 286
;
Freewill, Cicero s treatise on, 171 Seneca on, 231 Epictetus on,.
; ;
267
Friendship, Seneca on, 240; opinion
of
some Epicureans
on, quoted
by Cicero, 25
commentaries GAIUS,
Galen
of
;
a Platonist, 335, n. his on Plato, 337

;
Smyrna; his personal history, 360, 2 his fame as a physician, 368 his philosophy is eclecticism on a Peripatetic basis, 362 ; theory of knowledge, 363 high opinion of logic, 363 sq.; his physics and met aphysics,
;
;
378
INDEX.
GAL
LAM
;
doctrine of matter, 366: soul and body, 367 contempt

sq.
;
365
Herminus, a Peripatetic, 306, //.; his commentaries on Aristotle,

312 Herminus, a
Stoic, 200, n.
6,
for theoretical enquiries, 369 eclecticism of his ethics, 370 his ethical writings, most of
;
Hermodorus the Ephesian,

Herophilus, a Cynic. 294,
them
lost,
370
ti.
Gellius the proconsul, his proposal to the philosophers in Athens, 16 Georgius of Lacedajmon, 53, ti.
Homonyms,
Aristotle
definition
concerning, objected toby Atticus, 342, 343
God, nature
of,
according to Boe, ;
Honoratus, a Cynic, 294,
n.
167: Cicero, 160, thus, 36; Seneca, 213 sq. Epictetus, 263 Marcus Aurelius, 280-282 Alex ander of Aphrodisias, 330, 342
;
Human
nature, how treated Cicero, 169 by Seneca, 239

;
Epictetus, 260 relius, 286
by by Marcus Au by
;
Galen, 369 Gods, sec Faith Good, the highest, according to Antiochus, 96 Cicero, 164 sq. Varro, 1 72 Greek philosophy, decline of origi
; ;
doctrine
of,
according to
IDEAS, Albinus,
Immediate
348
Images, worship of (Varro), 178 certainty, its nature
nality on, 4
in, 3
effect of scepticism
the Komans, 610; Roman students of, 11 effect last of Roman character on, 14 epoch of, 23
;
among
according to the Eclectics, 19 Immortality, Cicero on, 161, 170 Seneca s view of, 223 Epictetus on, 266 Marcus Aurelius on, 283 Iphicles, of Epirus, a Cynic, 301, 3
;
to
ourselves HAPPINESS,
be sought in 236 (Seneca),

;
a Stoic, 71,
n.
JASOX, Julianus,
239 KINSHIP
of
of Tralles, 307, n.
(Epictetus) 270; relius) 282, 284

;
(Marcus
Au
of mankind, Seneca,
Harpocration of Argos, a Platonisr, his commentaries on 336, n. Plato, 339 Hecato, of Rhodes, member of the
school of Pan:etius, 53,
//.,
man to Cod
(Epictetus), 266
;
55
Hegesianax, a Cynic, 295, n. Heliodorus, a Peripatetic, 322, 1 Heliodorus of Prusa, 15, 5 Helvidius Prise us, a Stoic, put to death by Vespasian, 197, n. con Heraclides, the Stoic, 52 temporary of Panretius, 52
1 ;
(Dio (Marcus Aurelius) 283 Chrysostom) 35(5 Knowledge of Cod, innate in man (Dio Chryso (Cicero), 1(50, 161
;
Hcraclitus, a Stoic, 195, 1 Heraclitus, of Tyre, member of the
New Academy,
99, n.
stom), 356 Knowledge, theory of, 311 Philo s, 79, 83; Cicero s, 158: Cicero s doctrine of innate, 159; Antiochus theory of, 97 proper object of, the universal, Alex ander of Aphrodisias, 324 Albinus on the theory and faculty Calen s theory of, 362 of, 347
:
Heraclius, a Cynic, 301, 3 Heras, a Cynic in the reign of
a Peripatetic, bro
ther of Plutarch, LAMPRIAS,
305, n.
Vespasian, 294,
INDEX.
LEO
Leonides, a Stoic of Rhodes, 71, n. Logic, how treated by Seneca, 208 by Epictetus, 261 by Alexander of Aphrodisias, 321 ; by Galen,
;
379
NER
Menephylus, a Peripatetic, 304, 2 Menesarchus, disciple and succes
sor of Panaatius, 53
Memppus, a Cynic
,
323 Longinus, 336,
n.
of the third century B.C., 291, 1 the Lycian, mentioned by

Philostratus, 291,
?i.
Love
of
;
240 Amelias), 286
mankind (Seneca), 239, Marcus (Epictetus) 275

;
Meteorology, Seneca s, 211 Metrodorus, philosopher

painter,
lius
8,
1
;
Lucanus M. Annaaus, nephew of

Seneca, a Stoic, 197, n. Lucian, his personal history, 357 considers philosophy as tied to no system, but satirises each in turn, 358, 359 conception of true philosophy as the true art of life, 360
; ;
and accompanied ÊmiPaulus on his warlike ex
peditions, 8
Metronax, a Stoic, 196 Mnasagoras, disciple of Panaetius,

53, n.
Mnaseas of Tyre, of the school of

Antiochus, 100, n. Mnesarchus, the Stoic, 86 Monachism adopted by the Chris tian Church from Cynicism, 303
Lucilius, 12, 3 196, n. Lucretius, Epicureanism of, 26

;
Lyco, a Bithynian, 53, n.
Mucius
tius,
Scasvola, disciple of Panas-
49
Sp.,
MARCUS public
and
his his
AURELIUS,
settled
Mummius,
Roman,
disciple of
teachers of the four chief schools of philosophy in Athens, 193 references to him
;
Panaetius, 55, n.
Museum, the Alexandrian, 191

Musonius, a Cynic, 766, 2 end Musonius, a Stoic of the third cen tury A.D., 200, n. Musonius Rufus, instructor of
Epictetus, 197, n. personal his devoted to prac tory, 246, 3 tical asserted 248 ethics, philosophy to be the only way his personal in to virtue, 251
;
;
instructors,
199,
;
n.
re personal history, 276 semblances to Epictetus, 278
conception of human life and of the problem of philosophy, 279 his doctrines, 279 sq. belief in the Divine order of the universe, in dreams and auguries, 281 282; future existence, 283; his ethics, 284 resignation to the will of God, 285 love to man, 286 nobility and purity of his
;
;
Stoicism 253 gerated by Musonius, 253

fluence,
;
exag
;
inner
freedom
of
;
man
287 Marriage, Seneca s view of, 240 Musonius on, 256 Epictetus on, 273 Maximus of Nicasa, a Platonist,
life,
; ;
thought, 254 ing animal food, 255 views on marriage and the exposure of
;
his leadingreasons for avoid
disapproval public prosecutions, 256 Musonius the Tyrian, 199, n.
children,
256:
of
336,
71,,
Tyre, a Platonist, 335, 337 Meriecrates of Methyma, of the school of Antiochus, 100, n.
Maximus of
NEO-PLATONISM, of, among the Platonists,

Nero, influence of the time philosophy, 236
forerunners 344
of,
on
380
INDEX.
NES
PHI
the treatise, its origin, 125; Chrysippus on, 127; Posidonius not the author of, 128 nature of the treatise, 132 with Stoicism, 135 affinity Peripatetic and Stoic ideas com bined in it, 137 its probable date of composition, 138; Liter than Posidonius, 141 about the iirst century B.C., 143 ex Peripatetics, the later, 112
Uepl
Kj0>tou,
;
Nestor of Tarsus, the Academic, distinct from Nestor the 54, n.

;
Stoic, 102, 2
Nicander the P>ithynian, - a Peripatetic, 307, n.

1
53, n.
Nicolaus of Damascus, 22 Nigrinus, a Platonist, 335, n eclecticism, 344 Numa, the books of, 7
his
Numenius,
33(5, n.
of Gadara, a Cynic of the reign of Hadrian, his treatise against the 295
;
lXOMAUS
clusively devoted to commen taries on Aristotle, 104 of the first centuries after Christ,
304
Jugglers, 21)5 Origen, 330, n. Originality, decline of, in Greek philosophy, 3 Orion, 282
of Rhodes, 30 at friend of Scipio and head of the Stoic Lrelius, 40 school in Athens, 40; learning and reputation, 41 character of his Stoicism, 42 denial of the soul s existence after death, 45; work on duty, 48 ethics, 47 his allegorical in theology,
; ;
; ;
;
sq.
Peripatetic School from the second half of the third century A.I). gradually merged in that of the
Neo-Platonists, 332
PAX.KT1US Home, 9
Flaccus A., a Stoic, Persius, 197, n. Petroriius, Aristocrates, of Mag nesia, a Stoic, ! .)(!, n. Phanias, a Stoic, 71, n. Philo, of Larissa, at Rome, 88 15.C., 12; personal history, 75; in
structor of Cicero, practical his revival of Platonbasis, 77 ism, 82 theory of knowledge, was the founder of the 83 Fourth Academy, 84 pupils
7(>
4!>;
terpretation of myths, 50; rejec tion of soothsaying, 58; relation to the Stoics, 51 contemporaries and disciples of, 52; school of,
:
of, 100, n.
Philopator, a Stoic under Hadrian,

198, n.
53 ,sv/. and Seneca, 215 Pancratius, a Cynic, 291, //. Papirius, Fabianus, nu iuber of the school of the Scxtii, 181
;
Philosophers banished from Rome,

7 sects of,
enumerated by Varro,
of,
;
173
of Tarsus, disciple of 2 Paniut ins, Paulus, the Prefect, a Peripatetic, 30G, n. Pausanias of IVmtus, disciple of
5:>,
Paramonus
Philosophy, schools
tend
to
amalgamation, mates of, 15

;
Roman
esti
Pametius, 53, //. Peregrinus, a Cynic,
of revelation, allied with eclec ticism, 20 schools of, arc all in agreement, according to Antio-
Lucian
21)5),
description
294, of him,
.
chus, 91
general character
of,
tire, 2l)J)
3; his voluntary death by praised by Gellius, 300

;
in Imperial times, 189 regarded with political mis trust in the first century B.C.,
INDEX.
PHI
190; chairs of, established by theoretical and Hadrian, 191 relation of, to practical, 205 rhetoric, 352 Physics, Seneca s high estimation of, 210
;
381 SEL
Rhetoric, an important part of public instruction in the Imperial numerous schools period, 352 of, 352 appointment of public teachers of, 352
;
;
Roman
character,
disciples
effect
of,
on
&IKTIS
distinguished from tyvxb by Panaetius, 47 by Galen, 369

;
Greek philosophy, 14
Roman
55, n.
of
Panaatius,
Piso, 55, n. Piso, M., a disciple of Antiochus, 101, n. Plato, commentatorb of, 337 Plato of Rhodes, 53, n.
Roman Roman
estimate of philosophy, 15 students of Greek philo sophy, 11
Rome, Greek
Platonism, revival by Philo, -82 Platonists of the first centuries A.D., 334
Plutarch, his commentary on Plato,
philosophy at, 6 philosophers banished from, 7

; ;
337
Polyzelus, a Cynic, 295, n. a Peripatetic, 295 n. Polyzelus, Posidonius at Rome at the begin ning of the first century B.C., 12 a Syrian of Apamea, disciple of Panastius, 56 his doctrines and relation to Stoicism, 59 sq. love of rhetoric and erudition,
; ;
Carneades at, 9 Greek philo sophy at, 10 Epicureanism at, 12; Panastius at, 9; Stoicism at, 9 Philodemus and Syro, the Epicureans at, in the first cen
;
natural science, 62 anthro pology, 64 doctrine of the soul, 64 sq. ethics, 65 psychology, not the author of irfpl 68 K6(Tfj.ov, 128 Potamo of Alexandria, his eclec criterion of ticism, 109 sq. truth, 111 of Mytilene, a Peripa Premigenes
62
Philo the Platonist 12 Rubellius Plautus, a Stoic put to death by Nero, 197, n. Rusticus Junius, Stoic instructor of Marcus Aurelius, 198, n. Rutilius Rufus, Q., Roman disciple of Pansetius, 55, n.
B.C., 13 ; at, in 88 B.C.,
tury
SAKKAS, Sallustius,
302,3 Sandon,
72, n.
a Platonist, 336, n. a Cynic ascetic of Athens in the sixth century A.D.,
Scfevola, Q. Mucius, Roman ciple of Panaetius, 55, n.

;
dis
tetic, 306, n. Proclinus, a Platonist, 336, n. Protagoras, a Stoic, 74, n. Providence, Cicero s belief in, 168;; Marcus Aurelius on, 285 Ptolemy, a Peripatetic, 317, n. Ptolemy, two Epicureans of that name, 28, 2 Publius, a disciple of Philo, 100, it.
Scepticism, its effect on Greek relation of, to philosophy, 4 self-contradic eclecticism, 12

;
tory according to Antiochus, 90 of Seneca, 225 Schools of Philosophy, the, tend to approximate, 1 93 Scylax of Halicarnassus, friend of
;
Pancetius, 54, n. Self - examination,
necessity
of
of
(Seneca), 238
Seneca
RELIGION, of, 244
conception
Selius,
Caius, 100, n.
disciple
Philo,
38:2
SEN
Seneca,
19(5, //.: his
:
STO
Serapio, a Stoic,
19(5 H.
inlluence, 203 of his ethics, 201; his concep tion of philosophy, theoretical
reputation and practical nature
and practical 205
.sv/.
contempt
for merely theoretical inquiries, his view of logic, 208; liis high estimation of physics, 210 hinieteorology, 211 physical and theological duct vines, 212; nat ure of God, according to, 21 3 Stoic ism in, 21 5: theories of the
; ; ;
Serenianus, a Cynic, 301, 3 his Severus, a Hatonist, 33(5, ;/. commentary on the ThiKf-ux, 339; his eclecticism, 345 treatise on the soul, deviations .syy. from 1 latonism, 348 Sextii, school of the, advocated
;
31.")
daily
self -
examination,
re
nounced animal food, 18*5; its character and doctrines, 183 s/j,; was a branch of Stoicism, 187
Sextius, Q., his school, 180; ques tion as to his authorship of the book of Sentences, 182, 2 rela tion to the Stoics, 18G; succeeded as head of the school by his son,
;
Ins anthropology, world, 217 219 nature of the soul, accord

;
ing
to, 211)
and
for
affections,
theory of passions 221 frailty of

;
human
the
nature, 221
;
:
contempt
body, 222 body and his view of: spirit opposed, 222 Seneca s psy immortality, 223 chology compared with that of Chrysippus, 224 scepticism of, Stoicism of, 220, 242 225"; ethics on external evil, 229 of, 22(5 Peripateticism of, 229 his opinion about Cato, 230 - on the wise man, 231 his deviation from Stoicism, 231 vacillation in his character, 232
;
:
181 Scxtus of Chaironea, a Platonist,

335, n. Sextus, the supposed P} thagorean, 182, 2 Socrates, a Peripatetic, 307, Sosigenes, the Peripatetic, 30G, n.
>t.
313
Sosigenes, the Stoic, contemporary of Panaitius, 52 Soson of Ascalon, 53, Sotas of Paphos, a Stoic, 54, Sot ion, a Peripatetic, 305, ;/. Sotion of Alexandria, member ol the school of the Sextii, 181; instructor of Seneca, 181 Soul, nature of the, according to Asclepiades, 30; Ant ioclius, 95
>i.
//..
rhetoric of, 231 inlluence of his time, 235 bids us lind happiness in our selves, 23C necessity of self:
examination, 238 ship of mankind,
natural kin
231)
;
view of
love of man political life, 23 .) kind, 239, 210: view of mairiage,

;
the forgiveness of inju 241 view of suicide, 243 of the assistance given by the Deity to man, 243; on the equality of men, 212; his con com ception of religion, 24-!
ries,
; ; ;
240 on
Alexander of Aphrodisias, 32(5 Cicero, 170; Posidonius, (54; Seneca, 219: Marcus Aurelius, 283 lie, an emanation from the
; t ;
Deity,
17(5
the,
immortality
;
of,
defended by Cicero, 170

(Varro),
17(5:
is air
opinions of Atticus,
312
CJalen,
367
pared with
:
aiKt
ins,
215
Sphodrias, a Cvnic, 295, //. Sinseas, of Naples, called by Cicero

nohilix PcriiHiteticii*, 122,
1
Senses, the, their dicta not to be discarded doctrine of Antioof Cicero, 158 chus, 89
;
Stoicism at Rome, 9 Stoics, the later, 34
of the
lirst
INDEX.
STO
century
B.C.,
;
383 ZEN
71
sq.
the,
and
Tubero, Q. Êlius,
Roman
disciple
the, in the first Sextius, 186 centuries A.D., 189 criticism of their re the, by Cicero, 164 striction to ethics, 194 under
;
of Pantetius, 55, n.
Domitian, Trajan, and Hadrian,

98, n. ; inclination of the later to Platonism, 42 sq., 62 sq. Strabo the geographer, a Stoic,
]
73, n.
Stratocles
54, n. Strato, the
of
Khodes,
Stoic,
Alexandrian Peripa
;
tetic, 307, n.
de fended by the Cynics, 298, 300 Sulpicius Gallus, astronomer and

philosopher, 8
Suicide, Seneca s view of, 243
a disciple of Antiochus, a Roman eclectic and friend of Cicero, 171 his view of philosophy, 172 and the sects of philosophers, 173 his ethics and doctrine of the highest good, 174; virtue a con dition of happiness, 174; his psychology and theology, 176; his opinion of image worship, 178 of State religion and theo logy, 178 Vespasian, his measures against
TTARRO,
V
100, n.
CALVISIUS BERY-
TAURUS TUS,
Platonist,
335, n.
philosophers, 190, 1 payments to rhetoricians, 191, 3 Vigellius, M., Roman disciple of Pansetius, 55, n. Virginius Rufus, a Peripatetic, 307, n.
;
commentaries on Plato, 340

Tetrilius Rogus, 100, n. Theagenes, a Cynic, 294, n; dis ciple of Peregrinus, 301
Theodotus, a Platonist, 336, n. Theomnestus, a Cynic, 295, n. Theomnestus, of the New Aca
Virtue and knowledge, according to Antiochus the Academic, 88, 96 Virtue, a condition of happiness, 174 (Varro) 238 (Seneca); rela
;
tion of, to philosophy, according to Musonius Rufus, 251
demy, 102, 2 Theo of Alexandria, 73, n. Theo of Smyrna, a Platonist, 335, n. his commentaries on Plato,
;
WISE Seneca, 231 and

; ;
MAN,
the, of the Stoics,
339
Theopompus, of the school of Antiochus, 100, n.
Thrasea Pastus, a Stoic, 197,
ti\
World, theories of the (Treatise irepl /cJo-ôu), 134 (Seneca), 217 (Marcus Aurelius), 281 (Attifinal conflagration of cus), 342 the, 34, 35, 44
; ;
friend of Seneca, 291, 2 Thrasyllus, the grammarian, ber of the New Academy, 102, 2 Timocles of Cnidus, 54, n. Truth, criterion of, according to Antiochus, 88 according to Potamo, 111 Cicero, 153, 156, 161 ; according to Galen, 363
mem
yANTHIPPUS, a Cynic, 295 A. Xenarchus, controverted Aris

totle s Physics, 124
ZENO Zeno
of Sidon, 27 of Tarsus, successor of Chrysippus, 34: opinion as to the destruction of the world, 34
London.
Spottlsiroode
&
Co. J rinters, New-street Square,
THE AUTHORISED ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF DR. SELLER S WORK ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE GREEKS.
The PKE-SOCRA.TIC SCHOOLS.
SOCRATES.
:>0s.
Being a History of Greek Philosophy from the Earliest Period to the Time of Translated by SAHAH F. ALLEYNE. 2 vols. crown 8vo.
of
HISTORY
SOPHY.
price
ECLECTICISM in Translated by SARAH F. ALLEYNE.
GREEK PHILO
Crown
8vo.
10s. Cxi.
SOCRATES
and the
SOCRATIC SCHOOLS.
Trans
lated by O. J. REICHEL, M.A. B.C.L. sometime Scholar of Queen s College, Oxford. Second Edition, enlarged from Materials supplied by the Author. Crown 8vo. in*. G/l.
PLATO
and the OLDER ACADEMY. Translated by SARAH F. ALLEYXE, and ALFRED GOODWIN, B.A. Fellow and Lecturer, Balliol College, Oxford. Crown !Svo. is*.
The STOICS, EPICUREANS, and SCEPTICS.

Crown
Hvo. l~n.
Trans
lated by O. J. UEK HEL, M.A. B.C.L. sometime Scholar of Queen s College, Oxford. Second Edition, thoroughly revised.
ARISTOTLE
and
the
ELDER
PERIPATETICS.
Crown 8vo. [Iti preparation. *** The volume announced above will complete the English Trans lation of Dr. ZELLER S Work on the Philosophy of the Greeks.
--
Translated by B. F. C. COSTELLOE, Balliol College. Oxford.
London,
LONGMANS &
CO.
VICTORIA UNIVERSITY. LIBRARY

A History of Eclecticism in Greek Philosophy - Zeller (1883)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A History of Eclecticism in Greek Philosophy - Zeller (1883)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

A

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF BKUT.IN

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND

a translation of the second section of Dr.

Philosophic der Griechen, Dritter Theil,

section of the volume,

concerning the Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, has

made from the

for for for for for for

belonged mid belongs fundamental impulse read impulse

their inborn conviction viction which he claims for

that universal con men as innate

ORIGIN AND CHARACTER OP ECLECTICISM

of eclectic philosophy, 17.

Contained the germs of the and of Neo-Platonism, 22

Relation of the later Epicureans to Epicurus, 24. ades of Bithynia, 29 sq.

BOETHUS, PAN^TIUS, POSIDONIUS

Contemporaries and disciples of 5(5. His philosophic ten

His anthropology, 64. century before Christ, 70

Other Stoics of the

CENTl HY P.KFOHE CHRIST

Antiochus, 90. 1 otiimo, 100

IN THE FIRST CENTURY .112 BEFORE CHRIST

Andronicus of Rhodes, 113.

Xenarchus, and others, 121

Origin and date of composition, and vices, 145

Yarro, 171. pology, 100. tin; various schools. 172.

His view of philosophy and Ethics, 173. Anthropology

and philosophy, 170

Us philosophic character and

THE FIRST CENTURIES AFTER CHRIST SCHOOL OF THE STOICS SENECA

study of the ancient

Uselessness of merely theoretic inquiries, 206.

Modification of Stoic dogmas, 227.

THE STOICS CONTINUED MUSONIUS, EPICTETUS, MARCUS AURELIUS 246

THE CYNICS OF THE IMPERIAL ERA

(Knoinaus, 294. Later Cynics, 301

TO NO DEFINITE SCHOOL 351

Dio Chrysostom, 353.

ORIGIN AND CHARACTER OF ECLECTICISM.

of philosophy which appeared about the

and therefore have not grasped

and one-sidedness, more

of schools will itself oblige

from their systems the

and schools their opposi

living and active in a people, the case

so long as philosophic productivity will

either never arise

arise only temporarily, that infected by this eclecticism,

exhausted, and a long space of time, devoid of new

the existing schools,

partial blending of the hostile appear to a greater extent, and the

All the causes

led, generally speaking, to

the dissolution of classi

had also had a paralysing influence on

philosophic spirit ; for centuries after transformation of philosophy, which marks

the purely theoretic interest in the

neither one nor another

as well as the other

had paved the way

AiVxtVr?s, aotyiffTwv rivuv 6ri Trpoo-jroif iTai yeyo\eyoi>Tu>v,