Skip to main content

Full text of "A History Of Eclecticism In Greek Philosophy"

See other formats


Books will be issued only on presen- 
tation of proper library cards. 

Unless labeled otherwise, books may 
be retained for lour wee Its. Borrowers 
M nding books mar ke d , defaced or mutilated 
are expected to report same at library 
desk; otherwise the last borrower will be 
held responsible lor all imperfections 

^<^^&c^^ ? c 
No botoks issued unle 

- , 
unless penalties are 


Lost c ards and cha 
mu st be rep orted 

of residence 





THIS is a translation of the second section of Dr. 
Zeller's tf Philosophic der Gbriechen, Dritter Theil, 
Erste Abtheilung/ The first section of the volume, 
concerning 1 the Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, has 
already been translated by Dr. Reichel. The present 
translation has been made from the third and latest 
edition of the German work. 

S. F 

CLIFTON : Seirfeniber 1 4 1883. 


Page 83, line 15 : for belonged read belongs 

95, 26 : for fundamental impulse read impulse 

116, 2 : for their read its 

162, 19 : for I read we 

205, 31 : for effects read affect 

9 , 206, 6 : for enquires read asks 

207, 2 : substitute a semicolon for a comma^ after 'doctrine,' 

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

294, 3 : for under read in 

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





Gradual blending of the schools of philosophy: Internal 
causes of this, 1 sg. External causes : diffusion of Greek 
philosophy among- the Romans, 6. Reaction of that 
diffusion upon philosophy, 14. Principle and character 
of eclectic philosophy, 17. Contained the germs of the 
later scepticism, 21 ; and of Neo-Platonism, 22 




Relation of the later Epicureans to Epicurus, 24. Aeclepi- 
ades of Bithynia, 29 sq. 



Successors of Ohrysippus, 34. Boethus, 35. Pansetius, 39. 
Character of his philosophy, 42. Deviations from Stoic- 
ism, 43 sff. Ethics, 47. Contemporaries and disciples of 
Panaetius, 52. Posidonius, 56. H^s philosophic ten- 
dencies, 50. His anthropology, 64. Other Stoics of the 
first century before Chrisfe, 7O 






Pbilo of Larissa, 75. His practical bias, 77. Modification 
of the scepticism of the Academy, 79. His theory of 
knowledge, 81. Antiochus of Ascalon, 85. Polemic 
against scepticism, 87. Eclecticism : essential agree- 
ment of the various systems, 91 j theory of knowledge, 93. 
Physics and metaphysics, 94. Ethics, 95. School of 
Antiochus, 99. Eudoras, 103. Arms Didymus, 106. 
Potamo, 109 




The Commentators: Andronicus of Rhodes, 113. Boethus 
of Siclon, 117. Aristo, Staseas, Cratippus, Nicolaus, 
Xenarchus, and others, 121 s%. The treatise irepl /cdo-yuou ; 
various theories as to its origin, 125. Nature of the 
treatise, 132. Origin and date of composition, 138. 
Treatise on virtues and vices, 145 


CICERO - VARRO . . .146 

Cicero, 146. His scepticism, 149. Its limits, 151. Practical 
view of philosophy, 156. Eclecticism : doctrine of innate 
knowledge, 159. Ethics, 162. Theology, 167. Anthro- 
pology, 169. Yarro, 171. His view of philosophy and 
the various schools, 172. Ethics, 173. Anthropology 
and philosophy, 176 



History of the school, 80. Its philosophic character and 
standpoint, 183 






Philosophy in the Imperial period : study of the ancient 
philosophers, 189. Endowment of public chairs of 
philosophy, 190. The school of the Stoics from the first 
to the third century, 194 SQ. Cornutus, 199. Seneca, 
202. His conception of the problem of philosophy, 205. 
Uselessness of merely theoretic inquiries, 206. Opinion 
of dialectic, 207. Physics, 209. Metaphysical and 
theological views, 212. The world and nature, 217. 
Man, 219. Uncertainty of Seneca's speculative theories, 
225, His ethics essentially Stoic in principle, 226. 
Modification of Stoic dogmas, 227. Application of par- 
ticular moral doctrines, 235. Independence of things 
external, 236. Love of mankind, 239. Religious tem- 
perament, 242 




Musonius, 246. His -practical standpoint, 248. His ethics, 
255. Epictetus and Arrian, 256. Practical end of 
philosophy, 258. Inferior value of knowledge, 260. 
Religious view of the world, 268. Man, 266. Ethics, 
268. Independence of things external ; resignation to 
destiny and the course of the universe, 270 sq. 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 sgr* Kinship of man to God, 283. 
Ethics, 284. Withdrawal into self, 284. Eesignation 
to the will of God, 285. I^ove of mankind, 286 





Revival of Cynicism, 289. Its adherents, 290 sq. De- 
metrius, 291. (Enomaus, 294. Bemonax, 296. Pere- 
grinus, 299. Later Cynics, 301 



AFTER CHRIST . . .304 

The Peripatetic school of the first and second century, 304% 
Commentators of Aristotle's works : Aspasius, Adrastus, 
Herminus, Achaicus, Sosig-enes, 306. Aristocles of 
Messene, 314. Alexander of Aphrodisias, 318. Apologies 
for Aristotle's writings and commentaries on them, 322. 
The Particular and the Universal, Form and Matter, 
324. The soul and vovs, 324. God and the world, 329. 
Extinction of the Peripatetic School, 332 




Platonists of this period, 334. Commentators of Platonic 
writings, 337. . Introduction of alien doctrines opposed 
"by Taurus and Atticus, 340. Eclecticism exemplified, in 
Theo^ Nigrinus, Severus, Albinus, 344 



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

IKDEX 373 




THAT form of philosophy which appeared about the CHAP. 

beginning of the post- Aristotelian period had, in 

the course of the third and second centuries, per- ^ @ m . 
fected itself in its three principal branches. These ^ al d . 
three schools had hitherto existed side by side, O f the 
each striving to maintain itself in its purity, and ^f^ s . 
merely adopting towards the others, and towards totetiau 
the previous philosophy, an aggressive or defensive 
attitude. But it lies in the nature of things that 
mental tendencies, which have sprung from a kin- 
dred soil, cannot very long continue in this mutu- 
ally exclusive position. The first founders of a \ 
school and their immediate successors, in the fervour of this. 
of original enquiry, usually lay excessive weight upon 
that which is peculiar to their mode of thought ; in 
their opponents they see only deviations from this 
their truth : later members, on the contrary, who 
have not sought this peculiar element with the 
same zeal, and therefore have not grasped it with 



CHAP, the same rigidity and one-sidedness, more easily 

perceive, even in adverse statements, that which is 

common and akin, and are more ready to sacrifice 
subordinate peculiarities of their own standpoint ; 
the strife of schools will itself oblige them to repel 
exaggerated accusations and unqualified condem- 
nations, by the stronger enforcement of that in 
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- 
positions of the objection have been partially con- 
ceded, together with the objection itself. It is, 
therefore, a natural and universal experience that 
in the conflict of parties and schools their opposi- 
tions gradually become blunted, that the common 
principle which underlies them all is in time more 
clearly recognised, and a mediation and fusion is 
attempted. Now, so long as philosophic productivity 
is still living and active in a people, the case will 
either never arise or arise only temporarily, that 
its whole science is infected by this eclecticism, 
because already in its youthful course, new direc- 
tions are attempted before those immediately pre- 
ceding them have decidedly begun to grow old. As 
soon, on the contrary, as the scientific spirit is 
exhausted, and a long space of time, devoid of new 
cieations, is merely filled with discussions among 
the existing schools, the natural result of these 


discussions, the partial blending of the hostile 
parties, will appear to a greater extent, and the 
whole philosophy will 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 the 
transformation of philosophy, whieh marks the 
end of the fourth and the beginning of the third 
century no new system arose ; and if the post- 
Aristotelian systems in and for themselves had 
already lost the purely theoretic interest in the 
contemplation of things, and by their restriction 
to the life and aims of men, had announced the 
discontinuance of scientific endeavour, the - long 
cessation of philosophic production could only serve 
to dull the scientific sense still more, and to call in 
question the possibility of scientific knowledge in 
general. This, state of things found its proper' ex- 
pression in scepticism, which opposed the dogmatic 
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 itself. Scepticism had 

B 2 


CHAP, placed all dogmatic theories on an equality in such 
__ a manner as to deny scientific truth to all alike. 
This ' neither one nor another ' ( Weder-noch) became 
in eclecticism c One as well as the other ' {Sowohl- 
als-aucli) ; but for that very transition scepticism 
had paved the way; for it had not been able to 
rest in pure negation, and had therefore, in its 
doctrine of probability, set 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- 
velopment of the sceptical theory, from Pyrrho to 
Arcesilaus, and from Arcesiiaus to Carneades, a grow- 
ing estimation of the value of the knowledge of prob- 
ability: it was only necessaiy to advance one step 
further, to bring forward 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 
acceptance of truth (Furwahrhalten*). In this dog- 
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 measure of subjective necessity 
and opinion. This had been exactly the pro- 
cedure of the 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 


decide. Carneades, as we know, 1 had so treated CHAP. 

the ethical questions to which, we are told, aban- T l 

doning his former predilection for combating hostile 
opinions, he more and more restricted himself with 
advancing years. 2 Similarly Clitomachus, while 
contending with the dogmatic schools, seems to 
have sought a positive relation to them ; 3 and we 
learn that ^Eschines, another disciple of Carneades, 
adhered to that side only of his master's teach- 
ing. 4 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 
followers of Carneades this mode of thought chiefly 
emanated, and that in them it was immediately 
connected with the point on which the Stoics and 
Epicureans had sustained their dogmatism, and 
even the Platonists, in the last resort, their doctrine 
of probability, viz. the necessity of definite theories 
for practical life. It 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. 

The most important est-ernal impulse to this ii. Ester 

1 Zeller, Philosojrftie der Grie- /ta^r^r aXXa. r6re ye, cTrev, eyik 
ehen, 3 CT Theil, l e Abttieilung, Kapj/ea&ou SL^KOVOV ore -rty 
p. 517 sq. faxt av Kal rbv $6(pov atyetK&s 6 

2 Pint. An, seni s. ge-v. resj?. x6yos avrov S*a T& y^pas els rb 
13, 1. p. 791 : 5 p*v ovy 'A/caS??- ^p^crt/J-ov a-vvrjKTO Kal KOLV^VIK&V. 
puiiKbs Ato-x^TjSj <ro$ta'T&v Tivcav 3 PHI. der Grieclim, III. i. 
tey6j>T<av t 8ri TrpoffiroieLrat yeyo- p. 524, note 2. 

viva* Kapj/ea5ov, ^ yeyov&s, 4 Vide note 2. 



cliange was given by the relation in which Greek 
_ _ science and culture stood to the Eoman world. 1 
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 Eome. 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 second century before Christ. This state of things 
of Green mus j^g c h an cr e( i however, when, after the second 

')iiiu)sophy 07 77 

mg the PunicWax, the Eoman policy and Eoman arms pressed 
f orwar( j f ar ther and farther towards the east ; when 
the wars 'with Macedonia and Syria brought dis- 
tinguished Eomans in great numbers to Greece, 
while, on the other hand, Greek ambassadors and 
state prisoners, 3 and soon also slaves, appeared more 
and more commonly in Eome | when men of the 
importance of the elder Scipio Africanus, T. Quinctius 
Flamininus, and JEmilius Paulus, applied themselves 

! For what follows, cf . Hitter, 
iv. 79 sq. 

2 The arguments for this axe 
given in Phil, der Griech. Part 
I. pp. 287, 3 j 450, 1 ; cf. ibid, 
313, 2 ; and Part III. ii. p. 77 
&%. A still earlier date (if this 
statement is historical) must be 
fixed for the presence in Eome 
of Hermodorus the Bphesian, 
who assisted the decemviri in 
the drawing up of the twelve 
tables (Part I. 566, 2) : but 
even if he were indeed the 
celebrated friend of Heraclei- 
tus, we have no ground for the 

supposition that he discoursed 
to the Eomans on the physics of 
that philosopher. 

3 Such as the thousand Achse- 
ans who, 168 B,c,> were carried 
away into Italy, and kept there 
for seventeen years, all of them 
men of repute and culture 
(among them we know was 
Polybius), whose long residence 
in the country could not have 
been without influence on, Borne 
if even the least considerable 
of them had their actual abode 
in that city. 


with delight to Greek literature ; when, from the CHAP. 

beginning of the second century, Greek poetry was ^_ 

transplanted to Eoman soil in the more or less free 
imitations of Ennius, Pacuvius, Statins, Plautus, 
and their successors ; and Eoman history was related 
in the Greek language by Fabius Pictor and other 
annalists. The philosophic literature of Greece 
stood in far too close a connection with the other 
branches philosophy occupied far too important a 
place in the whole Hellenic sphere of culture, as a 
means of instruction and object of universal interest 
to make it possible for such as had once found 
pleasure in Greek intellectual life to shut themselves 
up from it very long, however small the need for 
scientific enquiry might be in them. We find, then^ 
even before the middle of the second century, many 
and various traces of the commencement of a know- 
ledge of Greek philosophy among the Eoraans. 
Ennius shows that he was acquainted with it, and 
adopts from it isolated propositions. In the year 
181 B.C. an attempt was made, in the so-called Books 
of Numa, 1 to introduce dogmas of Greek philosophy 
into the Eoman religion. 2 Twenty-six years later 
(according to others only eight) the activity of the 
Epicurean philosophers in. teaching caused their 
banishment from Borne. 3 In 161 B.C., by a decree 
of the senate, residence in Eome was forbidden to 
the philosophers and rhetoricians ; 4 and this always 

1 Cf . PUl. der. Grieoli. III. 4 This decree of the senate is 

ii. p. 8B. to be found in Suetonius, DG 

" Cf. 1. G. III. ii. p. 85. CL Rhetor. I ; G-ell. JV.l. xv. 11 

3 Cf. I.e. III. 1 p. 372, 1. (cf. also Clinton, Fasti Hellen. 


CHAP, proves that there was reason for anxiety in regard 
' to their influence upon the education of youth. 

Paulus, the conqueror of Macedonia, gavc- 
his sons Greek instructors, and for that purpose toot 
with him on his expeditions the philosopher Metro- 
dorus. 1 His companion in the Macedonian cam- 
paign, Sulpicius Grallus, besides the astronomical 
knowledge for which he was distinguished, may, per- 
haps, have also adopted certain philosophic theories of 
the Greeks. 2 But all these are merely isolated signs 
of the movement which from the middle of the 
second century manifested itself to a much greater 
extent. Hitherto comparatively few had occupied 
themselves with Greek philosophy ; now the interest 
in that philosophy was more universally diffused. 
Greek philosophers come to Borne in order to try 

161 B.C.). These authors tell cf. Pint. Mm. P. 6. The latter 

us of another similar enact- mentions among the Greeks 

ment : an edict of the censor with whom j^Emilius surrounded 

On. Domitius Ahenobarbus and his sons, grammarians, sophists, 

L. Licinius Crassus, in which and rhetoricians. Pliny gives, 

they express their serious dis- the more definite information, 

pleasure with the teachers and that after the victory over 

frequenters of the newly-arisen Perseus (168 B.C.) he requested 

Latin schools of rhetoricians on from the Athenians a good 

account of this departure from painter and an able philosopher. 

the consuetude ma/jorwn. But, They sent him Metrodorus, 

not to mention that the rJietores who was both in one person. 

Latini, who were alone affected Cf. PMl. d. Gr. III. i. p. 525. 
by this decree, according also 2 Cicero praises his know-* 

to Cicero, De Orat. iii. 24, 93 sg., ledge of astronomy, Cic. Off. i- 

were only indirectly connected 6, 19. According to Livy, xliv. 

with Greek philosophy, the 37 ; and Plin. Hist. Nat. ii. 12, 

decree was not promulgated 53, he foretold an eclipse of the. 

until the year 95 B.C., as we sun before the battle of Pydna. 

see from a comparison of Cicero, A more detailed account of the 

loe. eit. with i. 7, 24. Clinton, authorities in regard to this, 

Fasti Bellen., dates it in 92 B.C. event is given by Martin, Revue 

1 Plin. Hist. Nat. xxxv. 135 : ArcUolog. 1864, No, 3, 


their fortune,, or are sent for thither "by distinguished CHAP. 

men. Young Eomans, desirous of playing a part in " 

the state, or of gaining distinction in cultivated 
society, think that they cannot do without the 
instruction of a philosopher, and it soon became 
usual to seek this not only in Borne, but in Athens 
itself, the chief school of Greek science. Already 
the famous deputation of philosophers in the year 
156 B.C. 1 showed, by the extraordinary influence 
which Carneades especially obtained, how favourably 
Greek philosophy was regarded in Kome; and 
though we should not overrate the effect of this 
passing event, we may, nevertheless, suppose that 
it gave a considerable impetus to the previously 
awakened interest in philosophy, and spread it abroad 
in wider circles. More permanent, no doubt, was the 
influence of the Stoic Pansetius during his residence, 
prolonged as it would seem to have been for many 
years, in the capital of the Eoman empire, he being 
a man peculiarly fitted by the character of his 
philosophy to effect an entrance for Stoicism among 
his Eoman auditors. 2 Soon after him Caius Blossius 
of Cumse, a disciple of Antipater the Stoic, was 
in Borne, the friend and counsellor of Tiberius 
Gracchus, 3 who through him must likewise have 

1 The authorities for this are of Gracchus (133 B.C.) Blossius 
cited PMl. d. GT. II. ii. p. 928, was also in danger. He left 
1 ; cf, p. 498, 1 ; cf. Part III. i. Eome, and went into Asia 
p. 498, 1. Minor to Andronicus, after 

2 Further details infra, chap- whose fall (130 B.C.) he killed 
ter iii. himself. A thorough exaznina- 

3 Plut. Til. 6fracc7i. 8, 17, tion of him is to be found in 
20 ; Val. Max. iv. 7, 1 ; Cicero, 'Peviepy irepl EXocraiov Kal Aio<pd- 
Lcel. 11, 37. After the murder vovs (Leipzig, 1873). Mean- 




become acquainted with Stoicism. 1 And now that 
immigration of Greek learned men begins, which, 
in time, assumed greater and greater proportions. 2 
Among the Eomans themselves, men who by 
their intellect and position were so decidedly 
pre-eminent as the younger Scipio Africanus, his 
friend the wise Laelius, L. Furius Philus and 
Tiberius Gracchus, took philosophic studies under 
their protection. 3 "With them are connected Scipio's 
nephew Tubero, 4 a disciple of Pansetius, who. 

while he himself calls his work 
pvvai Kal eiKaa-tat, and the lat- 
ter so decidedly preponderate, 
that our historical knowledge 
of the man is scarcely extended 
by the treatise. 

1 That Gracchus, through the 
care of his mother, had distin- 
guished Greeks for his instruc- 
tors (Cic. Brut. 27, 104 ; cf. 
Plut. Tib. GraecJi. 20) is well 

2 Polyhius (xxxii. 10), however, 
relates that much earlier, when 
Scipio was only eighteen (166 
B.C.), he said to him and his 
brother: repljub'y&pT&/ia(%uara, 
Trepl & vvy 6p> crvov'Sd^ovras vjj,as 
Kal <pL\ori/JLov/n,Vovs, OVK cbrop^o-ere 


Kal (rol Ka.KLV(f' 7TOA.T/ yap 
fyvKov cbrb TTJS e E,\\d$o$ 
&pu Kara rb irapbv T&V 
avOpdaircov, which agrees 
what is quoted sugra, p. 7, 
note 4. 

3 Cicero, De Orat. ii. 37, 154 : 
J^t oerte non tulit ullos Jicec 
cwitas aut gloria clariores, aut 
&uctoritate gramores, a/at Jiu- 
manitate politiores P. African, 
.C. L&liOi Z. FwrWj qui secum, 

eruditissimos homines ex Grcccia 
palam, semper kaftuerutit. De 
Rep. iii. 3, 5 : Quid P. Seijtwne, 
Quid C. Lcelio, quid Jj. Pliilo 
perfeetius cogitari potest ? qni 
. . . ad do?nesticum 'niajorumque 
tnorem etiam Jianc, a Socrate ad- 
v&nticiam doctrinam adMbue- 
runt. Cicero there puts the sub- 
stance of Carneades' discourse 
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 consmtudo contra- 
rias in paries disserendi ; loe,. 
cit. c. 5, 8 sq, ; Lact. Inst. v. 
14. Concerning the connection 
of Scipio and Lselius with 
PanEetius we shall have to 
speak later on. Laelius, ac- 
cording to Cic. Fiti. ii. 8, 24, 
had also attended the lectures 
of Diogenes, which we must, 
no doubt, connect with his 
presence in Home in the year 
156 B.C. 

4 Q. JSlius Tubero, through 
his mother a grandson of 
JEmilius Paulus, was a very 
zealous Stoic, who carried out 



with the sons-in-law of Laelius, Quintus Mucius 
Sesevola, 1 and Caius Fannius, 2 P. Kutilius Eufus, 3 
Lucius ./Elius Stilo, 4 and others/ open the long 


his principles in his life, not 
without exaggeration. Cf. con- 
cerning him Cic. Brut. SI, 117 ; 
De Or at. iii. 23, 8T ; Pro Mur. 
36, 75 s%. ; Acad. ii. 44, 135 ; 
Tusc. iv. 2, 4 ; Sen J^p. 95, 72 sgf. ; 
98, 13 ; 104, 21 ; 120, 19 ; Pint. 
Lucull. 89 ; Pompon. De Omg. 
Juris, i. 40 ; Gell. N. A. i. 22, 
7 : xiv. 2, 20 ; Yal. Max. vii 
5/1. Cic. Off. iii- 15, 63, men- 
tions a treatise of Hecato ad- 
dressed to him, and another of 
Pansetius, ibid. Acad. ii. 44, 
135 ; Tmo. iv. 2, 4 ; against 
which the pseudo-Plutarch, 2>e 
Nobilit. 18, 3, is not any his- 
torical testimony ; cf . Bernays, 
Dial. d. Arist. 140. 

1 One of the most celebrated 
of the ancient jurists and 
founders of scientific jurispru- 
dence among the Romans (Bern- 
hardy, GrTundr. d. Rom. Lit. 
676, &c.), son-in-law of Leelius 
(Cic. De Orat* i. 9, 35). Accord- 
ing to Cicero, he had heard 
Pansetius lecture, and (I. c. 10, 
43) he calls the Stoics Stoici 

2 C. Fannius, son of Marcus, 
son-in-law of Lselius, was 
brought by Lselius to hear 
Pansetius (Cic. Brut. 26, 101), 
and is designated by Cicero 
(Brut. 31, 18) as a Stoic. 
Cicero often mentions an his- 
torical work composed by him. 
Similarly Plut. Til. Graech. 4, 
With regard to his consulate, 
cf. id. C. Gracck. 8, 11, 12. 

3 This is the Rutilius who 
was famous for his services in 

war (Yal. Max. ii. 3, 2 ; Sallust, 
Jug. 54, 56 sg 1 .), but princi- 
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 Eoman 
equites, one of the most shame- 
less sentences of banishment 
was passed upon him, which he 
bore with the cheerfulness of a 
sage. He went to Smyrna, 
where he died, having refused 
to return, which was offered him 
by Sulla. Cf. on this subject 
Cic. Bvvt. 30, 115 ; ^T. D. iii. 
32, 80; in Pison. 39, 95; 
Rabir. Post. 10, 27 ; Pv& Balbo, 
11, 28 (cf. Tacit. Aim. iv. 43) ; 
Sen. Ep. 24, 4 ; 79, 14 ; 82, 11 ; 
Benef. vi. 37, 2, &c. ; Yal. 
Max. ii. 10, 5, &c. Cicero 
(Bviit. 30, 114) calls him doctus 
rir et Greeds literis eruditus, 
Pancetii auditor, j)rop& perfec- 
tiis in Stoic is. Concerning his 
admiration of his teacher 
Pansetius and his acquain- 
tance with Posidonius, cf. Cic. 
Off. iii. 2, 10. He left behind 
him. memorials and historical 
works : vide Bernhardy, Loc. cit 
203, 506 ; also Cicero, Fin. i. 

4 Vide concerning this phi- 
losopher, the predecessor and 
teacher of Yairo, Cic. Bnit. 56, 
205 sq. ; also Acad. i. 2, 8 ; Ad 
Herenn. iv. 12 ; Bernhardy, 
loo. tit. 857. 

5 Such as Marcus Yigellius 
(Cic. Qrat. iii. 21, 78) and Sp 


CHAP, series of Eoman Stoics. Epicureanism, at the 

J same time, obtained a still wider diffusion, having, 

through "books written in Latin, gained entrance 
at an earlier period than the other systems, even 
among those who had not received a Greek edu- 
cation. 1 Somewhat later the Academic and Peri- 
patetic schools, whose principles could not have 
remained unknown to the hearers of Panaetius, were 
represented by celebrated teachers in Eome. Among 
the Platonists Philo is the first whose presence in 
Eome is known to us (irrespective of the deputation 
of philosophers) ; of the Peripatetics, Staseas. 2 But 
already, at a much earlier period, Clitornachus had 
dedicated works to two Eomans ; 3 and Carneades 
himself, we are told, was sought out in Athens by 
Eoman travellers. 4 Soon after the beginning of 
the first century before Christ, Posidonius (vide 
infra) visited the metropolis of the world; before 
the middle of the same century we encounter there 

Mummiiis, brother of the con- s To the poet Lucilius (148- 

queror of Corinth, who, to judge 102 B.c), and previously to 

by the date (Cic. J3rut. 25, 94), L. Censorinus, who was consul 

must also have owed his Stoicism in 149 B.C.; Cic. Acad. ii. 32, 

to Pansetius. 102. 

1 Vide Cic. Fuse, iv. 3, 6: 4 So much truth may un- 
Itaque illius vercs eUgantisque derlie the statement of Cicero 
jphilosophiof (the Stoic, Peripa- (JDe Orat. iii. 18, 68) even 
teticj and Academic) . . . nulla supposing the statement itself 
fere sunt aut yoauca admodum to be untrue that Q. Metellus 
Latina monumenta . . . cum in- (Numidicus) as a young man 
termi illis silentibus C. Ama- listened to the aged Carneades 
finius extitit dicens, &c, for several days in Athens. 

2 Further details, infra. Respecting Catulus' relation to 
Philo came to Eome in 88 B.C. Carneades, cf. the last pages of 
Btaseas, as we find from Cic. the chapter on Carneades. Phil 
De Orat. i. 22, 104, appeared &. 6V. Part III. i 

there in 92 B.O. 


the Epicureans Philodemus and Syro. 1 Mean- CHAP, 

Awhile, it was already at this time very common for _____ 

^'' Roman youths to seek Greek science at its fountain- 

tjiead, and for the sake of their studies to betake 

^ themselves to the principal seats of that science, 

and especially to Athens, 2 At the commencement 

of the imperial era, at any rate, Rome 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 

Cicero a Roman literature sprang up at its side, 5 

1 Phil. d. Gr. Part IH. i. 374. of the time of Augustus and 

- The best known examples Tiberius, residing in Rome, will 

Xare those of Cicero andAtticus, come before us further on. 
rf^ but we shall meet with many 5 The most important of 

i Of others later on. For the gene- these was the ancient Greek 

ir ral practice, cf. Cic. Fin. v. 1, city Massilia, of which Strabo 

K where Cicero describes his own (iv. 1, 5, p. 181) says: irdvres 

life in Athens with companions ycc,p of x.apiwrss irpbs rb Xeyew 

in study (77 B.C.) ; and in re- Tpe'-nwrcu Kal fyiXoffo&fTw. An 

gard to a somewhat later time, early colony of Greek culture 

Aead. i. 2, 8, where he says to in Gaul, this city had now 

YaiTO : Sed meos amicos, in made such advances that noble 

quibus est stiidium, in Grcec-iam Eomans pursued their studies 

fi mitto, ut ea a fontibits potius here instead of in Athens. 
^ Jiawiant, qitam rivulos consec- 6 That these two were the 

Qr t&ntwr. first noteworthy writers on 

X* 8 The fact is notorious ; for philosophy in the Latin tongue 

examples cf. Strabo, xiv. 5, 15, is certain ; the few earlier at- 

p. 675. TccpcreW ykp Kal 'AXeaz/- tempts (cf. III. i. 372, 2) seem 

SpeW fj.ea'T'fj ear* [y *Pc6/Mj]. to have been very unsatisfac- 

4 Several Greek philosophers tory. Both, moreover, expressly 




of that 

which was scarcely inferior to the contemporary 
Greek, though not to be compared with the earlier, 
either in scientific acumen or creative individuality. 
At the beginning of this movement, the Eomans 
were related to the Greeks merely as disciples who 
adopted and imitated the science of their teachers ; 
and, to a certain degree, this relation continued 
throughout its whole course ; for in Eome the scien- 
tific genius and spirit never attained even to so 
much force and self-dependence as in Greece it had 
still preserved in the latter period. But in the end 
this influence of Greek philosophy could not remain 
without a reaction on itself. Though Eomans by 
birth, like Cicero and Lucretius, might rehabilitate 
Greek science for their countrymen ; and Greek 
philosophers, like Panaetius and Antiochus, might 
lecture to the Eomans, in both cases it was unavoid- 
able that the character of their presentations should 
be more or less determined by regard to the spirit 
and requirements of their Eoman hearers and readers. 
Even the purely Greek schools of philosophy in 
Athens, Ehodes, and other places, could not free them- 
selves from this determining influence, on account 
of the great number of young Eomans of position 
who visited them ; for it was naturally from these 

claim for themselves this 
honour, cf. Lucr. v. 336 : Hano 
(the Epicurean doctrine) pri- 
mus cum jprimis ipse repertus 
nwnc ego sum in putrias qui 
joossim vertere voces. Cic. Tune. 
i. 3, 5 : PMlosopMa jacuit 'usque 
ad 7ianc fetatem nee 

habuit lumen* liter amm Lati- 
narum , . . in- quo co magis 
nolis est elaborandwn, quod 
tnulti jam esse libri Latini di- 
cuntur scripti i/n consider cite ah 
optimis illls quidem vlris, sod 
non satis eruditis. 


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 Eoman spirit ; not merely 
upon the Romans who pursued philosophy, but also 
upon the Greek philosophers in the Eoman empire ; 
for, however great the superiority of Greek culture 
over Eoman, however complete the literary depen- 
dence of the conquerors upon the conquered, it was 
inevitable that Greece, too, should receive spiritual 
influence from her proud scholars, and that the 
astuteness and force of will to which, in spite of 
science, she had succumbed, should necessarily 
acquire considerable value as compared with that 
science in the eyes of the subjugated nations. It 
was consistent with the Eoman 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 life was perceptible in 
them. From this source sprang those prejudices 
against philosophy, which at first led even to magis- 
terial interposition. 1 The same point of view was 

1 Cf. on this subject what contents of their lectures, he 

Plutarch (Cato Maj. 22) relates advised should be sent away as 

of Cato's behaviour to the em- quickly as possible. Also id. 

bassy of philosophers as to ap. Gell. xviii. 7, 3 ; Nepos ap. 

whom he feared from the outset Lactant. iiL 15, 10 ; and the 

fji^j -rb <f>t\6TL[jt,oi/ evravda rptyav- edict of the censors quoted 

res ot v4oL rfy eirl T$ Xeyeiv supra, p 7, note 4 3 which cen- 

86av ayaTT'ficr'&a'i paKkov TTJS airb sures the rhetorical schools : ibi 

r&v epycav Kal T&V ffTparetuv, and homines adolescentulos totos dies 

whom, after he had heard the desidere* To the Eoman states- 


CHAP, also, however, maintained even in the pursuit and 
___!_ study of philosophy. So far as philosophy was con- 
cerned merely with scientific questions, it could 
scarcely be regarded as anything more than a re- 
spectable recreation ; it only attained to more 
serious value in the eyes of the Eoman, inasmuch 
as it proved itself an instrument of practical educa- 
tion. The strengthening of moral principles and 
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 
logical development of a philosophic system ; that 
which alone, or almost alone, concerned him was its 
practical utility ; the strife of schools, he thought, 
turned mostly on non-essential things, and he him- 
self could not therefore hesitate to select from the 
various systems, careless of the deeper interconnec- 
tion of particular definitions, that which seemed to him 
serviceable. The proconsul Grellius, 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, 1 expressed 
the truly Eoman conception of philosophy, though 
somewhat too candidly. Though the influence of 
this standpoint would doubtless have affected Greek 

man and soldier philosophy * Cic. L&gg. i. 20, 53. Gellius 

must naturally have appeared was consul in 682 A.u.O. = 72 ' 

even greater waste of time B.C. Vide Clinton, Fasti H&llen. 

than rhetoric. for that year. 


philosophy very little had it been exerted at an CEAP. 
earlier period, it was quite otherwise when philo- '_ 

sophy had itself taken the direction which especi- 
ally corresponded with the Eoman nature. When 
the internal condition of the philosophic schools, 
and especially the last important phenomenon in this 
sphere the doctrine of Carneades already led to 
eclecticism, it must necessarily have developed itself 
only the more speedily and successfully through the 
concurrence of internal motives with external in- 

But although this eclecticism primarily appears B. 
merely as the product of historical relations, which L '' l f l 

J L ' cliaractcr 

rather conduced to the external connection than to of edeet'w 
the internal harmonising of different standpoints, it 
is not wholly without a characteristic principle, 
which till then had 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 
all were agreed; for the eclectics would then have 
been limited to a very few propositions of indefinite 
universality. But even the practical utility of 
theories could not be considered as the final mark 
of their truth ; for the practical problem of mankind, 
and the way of its solution was itself a main object 
of the strife ; the question was therefore, by what 
standard 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 


CHAP, out of the various systems that which is true for his 

v J 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 man in his 
self-consciousness ; and it is'precisely 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- 
ledge in the strict sense of the term ; for the re- 
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- 
tific thoughts, are derived merely in a natural manner 
from experience. Knowledge here also has to de- 
velop itself from experience, and is attained and 
conditioned by intercourse with things. This attain- 
ment of knowledge was first denied by scepticism, 
which declared the relation of our conceptions to 
the things conceived to be unknowable, and made 
al] our convictions exclusively dependent upon sub- 
jective bases. But if in this way, not a knowledge 
of the truth, but only belief in probability can be 
established, this belief takes the place of knowledge 



in him. who has despaired of knowledge : 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 
enquiry ; and this, as we shall find in Cicero and 
others, is the last foot-hold in the eclectic fluctua- 
tion among the various theories. 1 Now, we can 
ascribe, it is true, to this principle of immediate 
knowledge only a very limited value. What it main- 
tains is at bottom merely this : that the final decision 
concerning the questions of philosophy belongs to 
unphilosophic consciousness ; and though the uni- 
versal thought that every truth has to approve itself 
to human self-consciousness is 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 it presents one aspect which is not with- 

1 The eclecticism of the last not be regarded, any more than 

century B.C. stands in this the Scottish philosophy, as a 

respect to the preceding scepti- mere reaction of dogmatism 

cism in a similar relation to against doubt, hut it is, like 

that which in modern times the Scottish philosophy, itself 

the philosophy of the Scottish a product of doubt, 
school bore to Hume ; it can- 

c 2 


CHAP, out importance for the further course of philosophic 
T ' development. As the interior of man is regarded as 
the place where the knowledge of the most essential 
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 given : and though this higher knowledge 
is something actual, a fact of inner experience 
though this rationalism, so far, again resolves itself 
into the empiricism of direct consciousness, yet it is 
no longer the mere perception from which all truth is 
derived. This appeal to the immediately certain may ? 
therefore, be regarded as a reaction against the sen- 
sualistic empiricism of the preceding systems. But 
because it does not go beyond the internally given, 
as such, and is nevertheless wanting in any deeper 
scientific establishment and development, philosophic 
convictions are not recognised actually in their origin 
from the hnman mind, but appear as something be- 
stowed on man by a power standing above him ; and 
thus innate knowledge forms the transition to that 
form of philosophy which only goes back to self-con- 
sciousness, in order to receive in it the revelation of 
God. How the belief in external revelations and the 
leaning of philosophy to positive religion are allied 
to this, will be shown later on ; at present it is 
enough to remark that, as a matter of fact, in a 
Plutarch, an Apuleius, a Maximus, a Numenius, and 
generally among the Platonists of the first two 
centuries after Christ, eclecticism and the philosophy 
of revelation went hand in hand. 


But as eclecticism in this aspect bore within it CHAP. 

the germ of the mode of thought which so powerfully __. "__ 

developed itself subsequently in Neo-Platonism ; i. Edec- 
from another point of view it also contained the ^"^'tfo 
scepticism, to which in great part it owed its own germs of 
origin. For that dissatisfaction which will not allow 
thought to be at peace in any definite system, has 
its ultimate basis in this : that it has not fully over- 
come doubt in the truth of dogmatic systems, 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 
one of the causes which have conditioned the 
development of eclecticism; eclecticism has it 
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 so 
devoid of principle, the less was it to be expected that 
it should be for ever silenced. If the truth which 
could be found in no individual system was to be 
gleaned out of all systems, it required only moderate 
attention to perceive that the fragments of various 
systems would not allow themselves to be so directly 
united that eaxsh. philosophical proposition has its 
definite meaning only in its interconnection with 


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

_ propositions from different systems, like the systems 

themselves, mutually exclude one another : that 
the contradiction of opposite theories annuls their 
authority, and that the attempt to make a basis out 
of the harmonising propositions of the philosophers^ 
as recognised truth, is wrecked on the fact of their 
disagreement. Therefore after the scepticism of the 
Academy had been extinguished in the eclecticism 
of the first century before Christ, doubt arose anew 
in the school of JEnesidemus to lose itself only in the 
third century, simultaneously with all other theories, 
in Neo-Platonism ; and no argument has greater 
weight with these new sceptics than that which the 
precedent of eclecticism readily furnished to them : 
the impossibility of knowledge is shown by the 
contradiction of the systems of philosophy; the 
pretended harmony of these systems has resolved 
itself into the perception of their mutual incom- 

ii. And of Justifiable, however, as the renewal of scepticism 
imtm"' a PP ears i n 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 
new academy, The exhaustion of thought which 
can be shown even in this later scepticism, made a 
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 


the independent production of a new system ; the CHAP. 
general result was only that thought began to long * _ 
more and more for a source of knowledge lying 
outside itself and science as hitherto existing ; 
which was sought partly in the inner revelation of 
the Deity and partly in religious tradition. Thus 
the way was entered upon, which Neo-Platonisrn 
in the next period more definitely pursued, and so 
opened the last epoch of Greek philosophy. 





I. Eclec- 
ticism in 
tJte two 



A. Tlie 

of tJie 
later Epi- 
cureans to 

OF the schools of philosophy which had still main- 
tained themselves on the theatre of history up to 
the middle of the second century before Christ, that 
of the Epicureans was, to all appearance, least affected 
by the scientific movement of the time. Though 
its 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 v manner. We 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 
system perhaps was further developed or modified in 
certain subordinate points by one and another of its 
adherents, and that alien doctrines may have been 
more thoroughly investigated by them than by 
Epicurus" himself. But when we have followed up 
all the traces which might seem to indicate that 
individual disciples of Epicurus had departed, either 
formally or materially, from their master, 1 the sum 

1 A collection and examina- which we cannot but acknow- 
tion of these the value of ledge, though we may not 


total of such departures which, can be historically CHAP. 

proved is so inconsiderable that the well-known j L 

judgments of Seneca and Numenius concerning the 
orthodoxy of the Epicureans 1 scarcely suffers any 
limitation from them. We learn from Cicero 2 that 
the theory of Epicurus was not seldom conceived by 
his Eoman compatriots as if he had ascribed an 
independent value to intellectual culture and to 
virtue ; but Cicero himself adds, that this opinion is 
to be found in no scientific representative of the 
Epicurean philosophy. 3 He tells us of some Epi- 
cureans of his time who separated themselves from 
Epicurus 4 by their theory of a disinterested love to 
friends. It is doubtful, however, whether this 
should be regarded as a radical deviation from the 
Eudaemonism of Epicurus ; the statement in ques- 
tion only asserts that friends may be loved for their 
own sake, even when they bring us no advantage ; 5 
but this does not exclude the idea that love to them 
is based upon the pleasure secured by intercourse 

agree with, all the inferences these 'later philosophers' to 

and conjectures deduced from be Siro and Philodemus ; but 

them has been undertaken by though this idea is not improb- 

Hirzel, Tfntermehungen zu Cio. able in itself, it cannot be ascer- 

i. 165-190, in connection with taioed whether it has any foun- 

Diining, De Metrodori vita et dation. 

scriptis, p. 18 sgq. 5 Cic. Fin. L 20, 69, thus ex- 

1 Phil. (Lev 6fr. III. i. p. 379, 4. presses it : Primos conyressus 

2 Fin. i. 7, 25; 17, 55; cf. (and so forth) fieri propter 
Phil, der Gr. III. i. 4:45, 2. wlwptat&m,, cum autem itsus 

3 Quos quidem (he makes yrogrediens famiMaritatem effe- 
Torquatus, i. 17, 55, observe cerit, turn amorem efflorescere 
respecting them) video esse tantitm, lit, etiam si milla sit 
multos sed iniperitos. utilitas ex amidtia, tamen ipsi 

4 Phil, der Qr, III. i. 460, 2. amioi propter se ipsos amentw. 
Hirzel, loc. cit. 170 s#., supposes 



with them. 1 Such a difference cannot be considered 
of much, importance. Nor are we justified in 
ascribing an alteration of the Epicurean theology 
to Philodemus, though he may, perhaps, have carried 
it further in certain particulars than Epicurus him- 
self: 2 and though many deviations from pure 
Epicureanism are perceptible 3 in Lucretius, on 
closer inspection they will be found to refer to traits 
which merely concern the form of the poetic pre- 
sentation, but do not affect the scientific theories. 4 

1 In the amare gropter se 
ijjsos, as opposed to the love 
because of utility, there lies 
nothing more than the con- 
ception of an affection based 
upon delight in the person of a 
friend, and not merely on a 
calculation of benefits. But 
such an affection can also be 
based on the motive of plea- 
sure. To this only the further 
argument can be applied : 
J&tenim, si loca,sifana, si wbes, 
si gymnasia, si campum, si 
canes, si dc[iws ludicra, escercendi 
ant venavidi con&uetudine ad- 
amare soleniiis, quanto id in 
Jiomimtm consMetudine facilius 
jieri potuerit etjustius ! 

8 Phil, der 6V. III. i. 435, 1. 

3 Hitter, iv. 89-106. 

4 Kitter thinks (p. 94) 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 
to have permitted. Nature is 
conceived by Lucretius as a 
Unity, which rules absolutely 

over all. The sun is described 
as 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 *#.) 
This last, however, according 
to v. 122 sqg., cannot be his" 
own opinion. What he really 
says is only the same that 
Epicurus (ap. Diog. x. 112) also 
expresses in one of his hypo- 
thetical explanations of Nature 
with reference to earlier theories 
(Phil, der Gr. 1. 245). Concern- 
ing^the remaining points, Bitter 
himself remarks that the de- 
scriptions of the poet can only 
be intended figuratively; and 
this is the case with the pas- 
sages which perhaps would be 
most surprisiDg to an Epicurean 
(v. 534 s^.)> where Lucretius 
defends the Epicurean theory 
that the earth is borne up by 
the air (Diog. x, 74) with the 
observation that the air is not 
oppressed by the earth, because 
the earth was originally of one 
piece with it, just as the weight 


The same may be said of other philosophers among CHAP. 
the later Epicureans concerning whom tradition has __ __ 
told us something. It may be that Zeno of Sidon 
appropriated to himself in the school of Carneades l 
a more dialectic method, a mode of argument going 
more acutely and thoroughly into details than we 
find in Epicurus ; 2 or that Apollodorus 3 was superior 
to Epicurus in historical knowledge and interest ; 4 

of our limbs is no burden to 
us. Though this strongly re- 
minds us of the Stoic sympathy 
of the universe, Lucretius will 
have nothing to do with that 
theory, and consequently desig- 
nates the parts of the world 
only as quasi mewibra. 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 
sqq.} is Epicurean; and if, on 
the other hand, Lucretius is 
distinguished from Epicurus by 
maintaining more firmly the 
conformity to law of natural 
phenomena (Bitter, 97), we 
hav already heard (PML der 
6V. III. i. 397, 1) the explana- 
tion of Epicurus, which is con- 
firmed by his whole system, 
that unconditional necessity 
rules In universal causes, if 
even individual phenomena 
admit of various constructions. 
That Lucretius (ii. 333 &?#.)> 

departing from Epicurus, as- 
sumes as many original figures 
of the atoms as there are atoms 
(Bitter, p. 101) is decidedly a 
misapprehension, expressly con- 
tradicted by the passage ii. 
478 sqq. (which Bitter 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 Bitter, p. 104 s$. 
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 Of. I. e. III. i. S7S, 2. 

2 As Hirzel conjectures, loc. 
cit. 176 s^., appealing to 
Cicero, Fin. i. 9, 31 ; Tusc. Hi. 
17, 38 ; N,D. i. 18, 46 s#. 

8 The KvjTrorvpavvos discussed 
in Phil, der Gr. III. i. 373. 

4 Hirzel, 183 s^who asserts, 
in support of this, that Apol- 
lodorus (according to Biog. viL 
181 ; x. 13) had composed a 
crvvaytoyfy SoyjudTew*, and perhaps 
had justified in it the judg- 
ment of Epicurus on Leucippua 
(Phil, der Gr. I, 842, 6). 



we also find Demetrius meeting an objection of 
Cameades with an answer which leads us to suppose 
that this Epicurean had gained in logical training 
through the dialectic of the Academy. 1 But that 
either of these philosophers in any definition of 
doctrine materially diverged from the doctrine of 
their master is not 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 
as more than isolated offshoots of the school, or to 
argue from their appearance any deeply seated dis- 
agreements within it, or any change in its general 
character. 2 

3 In the exposition (men- 
tioned in Part in. L 371, 4) ap. 
Sext NatTi. viii. 348, where he 
maintains, in opposition to the 
statement about argumentation 
discussed at p. 504, and in har- 
mony with the distinction of 
yevLKT] and e2?u/C7) owoiis, that 
whenever a valid separate proof 
is adduced, the admissibility of 
the argument is at once shown. 
To him also, perhaps, belongs 
what is quoted by Sextus, viii. 
330 ; in any case it shows what 
influence the objections of Car- 
neades had made even upon the 

2 The words in Diog. x. 25 pro- 
ceed thus: (after the enumeration 
of several immediate disciples 
of Epicurus) KCU OI>TOI ^kv e\\6yi- 

Kal 6 tevK6s. Z'fji/cav 6* 6 

5i5e'aro A.LOVUCTLOS, %v BatnAet 8775-. 
Mai i A.iroXX6^ct}pos $' 6 KyTrortipav- 
yos yeyovev eAA^yiyUOS, tts virep ra 
T<ETpaK6ffia ffuysypafye fii&Aia,' dvo 

6 eVz/cArffisis AaKow, Aioye^s 0' 6 
Tapcreiis 6 ras exiAe/crovs 1 crxoAas 
crvyypd^/as, Kal 'Qploov Kal a\\OL 
ots oi yvficriOL 'ETTLKotipeioi cro<J!>icr- 
ras aTTO/caAoiJcriv. Hirzel (lew. 
cit. 180 sqq.) believes that 
those named Sophists by the 
true Epicureans must include 
all the men here men- 
tioned, from Apollodorus on- 
wards, and therefore Apol- 
lodorus himself, the two Ptole- 
msei, Zeno of Sidon, &c. But 
this is very improbable, even 
from the mode of expression, 
Had such been the meaning of 
the writer, he must at least 
have said : irdvras 8e rovrovs ol 
yvficrioi, 'EiriKovpeioi ffQfyicrr&s airo- 
KaXovtriv ; and if he wished to 
express himself clearly even 
this would have been insuffi- 


The famous physician, Asclepiades of Bithynia, 1 
stands in another relation to the Epicurean school, 
He is not expressly enumerated among its members 
by any of the authors who mention him, but his 
theories would certainly lead us to suppose that he 
had some connection with the school. He is at one 


cient. He must have written : 
rby 5 e *A.iro\\6$capojf /ecu rovs per 
avrbjs ot yvfjcriOL 'ETHKroiJpeioi 
ffofyLcrras a.iroK.a\ov(nv. As it is, 
we can only refer the words 
ovs cbro/mA-outru/ either to the 
&XX.OL alone, or to the aAAoi and 
the names immediately pre- 
ceding them, Orion and Bio- 
genes. Diogenes may in this 
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 
Stoic Zeno. But the positive 
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, whom he himself calls 
\\6yifj.QL as men who were 
named Sophists by the genuine 
Epicureans, and consequently 
members of the school who had 
become unfaithful to its true 
spirit. How is this conceivable ? 
As eAA^iaoi, he had previously 
mentioned Metrodorus, Her- 
marchus, Polysenus, &c. in a 
word, the most loyal disciples 

of Epicurus; and is it likely 
that he would immediately 
after apply the same predicate 
to those who were not acknow- 
ledged by the genuine Epicu- 
reans as belonging to their 
number ? This is in itself very 
improbable, but the improb- 
ability becomes greater still 
when we find that among these 
Sophists are two of the most 
distinguished leaders, Apol- 
lodorus and Zeno. Hirzel has 
just before (p. 170) shown that 
ooly Epicureans of the purest 
type were selected as overseers 
of the school ; and we can all 
the less concede to him that an 
Apollodorus anda Zeno the for- 
mer, as his designation proves, 
a highly- esteemed head of the 
school ; the latter regarded by 
Cicero and Plrilodemus as one 
of the first Epicurean authori- 
ties could have been, in the 
judgment of the yvficrioi only 
pseudo-Epicurean Sophists. 

1 This physician, whose theo- 
ries are constantly mentioned 
in the Placita, ascribed to Plu- 
tarch, and in the writings of 
Galen, is counted by the pseudo- 
Galen, Isag. c. 4, vol. xiv. 683 K, 
as one of the leaders of the 
logical school of physicians. 
According to Sext. MatJi. vii. 
20 &?., ne was a contemporary 
of Antiochus of Ascalon. Vide 
p. 30, note 1. 

jriades the 
n'>t an 
but shows 
with the 



with the Epicurean sensualism l in his statement 
that the sensible perception gives a true image of 
the thing perceived, but that reason, on the con- 
trary, is not an independent source of knowledge, 
borrows all its content from perception, and has 
to be verified by perception. 2 In connection with 
this he found reason superfluous, 3 as an integral part 
of the soul, herein going beyond Epicurus : the 
soul, he said, was only the whole compounded of 
all the senses collectively ; 4 to which he gave as 

1 Sext. Math. vii. 201. That 
there were also some who de- 
clared sensations to be the 
criterion of truth, Antiochus 
shows in these words : &\\os 5e 
vis tv ry larpiKri fJ.ev ovdzybs 
fievrepos, a-TrrSfM^vos 5e KOI <>zAo- 
<ro(f)ias, eireiQero ras fJ.ev cucrfl^creis 
ovrcas KOI aA7j0<Ss ayriA^eis etvcu, 

\6ycp Se 

AayujSaz/e**'. Here Asclepiades the 
contemporary of Antiochus can 
alone be referred to. 

2 This and nothing else can 
be the real opinion of Ascle- 
piades, on which the statement, 

is based, for he, like Epicurus, 
denominated his atoms patrol, 
X6ycp eewpyrol (infra, p. 31 n. 5), 
and also believed in an intellec- 
tual knowledge of the hidden 
by means of inferences from the 
perceived. "Vide infra, note 4. 

3 Sext. Math. vii. 202 : 'AcrK\vj- 
TTidSrjv rbv larpbv . . . avatpovvra 
pet? rb 7]yefj.oviK6v. Ibid. 380, 
he says : ou<Je 0Ao>s virdpx*iv n 
v)j/jLoviK6y. Tert. De an. 15 : 
Messenius aliquis Dictzarcktis, 
ex m edicts autem Andreas et 
Ascleyiades ita abstulerunt 

principale, dum in animo ipso 
Tolunt esse sensus,> quorum mn- 
dicatur principals, in favour of 
which Asclepiades argues that 
many animals live for a time 
without head or heart (the two 
parts regarded as seats of the 
5iyeij.ovLK6v}. See next note. 

4 This conception results 
from the passage in Tertullian, 
which therefore compares Ascle- 
piades with Dicasarchus ; and 
still more distinctly from Gal. 
Aurel. De Mori), aciut. i. 14 
(quoted by Fabric, on Sext. 
Math. vii. 380) : Asclepiacles 
regmim animcs aliqua parte con- 
stitutum (a TjyejAoviKdv dwelling 
in a definite part of the body) 
negat. JEtenim niJiil aliud esse 
'dieit animam quam sensmtm 
omnium costum : intellectual 
autem occitltarum vel latentium 
rerum per soluUlem fieri motum 
sensuitm, qui ab accidentifa(s 
sensilili'bus atque awtecedenti 
perspectioneperfcitur m emoriam 
i:ero alterno eorum exerdtio 
Plut. Plao. iv. 2, 8 (Stob. Eel. i. 
496) expresses the same in the 
following words : 'Acr/cA. 6 tarpbs 


substratum the Trvev/jia consisting of light and CHAP. 
round particles. 1 He also traced the activities of __ IJ " 
memory and intellect to movements in the organs 
of sense. 2 If lastly the atomistic theory of Ascle- 
piades 3 is primarily allied to that of Heraclides of 
Pontus, 4 it is not to be supposed that he arrived at 
this theory without the tradition of the atomistic 
system which was still living in the Epicurean school. 
The primary constituents of all things he held to be 
small bodies 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 num- 
berless parts, of which sensibly perceptible things 
consist. 5 But even in compound bodies their cease- 

vao-iav r>v alffO^arecav, whether from, a complex of motions, cer- 

the crvyyvfj.vacria. may mean tain motions detach themselves, 

practice,' or 'common practice, and that through these arise 

work done together,' or whether abstract presentations. 
in a sense otherwise not de- 3 On this subject cf. Lass- 

monstrable, corresponding with witz, who discusses it in his 

cactus, it may denote a society treatise on Daniel Bennett, 

of <rvyyvfjiva,6iLvoi. p. 425 sq. {VierteljaJtrscJir. fur 

1 Chalcid. in Tim. 213 : Aut wissensch. PMlos. iii. 408 sqq.}, 
eniwi moles (J&yKoi, vide infra) for this German restorer of the 
guceda/m sunt leves et globo&ce atomistic philosophy (he died 
ecBcLemqiie admodimi delicate ex in 1637) allied himself chiefly 
quibus anima sufisistit, quod, with Asclepiades. 

totum spirttm est, ut Ascle- 4 PMl. d. GT. ii. i. 886 sq. 
ypiadtis putat, &c. On the 5 The most complete account 

analogous, though somewhat of this theory is given by Cgel. 

different definitions of Epicu- Aurel. loo. cit. : Primordia cor- 

rus and Democritus, cf . PMl. de-r poris primo wnstituerat atomus 

Gr. III. i. 418 ; also I. 808. (this is inaccurate ; he did not 

2 His exact conception of call them so for the reason that 
this is not clear from the pass- they are not indivisible) cor- 
age of Cselius Aurelius quoted pmcula intellects setwa, sine 
in note 4, p. 30. The solubilis ulla qualitate solita (without 
motus points to the idea that colour, and so forth) atque ex 


CHAP, less motion continues, so that nothing in any section 
__^1 _ of time, even the smallest, remains unchanged. 1 If 

initio comitata (?) aeternum se 
moventia qua suo iimmu offensa 
mutuis ictil)us in infimta par- 
tium fragment solvantur mag- 
nitud'me atqiie scJwmate differ- 
entia, quce rursiim eundo sibi 
adjeeta vel conjunct omnia 
faoiant sensiMlia, vim in semet 
niutationis Jiabentia autper wiag- 
mtudincm sui met per nudtitu- 
dinem ant per schema aut per 
ordinem. Nec> ingulf, ratione ca- 
rere videtur quod mdliusfaGiant 
quiditatis corpora (that being 
without quality, generate bodies 
of definite quality) ; silver is 
white, whereas that which is 
rubbed off from it is black ; 
the goat's horn is black, the 
sawdust of it white. These 
primeval bodies Asclepiadesjike 
Heracleitus, called ampftoi oywi 
(of. the passages quoted, Phil, 
der Gr. II i. 886, 3 ; where, how- 
ever, in Eus. Par. ev. xiv. 23, 3, 
instead of <u,ey bvofj.d.craj'TGS, /*ero- 
vofj.d<ravres is to be read, accord- 
ing to Diels, jDoxogr. 252, 2). 
I previously understood the ex- 
pression as applying to bodies 
not joined together i.e., not 
divisible ; but I must concede 
to Lasswitz that the primitive 
atoms of Asclepiades are not 
this. The interpretations loclte)\ 
f loose' (therefore capable of 
separation), and imgeordnet, 
e unordered,' seem to me, how- 
ever, 'in point of language, ques- 
tionable. I should, therefore, 
prefer to give to &vapfj>os the 
signification, * not combined 
with one another ' (so that each 
oyvos is separated from the 
other and moves itself for 

itself). That these 07*0* (as 
Epicurus had said of the atoms) 
are \6y<y deuprjrol and 5i* alcoves 
avnp[j.r)Toi, we are told by Sext. 
Math. Hi. 5. He also speaks 
(viii. 220) of vorjrol UJKOL and 
VOTITO. apatcapara. What Caelius 
Aurel. says of the shattering of 
the atoms receives confirmation 
from the words quoted by Lass- 
witz (p. 426) from the pseudo- 
Galen, Introd. c. 9, vol. xiv. 
698 7(5 : Kara e -r'by ^AffKXrjTTid^T]^ 
(TroL-^ela avQptairov tiyicoi Qpavtrrol 
Kal TTopoi; and from Stob.JSbZ. i. 
350, according to which the pre- 
decessor of Asclepiades (Hera- 
elides) declared Opada-para, to be 
the smallest bodies (the theories 
also ascribed to Heracleitus 
in the foregoing, and in the 
Placita, i. 13, 2 cf. ^y/xarxa 
TLVCL eAaxzcrra Kal a t uep7) seem y 
however, originally to belong 
to Heraclides). This divisibility 
of the OJKOL is referred to when 
Sextus (Math. x. 318) observes 
that Democritus and Epicurus 
represent things as arising <=| 
avo^oLcoy (i,e. TQLS yzwojfjLGVQis*) 
re Kal axraQcav. Heraclides and 
Asclepiades, on the contrary, 
< avo{JLQitov yuev TraBrjrSiy Se KaQd- 
irep r&v aydpju.(ay oytttav. The 

Trdpot., which are side by side 
with the oyKoi, and have the 
same significance as the void 
beside the atoms, are also men- 
tioned by Galen, Theriac. ad. 
Pis. c. 11, vol. xiv. 250 K. 

1 Sext. Math. viii. 7. Plato 
ascribes true Being to the not- 
sensible alone, because sensible 
things are always in a state of 


these theories had been attributed to an acknow- CHAP, 
ledged member of the Epicurean school, they would IL 
no doubt contain a noteworthy departure from the 
doctrine of the master, but as Asclepiades is not 
described as an Epicurean, they only show in one 
individual case what seems in itself natural and 
probable, viz., that the influence of Epicureanism, as 
of other systems, was not strictly confined within 
the limits of the school. 

Trjs Qvtr'ias, Sxrre Tavrb [&% 5uo r^jv o^vrTjra rrjs pays (on account 

TOUS eAa^icrrous" xp6vovs imo^v^iv of tlie swiftness of tlie flow 

^77^6 sTTLdexecrdaL, KaQdirep \eje nothing can sliow itself twice), 
Ka.rA.fftth.7j7r idfi 7]$, 5vo eTriSei^eiS 5xa 




CHAP. AMONG the remaining schools of philosophy, that of 
the Stoics was the first which, in partial divergence 

B. TJie from its older teachers, admitted foreign elements. 

Stoics. This occurred, however, subsequently to a still more 
considerable extent in the Academy /which, from the 
first century before Christ, was the chief seat of 
eclecticism. The Peripatetics seem, on the whole, 
to have preserved the tradition of their school in 
greater purity ; but we shall find that some, even 
among them, were inclined towards an eclectic 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, Pansetius, 
and Posidonius. 

Supposed Already at the beginning of the second century 

vaciUfi- ,~> p. /-XT ,-, m . 

tionofthe tjie successor of Cnrysippus, Zeno of Tarsus, is said 

to have been perplexed as to one of the distinctive 
ipjrus doctrines of his school the doctrine of the destruc- 

tion of tlie world so that ne left the question of 
its truth undecided : * and similarly, after him 

tion of the J ? 

icorld. l Numen. ap. Eus. Pr. ev. xv. of the conflagration of the 

18, 2. Zeno, Cleanthes, and world : rbv p.(-v yhp TOVTO 
Chrysippns taught the doctrine r^v Kal SidSoxov rtj$ 


Diogenes of Seleucia in his later years became CHAP. 
doubtful about this dogma, which he had previously __ IIL 
defended. 1 Neither of these statements, however, 
is satisfactorily attested ; 2 though the thing is pos- 
sible in itself, and we can easily explain it, especially 
in the case of Diogenes, if the objections of his 
disciples against the conflagration of the world had 
embarrassed him and caused him to refrain from 
expressing any decided opinion on the subject. As 
to Boethus, 3 we know that he not only openly re- BoWtus. 
nounced the Stoic tradition on this point, but on 
other and 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 nis dvria 
in his doctrines concerning the theory of knowledge : ^^ TOW 
for if he described Eeason (z/os) and Desire as Stoicism. 
criteria 4 side by side with Perception and Science, 
he not only set up the Aristotelian kTrwrripr) in the 
place of the Stoic TrpoKrityisf but added to it and to 
Perception two other independent sources of know- 
ledge, the recognition of which was not consistent 

Zyvctiva (pacriv ^Tncf^lv Trepl rrjs regard to Zeno of Tarsus, the 

eKTrvpcixreajs r&v $\&v. otherwise well-instructed au- 

1 Ps.-Philo. JEtern. m. c. 15, thor of the Philonic treatise can- 
p. 248 Bern. : \tyerai 5e Kal not have been acquainted with 
Atoysvns yviKa. veos %v o-vvt-jri' any divergence of his from the 
ypa^d^evos rip SSyparL ri)s eKirvp- school, or he would not have 
dxrevs tye rris fanc'ias v$oiOL<ras omitted to appeal to him. 
eVt^xeTv. 3 Concerning whom cf. Pliil. 

2 Neither of the witnesses <#. G-r. III. i. 46, 1. 
speaks from his own knowledge, 4 Ibid. III. i. 71, 1 ; 84, 1. 
as they themselves tell us. We 5 Tbid. III. i. 74 ; 84 sg. ; and 
know not, therefore, on what concerning brurrfmij, Hid. II. li. 
their assertions are based. In 650. 

D 2 



with the Stoic empiricisn^ though it perfectly 
harmonised with the Peripatetic doctrine. 1 

But the attitude of Boethus to the Stoic theology 
is still more antagonistic. For although he held, 
with others, that (rod was an ethereal substance, 2 
he would not admit that He dwelt in the world as 
its sonl; and he consequently refused to describe 
the world as a living being ; 3 he rather assigned the 
abode -of the Deity to the highest sphere, and re- 
presented Him as working from thence upon the 
universe. 4 As to the reasons which determined the 

1 In respect to vovs this Is 
sLown in Phil d. 6fr. II. ii. 190 
sqq. Aristotle nowhere, indeed, 
describes the upej-ts as a source of 
presentations or cognitions ; 
but he 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 
to be good (La. 582, 3 ; 586, 2 ; 
631, 2 ; 653 ; cf. Mh. JV". i. 7 ; 
1098, ~b, 3). 

2 Stob. Mel. i. 60 : Ed^Qos rbv 
aldepa Qebv aire^yaro. In his 

opinion of the soul also he 
remained faithful to the Stoic 

3 Diog. vii. 143. The Stoics 
declare the world ' to be 
living and animate : Bo^fos 
$t](nv OVK *Tj>cu &o 

Philo, JEtern. m. c. 16, p. 
Bern. : fyvxfy e rov 
K'ara r'obs a v r i Zo |o vi/ras 
6 Bets if these words belong to 
the excerpt from Boethus, which 
now appears to me most pro- 
bable, at least according to the 

4 Diog. vii. 148 : HOTI&OS Se 3v 
*f-ri Trepl Overseas ovtriav deov rfyv 
Ttov cLirX&.vS)v crQcfipay, which is to 
be understood in the same way 
as the corresponding definitions 
of other Stoics (Phil, d, Gr. III. 
i. 137, 1, 2), the ^^oviKlv of the 
world is said to have its seat in 
the purest part of the ether. 
This would not necessarily ex- 
clude the ancient Stoic doctrine 
that It spreads itself from 
thence through all the^ parts of 
the world. But in that case 
the world would be a living 
creature and the Deity its soul", 
which Boethus did not allow. 
But if this conception be re- 
jected, there remains only a 
motion of the world from with- 
out, and so far the extract 
given by Philo (I c.) corre- 
sponds with the view of out 

Stoic : 



real KvBepj/'firov 
i Kal 

iraj/ra, ri\ie^ re Kal creK^vr), &c. 
irapiarrdfjisyos Kal (TvvSpwv floret, 


philosopher to this rejection of Stoic pantheism, CHAP. 
tradition tells us nothing: the decisive cause must _.__!_. 
no doubt have lain in the fear of imperilling the 
sublimity and unchangeableness of Grod, if He were, 
according to His substance, connected with the 
world. In these theories Boethus, in opposition to 
his school, agreed with Aristotle, but he essentially 
differs from him both in his materialism., and in the 
opinion that God not only directs and guides the *> 
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. 3 Boethus is therefore seeking a middle course 
between the pantheism of the Stqics and the theism 
of Aristotle; like that which was subsequently 
attempted from the Peripatetic side in the Book of 
the Universe. 92 

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- 
trine, 3 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 it. 
The second seeks to prove, not altogether conclusively, 
that of all the different kinds of destruction 4 none 

Trpbs rfyv rov fiXov <5tafj.ov$]v Kal a According to Ps.-Philo, I.e. 

TV HOLT opeby X6yov avvirainov c. 16 sg., p. 249-253, Bern. (952, 

SLolK-riffiv. 0. *#. H., 503 *$. M.). 

1 jjXlca re Kal ffeX-fivr) Kal rots * Kara. $Laipe<riv, Kar& avcdpscriv 

&\Xots vhdvijcrt Kal airXavtffiv, %ri rys eTre^oi/crsjs irotdTTjTOS (as ill 

8* aepi Kal rots fjiepecrt rov K6crp.ov the destruction of a figure), 

-jrapicrrd/jievQs Kal crvvSpcav (Philo, Kara (rvyxycrw (chemical mix- 

loc. eit.}. ture, of. PML cL Gr. III. i. 127, 

* Vide infra, chapter v, 1). 


CHAP, could be applicable to the world. 1 The third main- 
TIL _ tains that after the destruction of the world the Deity 
would have no object for his activity, and must con- 
sequently sink into inaction ; nay, if the Deity be 
the world-soul, he must himself be destroyed. 
Lastly, the fourth contends that, after the complete 
annihilation of the world, this tire must itself be 
extinguished for want of nourishment ; 2 and then the 
new formation of the world would be impossible. 
But Boethus had doubtless concluded from this not 
only that the world was imperishable, but also that 
it had no beginning ; 3 he exchanged the Stoic cos- 
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 belief in 
prophecy is not asserted ; 4 his own utterances on 
this subject are confined to an enquiry concerning 
the prognostics of weather and similar things, the 

1 For that only Is capable of G<r . III. i. 153, 2), and this would 
division which is l/c dieo-rdr^y, presuppose a luminous body, 
or K ffvvaarroiJLev&v, or only 3 This appears especially from 
weakly united not that which the third argument; thepseudo- 
is superior to all else in force. Philo also (p. 249, 4) represents 
An entire annihilation of the him as attacking the presuppo- 
quality of the world is not sition el yevijThs KOL <{>6aprb$ 6 
maintained by the other view, for K^or^os. 

this is still to subsist in the form 4 The contrary would rather 

of fire. If finally all elements seem to result from Cic. Divin. 

were simultaneously abolished ii. 42, 88, according 1 to which 

through trfryxvffis, there would Panastius units & Stolois astrolo- 

be a transition of the oj/into the goruin prcedicta rejecit ; but 

(JL)J #y. this only implies that Boethus 

2 Because as pure fire it could did not expressly oppose the 
be neither avQpa.% nor 4>Ab, but belief, not that he himself 
only avyl] (on which cf . PMl. d. shared it. 


connection of which with the phenomena portended CHAP. 
he sought to discover. 1 '" 

With Boethus Is associated his celebrated co- Panc?tiu&: 
disciple Pansetius, 2 not only in his opposition to the ^Si^es 
doctrine o the destruction of the world, hut also in ISO B.C. 
the independent attitude he assumed to the tradi- 
tion of his school, and in his readiness to allow 
entrance to other views. This distinguished -and 
influential philosopher, the chief founder of Koman 
Stoicism, was born, it would seem, about 180 B.C., in 
Ehodes, 3 and was introduced to the Stoic philosophy 
by Diogenes and Antipater. 4 He afterwards went to 

1 Cic. Divin. L 8, 13 : Quis 
igitur elicere causas prfssen- 
sionum i>otest ? Etsi video Bo'e- 
tJiuvi Stoieutri esse oonatum^ c[ui, 
hactenus {only so far) aliquid, 
effit, itt earwn rationem rerum 
cxplicaret, qiice in niari coslove 
Jierent. Ibid. ii. 21, 47 : -ZV&m 
et prog nostieorum causas perse- 
cutismitet Boetlius Stoicus . . . 
et . . . Posidonius. In both, 
passages th.e emphasis falls on 
the causce jyrognosticorwm, the 
natural connection between 
prognostic and result. 

2 Van Lynden, De Pa.ncQtio 
Rlwdio, Leiden, 1802. 

3 Concerning his native place 
there is no doubt (vide Strabo, 
xiv. 2, 13, p. 655). On the 
other hand, we are told nothing 
of the year either of his birth 
or death, and they can only be 
approximately determined from 
the facts that he attended the 
discourses of Diogenes of Seleu- 
cia ; in 143 B.C. as an openly- 
recognised philosopher, accom- 
panied Scipio to Alexandria, 

and was no longer living after 
110 B.C. Van Lynden places 
his life between 185-112 B.C. 
The Ind. Hero. Camp. Col. 51 
(of. Phil. d. &<r. III. i. 33, 2) 
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 roce, distinguishes from the 
celebrated Pansetius a second 
and younger Panastius, the 
friend of Scipio, this is merely 
a proof of his ignorance, as is 
abundantly shown by Van 
Lynden, p. 5 sgg. 

4 Diogenes is mentioned as 
Ms teacher in the Ind. Here. 
Col. 51, 2; and by Suidas, 
Tlavair. ; Antipater, by Cicero, 
Dii'in. i. 3, 6. His piety to* 
wards the latter is praised by 
the Ind. Hero. Col. 60. Besides 
these, according to his own 
statement (ap. Strab. siv. 5, 16, 
p. 676), he heard Crates of 
Mallos in Pergamus. Polemo 
also, thePeriegete,is, on clirono- 




Mu resi- 
dence ill 


head of 
ike Stoic 
in Athens. 

Kome, 1 where lie long remained an inmate of the 
household of Scipio Africanus, the younger. 2 Scipio 
and Lselius were his friends 3 and hearers, and he won 
over many zealous youths to Stoicism. 4 Scipio also 
chose him for his companion when in 143 B.C. he 
was sent at the head of a deputation to the East, 
and particularly to Alexandria. 5 After the death of 
Antipater, Pansetius undertook the leadership of the 
school in Athens/ of which apparently he was the 

logical grounds, regarded as 
his teacher rather than Ms 
disciple. The text of Suidas 
which asserts the latter (EoAe^. 
Ei/Tjy.) seems corrupt. Of. Bern- 
hardy in loc., Van Lynden, 36 s%. 

1 Whether this occurred after 
the Alexandrian journey, and 
whether Pansetius visited Kome 
of his own accord, or was invited 
there by others, tradition does 
not inform us. Plutarch (O. 
PriiiG. PMlowpJi. i. 12, p. 777) 
presupposes that Pansetius was 
not in Kome when Scipio in- 
vited him to accompany him. 
But Scipio must have been 
already well acquainted with 
him to have given such an 

3 Vide the following note, 
and Cic. Pro Mur. 31, 66; 
Veil. Paterc. i. 13, 3. How 
long Pantetius was in Eome we 
do not know ; but as he came 
thither at latest after the 
Alexandrian journey, therefore 
in 142 B.C., and probably before 
that journey, and as, on the 
other hand, Rutilius Eufus, 
who died after 81 B.C., seems 
to have heard him in Kome 
(supra, p. 11, 3), which can 
scarcely have happened before 

135-130 B.C., we must suppose 
that he worked here for a con- 
siderable number of years. 
Vellejus says that Scipio had 
him with him dond niUitiaque> 
and the Ind. Here. Col. 56, 2, 
seems to speak as if he accom- 
panied Scipio to the army. 

3 Cic. Mn. iv. 9, 23 ; ii. 8, 24. 
Of. i. 26, 90 ; ii. 22, 76. Gell, 
JV. A. xvii. 21, 1. Suidas 
TLavair. Tlo\v@ios. 

4 Vide supra, p. 10 s$. 

5 Cic. Acad. ii. 2, 5 ; Position. 
ap. Prut. I. c. } and Apophthegm. 
Teg. et imp. Scrip. Min. 13 s#. 
p. 200; Athen. xii. 549, d. 
(where JHoffei^c^vios is in any 
case a slip of the memory for 
HavairLos, which, however, is 
repeated xiv. 657 $#.). Gf. 
Justin. Hist, xxxviii. 8. 

6 Ind. Here. Col. 53 : StdSoxos 


Cf. these further statements ; 
that he died in Athens (Suid.) ; 
that he did not again return to 
Ehodes (Cic. Tmo. v. 37, 107) ; 
that he was offered the right 
of citizenship in Athens, but 
did noc accept it (Procl. in 
Hesiod. S E. Kal 'H,u. 707, 
no doubt after Plutarch) ; 
that there was in Athens a 



head until about 110 B.C. 1 That he had previously 
been active in a similar capacity in his native city is 
not likely. 2 As teacher and author/ scholar and 

society for common meals 
called Pansetiasts (Athen. v. 
186, a). The attempt of Schep- 
pig, De Position. Again. (Son- 
dersh. 1869), p. 3 sq. to make 
Panaatius the head of the 
Khodian, and not of the Athe- 
nian school is settled by the 
foregoing, and by the proofs 
iven infra, p. 42, 1, and p. 52, 3 
( Mnesarchus and Dardanus). 

1 We cannot place his death 
much earlier, as, according to 
Cic Off. iii. 2, 8, he lived after 
the composition of his work on 
Duty (which he cannot have 
written when he was very 
young), for 30 years ; but espe- 
cially because Posidonius could 
otherwise scarcely have been 
his disciple; nor can it have 
occurred much later, for Crassus, 
who came as quasstor to Athens 
found Mnesarchus there, and 
not Pan?etius (Cic. De Orat, i. 
11, 45) ; and Crassus, born, 
according to Cicero, Brut. 43, 
161, under the Consuls Q. Caepio 
and C. Laelius (140 B.C.) could 
not have become quasstor be- 
fore 110 B.C., but also not very 
long after that date. Vide 
Zumpt, Alfi. d. BerLAead. 1842; 
Hist. PJdl 1 S. 104 (80). 

3 Suidas (IlocreiSitjy 'Aira/i.) 
presupposes this when he says 
of Posidonius : cr%oA^v 5 J %<rxw 

Uavairiov. But Cicero, 
Two. v. 37, 107, reckons him 
among those g%i semel egressi 
nungwwri do'immi revertemmt ; 
and on the other hand Suidas 
manifestly presupposes that 

Posidonius had been the im- 
mediate successor of Panagtins 
in Ehodes, which according to 
the dates would only be pos- 
sible if Pansetius had been at 
the head of the Rhodian, and 
not the Athenian school, and 
had filled this post towards the 
end of the second century. 

3 Concerning his writings vide 
Van Lynden, p. 78-117, 62 sqq. 
The best known of these are 
the books ireplrav KadriKOvros (cf. 
Phil d. Gr. in. i. 273, 3, 27G *#.) 
acknowledged, according to 
Cicero, to be the most profound 
work on that subject, the model 
of Cicero's own. There are 
also quoted a work on the 
schools of philosophy (TT. alpe- 
<rea>j>), if. evdv/jitas, v. Trpoyoias^ 
a political treatise (Cic. Legg. 
iii. 6, 14) and a letter to Tubero. 
From the .treatise v. vpo-voias 
Cicero seems to have taken his 
criticism of astrology, De 
Dimn. ii. 42, 8746, 97. (Of. 
I c. 88, 97; Schiche, p. 37 
sgg; Hartf elder, p. 20 s##. of 
his treatise Die Quellen wti 
Cic. ; Biich, De Dnin. Freiburg, 
1878). Hirzel supposes that 
treatise to be also the source 
of Cicero's De Nat. DC. ii. 30 t 
75-61, 154, and he is probably 
right, while Schwenke (Jahrb* 
fur PJdlol. 1879, p. 135 *.) 
derives this section, with the 
rest of the book, from Posi- 
donius v. Qe&v. The letter to 
Tubero may have been used by 
Cicero for the second book of 
the Tiiseulana Disputationes 
(cf . Zietzschmannj De Tusc. J)is~ 



ing and 



CHAP, philosopher, he enjoyed great reputation, 1 and it is 
I ?L__ probable that no one since Chrysippus had worked 
with greater success for the spread of Stoicism. 

i* did- The Stoic system, however, had undergone con- 

siderable alteration in his hands. Though Panaetius 
agreed with its principles and found no part of it 
superfluous, 2 yet his 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 com- 

put. Font. Halle, 1868) ; on the "hie was held in Athens ; in Col, 

other hand the chief source of 71 we are told of his honourable 

the first book of the Titsculan. burial ; Seneca, Ej). 33, i, coni- 

Disp. is not, as Heine thinks pares him and Posidonius with 

(De Font. Tuso. Disp. p. 8 s^.)* Zeno,Cleanthes, and Chrysippus. 
to be sought in a treatise of 2 Which is evident from his 

Pansetius, whose view is di- title of princess Stoicorum., 

rectly opposed to that of Gieero ; and is confirmed by the quota- 

biit, as Corssen says (De Po^id. tions in Part III. i. 61, 3. 
H7wd. Bonn, 1878), in a trea- 3 A few physical propositions 

tise of Posidonius, of Pansetius have been handed 

1 This, after what has been down to us; but the greater 

said, scarcely requires a special number and 'the most charac- 

proof. Cicero, e.g., calls him teristic of the quotations from 

(Divin. i. 3, 6) vel prineeps him that we possess relate to 

ejus [sc. Stoiocs] disciplines ; anthropology, theology, and 

(Legg. 1. <?.) magnus Jwrno et morality. Such of his writings 

imprints eruditm ; (Fin. iv. 9, as we know are either historical, 

%$)iniprimu ingemus et gruvis ; ethical, or theological in their 

(Off. ii. 14, 51) ffravissivius contents; whereas not a single 

StoicO'Tum ; the Ind. Hero, dialectic definition has ever 

Gimp. Col. 66, praises his many- been quoted from him. 
sided knowledge, and mentions 4 Cic. Fin. iv. 28, 79 ; Off, i. 

68) the esteem in which 2, 7 ; ii. 10, 35. 


bine differing points of view. Pansetins, therefore, CHAP. 
assumed ** freer attitude towards the doctrine of his IIL 
predecessors : he would not withhold from other Relation 

philosophers the recognition due to them : he highly * tki ' 
r r . & & J Stoic doc- 

esteemed Aristotle, Xenocrates, Theophrastus, and trine*. 

Dicsearchus; and his admiration of Plato was so 
great that it might seem he would have preferred to 
follow him, rather than Zeno. 1 It cannot be ex- 
pected of one who appreciated the merits of the 
earlier philosophers so impartially that he should 
adhere very scrupulously to the ' traditional doc- 
trines of a single school : and, in fact, the many 
deviations of Panastius from the Stoic dogmas show 
that he treated the authority of his school, in re- 
spect to philosophy, with the same independence of 
judgment that he displayed in regard to questions 
of literary and historical criticism. 2 He disputed, 

1 Cic. Fin. iv. 28, 79 : sem- Proclus reckoned himself 
perque habuit in ore Platonem, among the Platonists ; they 
Aristotelem, Xenocratem, Thco- may also be translated : 'Panae- 
plirastum, Dictparohum, 'lit ip- tins and some others belonging 
sius scripta declarant. Tusc. i. to the Platonic school.' Whether 
82,79(yi^d j p.4:4:, 1,). Jnd.Herc. he or Posidonitts is meant by 
Col. 61 : %v yap iffx v p&s 0iAo- the philosopher from Ehodes, 
TrA^T&jy Kal <pLKoapicrrQTX.r}s^ whose remarks on Parmenides 
a[AA&] ica! 7rap[v65]a>[] rS>v are mentioned by Proclus in 
7xiwv[ciw]v [ri 5m r^v 'Aa- Parm. vi. T. vi. 25, cannot be 
S^fcu/ [KOI rbv Uepi~\ira.rQV. Of ascertained. 
Grantor's treatise on Affliction 2 ParuBtius is in this respect 
he said (Cic. Acad. ii. 44, 135) a remarkable exception to the 
it should be learned by heart, careless manner in which the 
word for word. According to majority of the ancients are 
Proclus in Tim. 50 B, he seems accustomed to deal with learned 
to have written a commentary tradition. His opinion con- 
on Plato's TimcBMS ; the words cerning the genuineness of the 
of Proclus, however, riai/ccrr. dialogues passing under the 
Kal &\\ot rives rtav TtXarcoviKav., name of Socrates, and his 
do not necessarily imply that judgment concerning the writ- 




avrbs r}VTO/jL6\ < r)(rcw. Epiph. 
. iil 2, 9, p. 1090, D : ttavair. 

like Boethus, the doctrine of the conflagration of 
the world; 1 and though he only said that the 

ings of Ariston of Chios are 
discussed in Phil. d. 6fr. 
II. 1, 206, 1, and III. i. 35, 1. 
We see from Plutarch, Artst. 
27, and Athen. xiii 556, Z>, 
that he was the first, as it 
seems, to dispute the story of 
the bigamy of Socrates, and 
from Plut. Arist. 1, that he 
corrected a wrong statement of 
Demetrius Phalerius concern- 
ing a xP^y^ a Aristides 
through closer investigation. 
It is possible that he went too 
far in the matter of Ariston 's 
writings, and his conjecture 
respecting Archelaus (cf, Phil. 
d. Gr. I. 860) may have been 
unfounded, as in his opinion 
{Sclwl. in AristojjJi. Ran. 1493 
sqq. ; cf. Hirzel, Unters. zu Cic. 
i. 234) that Aristophanes, I. c., 
is speaking of another Socrates ; 
but the fact that Pansetius felt 
the necessity of critical exami- 
nation, rarely felt in his time, 
is 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 thePhado 
rests upon any other ground 
than a misunderstanding, as I 
have shown concisely in Part 
II. a, 384, 1, and more at length 
in the Commentationes Momm- 
seniants, p. 407 sq.', cf. 405. 
1 Dwg. vii. 142 : Havainos 5' 

Philo, Mtevn. m. c. 35, p. 24-8, 

yovv 6 3,L$c&vto$ Kal HavairLOS . . . 
ray eKTrvp&creis Kal TraXtyycvGffias 

With this agrees 
in substance Stob, Eel. i. 414 
(TLav. IT id ay are pav elvou vo/Aifci 
Kal IJLO.X.XQV apeffKovffav avrq> TTJV 
aWiOTyra TOV K6cr/j.ov fy rfyv TU>V 
oAwy els Trvp /zeraj8oA7?v), though 
we learn from it that Pansetius 
after his manner had expressed 
himself guardedly upon the 
point ; and it is also quite con- 
sistent therewith that in a dis- 
sertation on the universe pro-. 
bably emanating from Pansetius 
(ap. Oic. N. D . ii. 45, 115, 46, 
119), it is emphatically asserted 
that the whole universe is 
framed with a view to the in- 
colwmatas nmndi, and that there 
is nothing in it so admirable 
guam qiwci ita stabilis est mim- 
dus atqiie ita eoliferet ad per- 
mane-ndim, tit niltil UB excogi- 
tcLri quide-m possit aptius, for a 
philosopher who assumed the 
destruction of the world would 
have had no occasion to lay the 
chief stress on its durability. 
Nor does Cic. JV. D. ii. 33, 85, 
offer any contradiction : if the 
Stoic not here come to a 
decision whether the world will 
last for ever or only for an in- 
definitely long period, this does 
notprove that he had no opinion 
about it, but only that it is not 
necessary for his immediate 
purpose, the proof of a world - 
forming intelligence to bring 
this question into discussion. 
In is true that the burning of 
the world is mentioned, I. c. 
46, 118, with the comment ; da 


eternity of the world was, in his opinion 3 more prob- CHAP. 
able ? we can see that he decidedly preferred the __._ IIL _. 
Platonic or Aristotelian theory to that of the Stoics. 1 
In connection with this, he not only limited the 
soul's existence after death to a certain space of 
time, but denied it entirely/ 2 It is also stated that 

quo Pancetium addubitare di- 
cebant) but this mode of ex- 
pression can neither be taken 
from Pansetiusnor from Cicero's 
Greek original, the author of 
which cannot have learned 
merely by hearsay that Pange- 
tius 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 Panaetius's real 
meaning*, for he may have em- 
ployed this form of language 
to represent Balbus as speaking 
from his recollection of oral 
communications (cf. Comment. 
Moitvnmen. p. 40'3 sq. That 
Arnob. Adv. Nat. ii. 9, names 
Pansetius among the defenders 
of the conflagration theory is 
only a proof of his superficiality 
(cf. Diels, Doxogr. 172 sq.'). 

i 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, o:0a- 
varov aal ayfjpa in Epiphanras, 
if they really emanate from 
Pansetius, remind us of Plato's 
ayripcav Kal tidvotfov {Tiwi. 33, A) j 
and even the further statements 
do not carry us with certainty 
beyond the question of the end 
of the world, since the notion 
of having no beginning is not 
so completely included in the 

word aiStoTTjs (nor in 
as having no end. But as the 
former was as a rule admitted 
by the Platonic school (cf . PML 
d. Or. II. i. 876 sq.\ and as the 
chief opponents of the Stoic doc- 
trine since Zeno were the Peripa- 
tetics (PMl. d. Gr. II. ii. 836, 
929) r it seems to me probable that 
Paasetius, when he had once 
given up the Stoic dogma, did 
not remain half way, but went 
over to the Peripatetic, which 
at that perk <I 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. Nwrnguid, 
iffitiir est causes, qmn amicns 
nostros Stotcos dimittavnw* eos 
dicOj qui ajunt animos manere, 
e coTpore cum excesserint, sed 
non semper ? A. Istos rero, &c. 
JiT. Send rep'relienclAs . . . ore- 
damns igitur Panaatio a Platone 
suo dissentienH ? quern enim 
omnibus locis divininn, g/uem, 
sapientiss^mium^ quern sanetis- 
simwiij quern Somernm pMlo- 
sopTiorum appellat^ Jiujus hanc 
imam sententiam de immortali- 
tate animorum non, probat. 
Vult enim, quod nemo negat* 
quicquid natum sit interire : 
nasci autem anivnos . . . alterant: 
autem adfert rationem : nihil 
esse, quod doleat, quin id (egrum 




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 soul, but to the vegetable nature. 1 

exse qitoqiie possit : quod autem 
in morbum, cacLat, id etiam, in- 
twiturum : dolere autem ani- 
mos, ergo etiam interire. Now, 
as I must concede to Heine (He 
Fontibw*. Tuscul. Disput. Wei- 
mar, 1863, p. 8 sq.\ even an 
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- 
tinuance. But that the objec- 
tions of Pansstius had not this 
meaning merely, we can see 
from the manner in which 
Cicero introduces them. He 
distinguishes Pansetius, indeed, 
quite clearly from those Stoics 
qui ajnnt animos manere. Thes e 
are previously disposed of, and 
there ~?H en remain only two 
possible views, that of Plato 
and that of Pansetius that 
which maintains an endless 
duration of life after death, 
and that which altogether de- 
nies it. The same is evident 
even from the objections which 
Cicero quotes from Panaetius, 
especially the second : he who 
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- 
cumb, according to his theory, 

not to internal disease and dis- 
solution but to external force. 
When, at last, Panastius 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 Tusc. 
i. 18, 42, it would appear that 
Paneetius believed in the disso- 
lution of the soul immediately 
after death. Is autem, animus, 
it is here said, qui, si est Jiorum 
g_uatuor generum^ esc quibus owi- 
nia, const are dieuntur, ex i%- 
flammata, anima constat, ttt 
potissimvm videri video Pana'tio, 
swperiora cajjessat necesse eat* enim habent JICPC diM 
genera, $roni) et super a semper 
petunt. Ita, siv-e dissipantur, 
procml a terris id evenit ; sire, 
permanent et cons erv ant liahi- 
turn suum, IIOG etiam magis ne~ 
cesse est ferantur in ccelitm,. 
When Cicero here remarks that 
'the view of Pansetius con- 
cerning the nature of the soul 
being presupposed, we must 
admit that it is exalted to 
Heaven even in the event, of 
its being annihilated after 
death/ the inference is that 
it was Pansetius himself with 
whom he had found the doc- 
trine of such a dissolution of 
the soul. 

1 Nemes. De Nat. Iffom. c. 15, 
p. 96 : Tlaz/ainos $6 <5 
rb /iev $wr) ryjs itaQ* 



The first of these theories is not of much impor- 
tance i l but the second, in the discrimination of 
^t%?7 from (j>vcrt,$> presupposes a psychological dual- 
ism 5 which is originally foreign to Stoicism. 2 Panse- 
tius here follows the Peripatetic doctrine, as in his 
theory of immortality. "We are again reminded of 
it in his ethics,, "by the division of the virtues into 
theoretical and practical. 3 That he also departed His 
from the severity of the Stoics and approximated to 
the view of the Academy and the- Peripatetics, in his 
definition of the highest good, is not probable ; 4 




nbv ov TTJS fyvxris j&epo 
TTJS (pva-ecas. Tertull. De An. 
14 : Dimditur autem \_anima\ 
in partes nunc in duas . . . 
mine in quingue (to which 
Biels, Doxogr. 205, from the 
parallel passage in Theodoret, 
CUT. Or. Aff. v. 20, adds : ah 
Aristotele} et in sex a Pancetio, 
Through Diel's luminous re- 
storation of the text, those 
conjectures are, 1 set at rest 
which Zietzschmann (De Tusc. 
Disp. Font. 20 sgq.') connects 
with the reading of the manu- 
scripts : Mine in qiiingiie et in 
sex a Pan. When this author 
infers from Cic. Tusc. ii. 21, 
47 (est enwi animus in jpartes 
tributus duos, giiarum altera 
ration-is est pa/rticeps^ altera 
expert} that Pansetius 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 Panastius 
throughout, it is still question- 


able how far this dependence 
extends to details, and it is 
perfectly conceivable that here 
and in what follows he himself 
may first have given this un- 
Stoical meaning to the truly 
Stoic notion of the dominion 
of the \6yos (ratio) over the 
dpfjify (temeritas). 

1 Bitter (iii. 698) undoubtedly 
seeks too much in it. 

2 The old Stoic psychology 
derives all practical activities 
from the Tjyt/jLovLKbv, and in its 
materialism has no occasion 
for the distinction of ^v%^ and 
<f>vfri$ ; the latter is rather sup- 
posed to be changed into the 
former afterbirth f Phil, d. Gr. 
III. i. 197, 1). 

3 Diog. vii. 92. 

4 Diogenes indeed maintains 
(vii. 128) : <5 /leVroi Tlavalnos 

elvai q>a<rl Kdl vyieicLS Kal 
Kal xopriyias. But as this state- 
ment in regard to Posidonius 
(vide proofs in Phil. d. @r. III. 
i. p. 214, 2 ; 216, 1) is decidedly 
false, Tennemann {GeschicJite 


CHAP, though he perhaps emphasised more strongly the 
_^__ distinction between desirable things and things to be 
rejected; and similarly the statement that he denied 
the fadeeta of the wise,, 1 may be traceable to the 
fact 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 
many possible views of their propositions, gave the 
preference to those which brought him least into 
collision 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 ; 
for this is expressly designed, not for the perfected 

d Phil iv. 382) is right in pleasure according to nature is 

sayino- that we cannot trust to it not inconsistent ; but when we 

in regard to Pansetius. Accord- understand by pleasure in the 

ine to Plutarch {Demosth. 13), narrower sense the emotion ot 

he tried to prove that Demos- $5<w^, it is like every emotion 

thenes held the Katin* alone to contrary to nature. Of. ibid. III. 

be a 81* autb atperbv : all the 218, 3. ^ 

less would he himself have 1 A. (Ml. xii. 5 % 10: am\- 

doubted it; and Cicero says ex- yntria enim atgue airaGeia non, 

pressly (infra,, p. 49, 2) that he ineo tantum, iuqnit, sed giwrwn- 

did not. When Bitter (iii. 699) dam etiam ex eadem portion 

finds in the proposition (ap. prudentiorum Jwmitmm sicuti 

Sext. Math. xi. 73) that < there fadicioPanatfo . . . vnyprolxtia 

is not only a pleasure contrary abjec-kaque est. 

to nature, but a pleasure accord- 2 This is seen from the cir- 

ino- to nature,' a'manif est de via- cumstance that, according to 

tion from the older Stoicism, Cicero, Fin. iv. 9, 23, in the 

this seems questionable, both letter to Tubero de dolore, 

from the passage itself and paticndo, he did not expressly 

the quotation in Phil. d. Gfr. declare that pain is not an 

III i. p. 219 sq. The Stoic evil, but only enquired: Quid 

doctrine is only that pleasure esset et quale, $ uantumgue in en 

isathingindifferent(a5*a<j>ojooi/}, esset ali&ni, deinde qiue ratio 

with which the theory of a esset perferendi. 


wise man, but only for those who are making pro- CHAP, 
gress in wisdom ; and for this reason it does not ' 

treat of the /caropdcoj^a^ but only of the f 
Meanwhile, however, all this contains no real devia- 
tion from the Stoic ethics, and what we are otherwise 
told concerning the moral doctrines of Panastius is 
in harmony with them. 2 His divergences from the 
traditional theology of his school were more consider- 
able. It can only be the doctrine of Pansetius His 
which his scholar, Mucius Scsevola, puts forward (like 
Varro 3 at a later period), when he says 4 that there 
are three classes of gods, those spoken of by the 
poets, by the philosophers, and by the statesmen. 
The narratives of the poets concerning the gods are 
full of absurd and unworthy fables : they represent 
the gods as stealing, committing adultery, changing 
themselves into beasts, swallowing their own chil- 
dren, &c. On the other hand, philosophic theology 
is valueless to states (it does not adopt itself to a 

1 This at least results from sets forth the claim of life 
Cicero's exposition, Off. iii. 3, according to nature; ap. Cic. 
13 s$. ; also ap. Sen. Ep. 116, 5, Off. iii. 3, 11 $q. ; 7, 34, he cle- 
Pancetius would first of all give clares id solutti lornim,, qiwd esset 
precepts for those who are not Jwnestum; ap. Stob. _BuZ.ii. 112, 
yet wise. In reply to the ques- he compares particular duties 
tion of a youth as to whether the with marksmen aiming from 
wise man will fall in love, he different standpoints at the 
says that they will both do same mark. What Cicero quotes 
better to keep themselves from (Off. ii. 1-4, 51) has also an 
such an agitation of the mind, analogy (Pliil. d. 6rr. III.i. 263) 
as they are not yet wise men. with the ancient Stoics. The 
For further details concerning utterance in Off. ii. 17, 60, is 
the treatise of Panaetius see truly Zenonian. 

Phil. d. 6rr. III. i. p. 273, 276 **CLifra, chapter vii.Varro. 

sq. 4 According to Augustine, 

2 Ap. Clem. Alex. Strom, ii. Civ. D. iv. 27, whose authority 
416, B; Stob. Ucl ii. 114, he was doubtless Varro. 


CHAP, public religion), for it contains many things the 
IIL knowledge of which is either superfluous or preju- 
dicial to the people; under the latter category, 
Scsevola places the two propositions that many of 
the personages honoured as gods as Heracles, 
.ZEseulapius, the Dioscuri were merely human 
beings, and the gods are not in appearance as they 
are represented, for the true God has no sex, no age, 
and no members. 1 From this it naturally resulted 2 
that the existing religion could only be regarded as 
a convenient public institution in the service of 
order, and that the authors of it must regulate them- 
selves in their doctrine of the gods according to the 
power of comprehension in the masses. Though we 
do not know whether Pansetius was the first to bring 
forward this discrimination of a threefold doctrine 
of the gods, 3 we must at any rate assume that 
in his theology, as in that of the men who for 
the most part adopted v it Scsevola, Varro, and 
Seneca a thoroughly free attitude to the popular 
religion found expression and was justified : though 
it is not known that either of them, in the 
allegorical interpretation of myths, which was so 
much in favour with the Scoics and from which 

1 Among those portions of 6fr. IIL i. 317, 3) this is 
philosophical theology which treated as belonging to the 
are unnecessary for the people, Stoics universally ; but the 
cone era ing ^Mch Augustine is Stoic from whom the author 
silent, we must reckon the of the Plaeita- here takes his 
purely philosophic doctrines, excerpt can only have belonged 
incomprehensible to him. to the later period, which is 

2 Varro says this more defi- also indicated by the appeal to 
nitely. Plato, i. 6, 3. 

3 In the Placita (cf . Phil, d. 


no Stoic could ever entirely escape, 1 went beyond CHAP. 
the most general determinations. Pansetius placed 
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- 
belief of soothsaying, mentioned above: 2 herein, 
he seems to have accepted the criticism of Carne- 
ades. 3 We cannot, however, on this account convict 
him of desertion from the Stoic 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 the earlier philosophers he un- 
mistakably tends to an understanding with points of 
view regarding which Stoicism had hitherto been 
accustomed to maintain a purely hostile position. 6 

1 Yide Phil d. Gr. III. d. &r. III. i. 3-10, 1, and supra, 
p. 325, with, which of. the p. 42, 1) that he alone among 

, quotations from Varro, infra the Stoics positively discarded, 
chap. vi. end. at any rate, astrological sooth- 

2 Even on this point the saying. 

testimonies are not quite unani- 3 Of . Cic. Divin. i. 7, 12: 

mous. Diogenes (vii. 149) QIICLTB oniittut itrgere Car- 

says simply : a,vvir6<rrarov avT-fiv neades, quod faeiebat etiam 

[rty fj.avTiK^v~] <pT](n. JEpiphan, Pancetius requirens, Jupplter-ne 

G. Hcrr. III. 2, 9 : rys /j-avreias cornicem a, larva, corvum ab 

KO.T ouSey eTreff-rpe^ero. On the dextera canere jussisset. 

other hand, Cicero says, JDivin. 4 Epiphanius is entirely in 

i. 3, '' 6 : Nee tamen ausus est the wrong when he adds, after 

negare vim esse dimnandi^ sed the words quoted in the pre- 

, dubitare se dixtt. Similarly vious note : ttal ra -n-epl QeS>v 

Avad* ii. 33, 107. Meanwhile Xeydfteva avtfpGi. eteye yap fyX-tiv- 

we see from Du'in. i. 7, 12, a<pov zlvai, rbv irepl Oeov \6yov. 

that he propounded his doubts 5 Supra, p. 42, 2. 

pretty decidedly, and from 6 Some other opinions quoted 

Divin. ii. 42, 88 ; 47, 97 (cf . Phil, from Panaetins are unimportant 

_, o 

A A 



and disci- 
jples of 



That Pansetius, in adopting this mode of thought, 
did not stand alone among the Stoics of that time, 
is proved, not only by what we have seen above of 
the deviations of Boethus from the Stoic doctrine, 
but also by what we are told of his fellow disciples, 
Heraclides and Sosigenes. The former opposed the 
Stoic proposition concerning the equality of all 
faults ; ] the latter, like others, is said to have 
attempted, not without inconsistencies, to combine 
the Aristotelian theory of the mingling of substances 
with that of Chrysippus. 2 But we know nothing 
further of either of these contemporaries of Pansetius. 
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 
disciples, 3 Posidonius is the only one concerning 

so far as his character as a 
philosopher is concerned. Van 
Lyndon (72 s^O mentions 
among these his opinion re- 
specting comets (Sen. Nat. Qu. 
vii. 30, 2) ; his theory that At- 
tica, on account of its healthy 
climate, produced gifted men 
(Procl. in Tim,. 50 c. s following 
Plato, Tim. 24, c.) ; the state- 
ment that the torrid zone is 
inhabited (Ach. Tat. Isaq. in 
JPetav. DoctT. Temp. iii. 96). 

1 Diog. vii. 121. 

2 Alex. Aphr. IT. /Jes 142, 
a, m. : Of the Stoics after 
Chrysippus, ol ftev "Xpvffitrircp 

ffvfjufrepovrat (especially in re- 

gard to the mixture, for which 
cf . Phil, d, &r. III. 126 sgq.) oi 5e 
Tives avr&v, rris ^ApLcrroreXovs 
d6r)s v<rrepov aitovcrai SuvTjflevres, 
TroAAa r>v eipyuLsvcav UTT' eAcet^ou 
irepl Kpdtfecos KOI avrol \yov<riv. 
$>v els <TTL teal 'StO)<ny4vf]s, ercupos 
'Aj/rtTrarpou (cf . ibid. III. i. p. 48). 
Because they could not, on 
account of their other presup- 
positions follow Aristotle en- 
tirely (this seems the sense of 
the imperfect text), they fell 
into contradictions. 

3 Among these the following 
names should be mentioned : 
(1) Greeks: Mnesarchus, of 
Athens, who Jaad also heard 



whose opinions we possess any details. Of the snc- 
cessor of Pansetius, Mnesarclms, we can only con- 


Diogenes and Antipater, the 
successor of Pansetius (Cic. 
De Orat. i. 11, 45 ; of. 18, 83 ; 
2nd. Here. Com-p. Col. 51, 4 ; 
78, 5 ; tyit. Dioff. cf . Phil d. Or. 
III. i. 33, 2), who likewise heard 
Antiochus in Athens (Cic. Acad. 
i. 22, 69 ; Numen. ap. Eus. Pr. 
JEJv. xiv. 9, 2 ; quoting from him 
Augustin. c. Acad. Hi. 18, 40). 
Cicero (I.e. cf. Fin. i. 2, 6) calls 
him and Dardanus tirniprin- 
eipes Stoic or um. From Ind. 
Here. Col. 51, 53, 78, cf. Epit. 
Dioff., it follows that Darda- 
nus' was likewise an Athenian 
and a disciple of Diogenes, 
Antipater, and Panaatius. As he 
was at the same time called the 
successor of Pantetius, he would 
seem to have conducted the 
school in common with Mnes- 
archus. Their successor was 
probably (as Zumpt supposes, 
AM. d."j3erl.Acad. Hist. Phil. 
Kl. 1842, p. 105) Apollocio- 
rus of Athens, whom Cicero 
describes as a contemporary of 
Zeno the Epicurean (N. I), i. 
34, 93) and the Ind. Here. Col. 
53, names among the disciples 
of Pansetius, but who is to be 
distinguished from the Seleu- 
cian 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 
Nysa, in Phrygia, rS>y Uavairlov 
-yvapifAcav #/>io'Tos > (Strabo. > xiv. 1, 
48, p. 650), of whom nothing 
further is known. Asclepio- 
d o t u s, of Nicosa ( Ind. Here. Col. 

73), Damocles of Messene 
(ibid. 76, 4). DemetriustheBi- 
thynian(l)?o^. v. 84 ; Ltd. Here. 
Col. 75), with whom his father 
Diphilusis also mentioned as 
a Stoic. To him belong, as it ap- 
pears, the two epigrams in An- 
thol.6rr.ii.$ t Jac. Dionysius 
of Cyrene, a great geometrician 
(Ind. Here. 52). Georgius 
of Lacedasnion (Ind. Here. 76, 
5). Hecato of PJiodes, whose 
treatise on Duties, dedicated 
to Tubero, is quoted by Cicero, 
Off. iii. 15, 63 : 23, 89 sgg. From 
the same treatise, if not from a 
separate work of his own on 
Benevolence, Seneca seems t 
have taken the greater part o 
what he quotes from him (Sen. 
Senef. i. 3, 9 ; ii. 18, 2, 21, 4; 
iii. 18, 1 ; vi. 37, 1 ; E$. 5, 7 ; 
6, 7 ; 9, 6. Several other works, 
some of them comprehensive, 
are quoted by Diogenes (see 
Ms Index), who, according to 
the epitome (in which Rose 
rightly substitutes 'E/car. for 
Keforwv), had dedicated to him 
his own biography. The Bi- 
thynians Nicander and 
Jjjco(Tnd. Here. 75, 5 ; 76, 1). 
Mnasagoras (JUpit. D). Pa- 
r am onus of Tarsus (Ind. 
Here. 74, 77). Pausanias of 
Pontus (Hid. 76, 1). Plato 
of Ehodes (Diog. iii. 109). 
P o s i d o n i u s (v ide infra\ 
Sosus of Ascalon (Ind. Here. 
75, 1 ; Steph. Byz. De Url. 
J AcTK.), doubtless the same after 
whom Antiochus of Ascalon, 
the Academician, had named a 
treatise (infra, p. 86, 2). Perhaps 
after the death of Panaetius he 



jecture that the Stoicism which, his pupil Antic-elms 
(vide infra) found it so easy to combine with the 

had still belonged to the school 
of Mnesarchus and Dardanus, 
(which Antiochus also visited), 
as an older member. Sotas 
of Paphos (Ind. Hero. 75, 1). 
Stratocles of Rhodes, de- 
scribed by Strabo (xiv. 2, 13, 
p. 655) as a Stoic, and by the 
Ind. Here. 17, 8, cf. 79, 'as a 
disciple of Panjstius and author 
of a work on the Stoic school. 
Timocles of Knosos or Cni- 
dus (Itid. Hero. 76, 2). Anti- 
dot us also appears to have 
belonged to the school of 
Panaitius or Mnesarchns, as, 
according to Ind. Here. Col. 79, 
Antipater of Tyre, seems at first 
to have been his disciple and 
afterwards the disciple of 
Stratocles. Also the poet An- 
tipater of Sidon (Dioff. iii, 
39), of whom the Anthology 
contains many epigrams (ride 
Jacob. Anthol. Gr. xiii. 846), 
belongs to the generation after 
Pansatius According to Cicero 
(JDe Orat. iii. 50, 194) he was 
already known about 92 B.C., 
and still living ; and the same 
author refers to an event in 
his life (De Fato, 3, 5), which 
Posidonius would seem to have 
quoted. Diotimus, or Theo- 
timus, must have been a con- 
temporary, or a little later ; the 
same who, according to Biog. 
x. 3, forged immoral letters 
with the name of Epicurus 
(perhaps also the same person 
that is quoted by Sext. Math. vii. 
140) ; for, according to Athen. 
xiii. 611, &, he was executed for 
this at the instance of Zeno the 
Epicurean (Phil. d. G-r. III. i. 

402). Concerning Scylax of 
Halicarnassns, celebrated as an 
astronomer and politician, we 
learn from Cic. Divifi.ii. 42, 88, 
that he was a friend of Panse- 
tius, and, like him, an opponent 
of astrology. That he belonged 
to the school of the Stoics, 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 
Panaetius, or lived at a later 
time. Strabo (xiv. 514, p. 674) 
mentions him. after Antipater 
and Archedemus and before 
the two Athenodori (discussed 
infra, p. 71) ; the Epitome 01! 
Diogenes, side 'by side with 
Dardanus and other disciples 
of Diogenes of Seleucia, before 
Antipater. On the other hand, 
according to Lucian, Macrol). 
21, the Stoic Nestor of Tarsus, 
had been the teacher of Ti- 
berius, which, as a contempo- 
rary of Pansetius, in spite of 
the ninety-two years life here 
attributed to him, he could not 
possibly have been. "We might 
conjecture that the so-called 
Lucian had mistaken the Stoic 
Ne'stor for the philosopher of 
the Academy of the same name 
(mentioned infra, p. 102, 1), the 
teacher of Marcellus (who 
may also have instructed Tibe- 
rius), and that the Stoic was 
a contemporary of Pansetius. 
Between Nestor and Dardanus 
the Epitome introduces a Ba- 
sil ides. This, however, was 
probably not the teacher of 
Marcus Aurelius (iwfra, ch. 
viii.)butan otherwise unknown 


doctrine of the Academy already approximated to 
that doctrine in his o\vn exposition of it ; l and that 
his views resembled those of his master on other 
points besides psychology, of which this is expressly 
stated. 2 Of Hecato, we know that he considerably 
departed from the strict ethical doctrine of the Stoics 


member 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 
of the Laertian. Besides the 
Greeks, there were the Romans 
whom Pansetms had for dis- 
ciples in Rome, and some of 
them also perhaps afterwards 
in Athens. The most important 
of these, Q. JElius Tubero, 
Q. Mucius S c se v o 1 a , 
C. Fannius, P. Rutilius 
Rufus, L. JSlius, M. Vi- 
gellius, Sp. Mummius, 
have been already named 
{supra, p. 10 <<?#.). Further we 
may mention: A certain Piso, of 
whom we know nothing more 
(Jnd.Herc., 6), but accord- 
ing to the theory of Comparetti 
he was the L. Calpurnius 
Pi so Frugi, who was consul in 
133 B.C.; Sextus Pompejus 
(Cic. JDe Or at. L c. and i. 15, 67 ; 
Brut. 47, 175; Off. i. 6, 19; 
Pktityj). 12, 11, 27), a distin- 
guished authority on civil law, 
geometry, and the Stoic philo- 
sophy; andL. Lucilius Bal- 
bus (Be Orat.ui. 21, 78 : JBnct. 
42, 154) ; for that the two last 
owed their Stoicism to Pange- 
tius is most probable. On the 
other hand, Q. Lucilius Bal- 
bus (Cic. 2V. D. 6, 15) seems to 
be too young for this. "When, 

therefore, we hear in De Orat. 
iii. 21, 78 (supposed elate 91 
B.C.), of two Balbi who 
were Stoics, one of these must 
be meant together with a third 
of the same name, Besides 
these the Ind. Here* Col. 74 
names the Samnites Marcius 
and JSFysius ; which latter 
introduced the <r7rov$ai6TaTot 
(in distinction from the o-trovS- 
ctLot) as a separate class. 

1 Nothing else has ever been 
quoted from him except an 
utterance against imphilosophi- 
cal rhetoric (ap. Cic. De Orat. 
i. 18, S3), a logical observation 
(ap. Stob. Eel. i. 436), and a 
definition of God (ibid. 60). 
These passages contain nothing 
divergent from the general 
Stoic doctrine. 

2 Galen, H. Phil. 20 (Diels, 
DOXOCJT. 615) : Mvfio-apxos $e rrjv 
~2,r<aiK.S)V VTT^XTI^LV eirLKpivav TO 
tywilTiKbv (/cai add. D.) rb arTrep- 

pCLTLKbv TTpl'l\.V OL7)6ei$ TTJS 

a,l<jQr\rLK.ris Svya^uews ravra (^ 
add. D. p. 206) ^m-^iv (Panse- 
tius did not reckon it accord- 
ing to p. 46, 1, siqwa,, as be- 
longing to the $>VXTI*), V-spT] JeTTjs 
^X^ s $1811 l*-6vov ri Koyucbv Kal 
rb]rLK6v, the latter being 
naturally again divided into 
the five senses, with which we 
come back to Pansetius' six 
faculties of the soul. 




in its application to individual details ; ] in this 
respect he was certainly anticipated by Diogenes ; 
but tradition tells us nothing further of these philo- 

Bather more has been communicated to us re- 
specting Posidonius, 2 a Syrian of Apamea, 3 whose 
long activity seems to have extended over, or nearly 
over, the first half of the first century. 4 A disciple 

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

2 Bake, Posidanii Rhodii Re- 
liquice Doctrine ; Leiden, 1810; 
Muller, Fraffm. Hist. Gh'&c. iii. 
245 sqq. ; Scheppig, De Posid. 
Apam. JZerum O-entium Tdrra,- 
rum Soriptore : Sondersh. 1869. 

3 Strabo, xiv. 2, 18, p. 655 ; 
xvi. 2, 10, p. 753; AtUen. vi. 
252, e. ; Lucian, Macrob. 20; 
Suidas, sub voce. 

4 More precise information 
we do not possess. Three data 
may be made the basis of an 
approximate calculation : (1) 
that Posidonius was the dis- 
ciple of Panastius ; (2) that he 
lived to be eighty- four years 
old (Lucian, L c.) ; and (3) that, 
according to Suidas, he came 
to Borne under the consulate 
of M. Marcellus (51 B.C.). Ac- 
cordingly Bake, and subse- 
quently almost all the authori- 
ties, believe that he was born in 
135 B.C. and died in 51 B.C. 
But the statement of Suidas 
(notwithstanding Scheppig, p. 
10) seems lo me suspicious ; 
partly because it is not probable 
that Posidonius as an old man 
of more than eighty years 
journeyed a second time to 
Borne; partly because Suidas 
speaks as if this visit of Posi- 
donius to -Borne were the only 

one, or the most known 
54 Kal els 'IP&fj.Tjj', eVl 
MaoKeAAou), and thus shows 
himself (as in the statement 
discussed supra, p. 41, 2) to 
be imperfectly informed as to 
Posidonius : and partly because 
we should necessarily expect to 
find some trace of his presence 
in Borne in Cicero, all of whose 
philosophical writings, and a 
great part of his letters, were 
written at a later time. Per- 
haps the circumstance that 
under M. Marcellus the league 
of the Bhodians with Borne 
was renewed (Lentulus, in Cic. 
ad Famil. xii. 15) possibly, 
however, a merely clerical 
errormay have caused the 
journey which occurred in the 
last consulate of Marius (infra,, 
p. 57, 2) to be placed under 
that of Marcellus. Miiller (I. c. 
p. 245) believes Posidonius to 
have been ten years younger 
than he is represented accord- 
ing to the ordinary theory. He 
bases this partly on the asser- 
tion of Athen. xiv. 657, /., that 
Strabo, B. vii., said that he 
had known Posidonius : partly 
on Strabo, xvi. 2, 10, p. 753 
(no<rei&. TJV KaO 3 Tj/nas (f)i\o- 
o"6<p&v 7roAu / tta06cTTaTos i ) ; partly 
on Plut. Brut, i., where some- 


of Pansetius, 1 lie also visited the countries of the 
West, as far as Grades, 2 but not to seek a sphere for his 


thing is quoted from Posidonius 
which seems to have been 
written after Csesar's death. 
But the last is not correct ; 
the quotation from Posidonins 
contains no allusion to Caesar's 
murder. From the Katf ^uas we 
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 is not seldom used, 
even by Strabo in a wider 
sense. 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 
(vide infra, p. 73, w.) went to 
Borne as a boy before the year 
44, perhaps (as Scheppig, p. 11 
sq , thinks, agreeing with Ha- 
sen-Miiller, De Strab.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 
on this assumption sufficient 
time would not be found for 
the instruction which Posido- 
nius received from Panastius. 
It is therefore questionable 
whether we can depend upon 
the statement of Athensens. 
This statement occurs at the 
same place where Athenseus 
also maintains that Posidonius 
had been with Scipio in Egypt 
(aujwa, p. 40, 5), and may 
be founded upon a mistake as 

well as the latter statement. 
It relates, perhaps, not to a 
passage in the last part of 
Btrabo's seventh hook, but to 
C. 3, 4, p. 297 (e/c re &v efore 
UoffeiSc&vios'), or C. 5, 8, p. 
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 Athenseus 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., 
concerning his visit to Piome 
under Marcellus and his meet- 
ing with Stiabo, are both 
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. Of. iii. 2, 8 ; Mvin. 
i. 3, 6; Suid. vide sujjra, p. 41, 

2 The traces of this journey 
are preserved in Strabo 's quo- 
tations from Posidonius. We 
here see that Posidonius re- 
mained a long time in Spain, 
especially at Gades (iii. 1, 5, 
p. 138 ; c. 5, 7-9, p. 172, 174 ; 
xiil 1, 66, p. 614^) ; from thence 
he coasted along the African 
shores to Italy (iii. 2, ; svii. 
3, 4, p. 144, 827); that he 
visited Gaul (iv. 4. 5, p. 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 
Sea (vii. 5, 9, p. 316). That he 
did not neglect this opportunity 
of visiting Eome may be taken 




teaching ; l this lie found in Rhodes, 2 where he was 
so completely naturalised that he is frequently called 
a Ehodian. 3 His name attracted numerous scholars, 
and especially Eomans ; therefore,, although he never 
himself taught in Eome 5 he must certainly be 
reckoned among the men who did most for the 
spread of the Stoic philosophy among the Eomans ; 4 

for granted. He came a second 
time from Rhodes under the last 
consulate of Marius (86 B.C.) 
on business to Rome (Plut. 
Mar. 45), while, on the other 
hand, the supposed visit in the 
year 51 seems to me, as I have 
shown, improbable. 

1 At any rate, we have not 
the slightest intimation of such 
a design. The chief purpose 
of this journey rather con- 
sisted, as far as we can gather, 
in geographical and historical 
investigation. The date seems 
to be the beginning of the first 
century, soon after the war 
with the Cimbri ; cf. Strabo, 
vii. 2, 2, 293. For further con- 
jectures, vide Scheppig, p. 4 sgg. 

2 At what time he went to 
Ehodes and what induced him 
to settle there, we are not told ; 
but as the journey in the west 
must have consumed several 
years, it is to be supposed that 
he only commenced his activity 
as a teacher subsequently. 

3 Athen. vi. 252, e ; Luc. 
Maerol). 20 ; Suid, From Luc. 
Z. G. ; Strabo, xiv. 2, 13, p. 655 : 
vii 5, 8, p. 316; Pint, Mar. 45; 
we find that he received the 
Ehodian citizenship, and filled 
public offices even that of a 

4 We can at once perceive 

this from the manner in which 
Cicero mentions him, treating 
him throughout as a man well 
known to his Eoman readers ; 
cf., for example, JV". D. i. 44, 
123 : Familiaris omnium nos- 
trum Positioning. He himself 
had heard him in Rhodes (Plut. 
Oic. 4 ; Cic. N. D. i. 3, 6 ; Tuso. 
ii. 25, 01 ; De Fato, 3, 5 ; Brut. 
91, 316), and kept up a con- 
stant connection with him 
(JFin. 1. 2, 6 : Legwms tamen 
Diogenem, &c., in jprimisqiie 
familiarem nostrum Posido- 
niwti). In the year 59 B.C. he 
sent Posidonius the memorial 
of his consulate to revise, but 
Posidonius declined the propo- 
sition, as the memorial could 
gain nothing by it (Ep. ad Att. 
ii. 1). This is the last definite 
date in the life of Posidonius. 
Previously Pompey had made 
the acquaintance of the philo- 
sopher, and given him repeated 
proofs of his esteem (IStrabo, 
xi. 1, 6, p. 492; Plut. Pomp. 
42; Cic. T'uso. I. c. ; Plin. H. JV. 
vii. 112). The story of Pornpey's 
visit to him, which Cicero 
(Tusc. 1. 0.) cites as a proof 
of Stoic fortitude under 
sufferings, is well known. He 
was also acquainted with the 
older disciple of Panfetius, Bu- 
tilius Eufus (Cic. Off. iii. 2, 10). 


even at a later period lie was regarded as one of CHAP. 
the first Stoic authorities, 1 and his numerous writ- IIL 
ings were among the scientific works most read. 2 

In his conception of Stoicism, Posidonius follows His j:Mfo~ 
in the main the tendency of his teacher Pangetius. *?-P Ji<t ? t(>n " 


In critical acuteness and freedom of spirit he stands 
indeed as far behind Pansetius 3 as he excelled him 
in erudition ; 4 and he consequently did not oppose 

1 Seneca repeatedly names 
Mm as such (JEp. 33, 4; 104, 
21; 108, 38), together with 
Zeno, Chrysippus, and Panaj- 
tius ; and in Ep. 90, 20, he says 
of Mm : Posidonius ,, tit mea 
fart ojrinio, eas Ms, cpii pluri- 
mum 'pliilosopldcs contulenint, 

2 Concerning the writings 
known to us, cf . Bake, 235 sqq. ; 
MtUler, 248 sq. ; on the geo- 
graphical and historical writ- 
ings, Scheppig, 15 sqq. There 
are more than fifty of them, 
s^me of them extensive works. 
What a mine of knowledge and 
learning the later authors pos- 
sessed in them, we s"ee from the 
numerous quotations in Cicero, 
Strabo, Seneca, Plutarch, Athe- 
nseus, Galen {De ffippocrafts 
et Platonis Placitis}, Diogenes, 
Stob?eus. &c. But, no doubt, 
much besides has been trans- 
ferred without acknowledg- 
ment to other expositions. 

3 Posidonius shows himself, 
as we shall find, very credulous, 
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 S 8, 173 ; cf. also 

xvi. 2, 17, p. Too). What fichep- 
pig (p. 42 ,<?#.) observes in his 
defence is not convincing to 

me, and when he says that the 
facility with which Posidonius 
appropriates the most fabulous 
narratives about fulfilled pro- 
phecies does not signify much, 
he forgets that a person who 
accepts the most improbable 
stories without competent au- 
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 Galen 
says (e Hippoer. et Plat. viii. 
1 ; vol. v. 652 jfc) : TLo<r*i&d>vi(>s < 

pLerpiav. His knowledge of 
geometry is also praised by 
G-alen (iv. 4, p. 390). Stray por- 
tions of his geometrical works 
are to be found in Proclus 
(Bake, p. 178 s$$. ; FriecQein'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 geograpMcal enquiries 




the tradition of Ms school with the same indepen- 
dence as his master did. In regard to several im- 
portant points in which Pansetius deserted the old 
Stoic doctrine, Posidonius returned to it. He held 
to the dogma of destruction of the world by fire ; l 
and he added some further arguments and theories 
to the ingenious devices invented by his predecessors 
for the defence of soothsaying : 2 for he ascribed a 

(Bake, 87 sqq. ; Scheppig, 15 
$.) we have evidence in 
ytrabo's mimerous quotations. 
Concerning the enquiries into 
natural history which he com- 
bined with his geographical 
descriptions, vide ift/ra, p. 
62, 3. A mass of historical 
knowledge must have lain in 
the great historical work, the 
49th book of which is quoted 
byAthenseus, iv. 168 A. This 
work treated in fifty- two books 
of the period from the con- 
clusion of Poly bias's history 
(146 B.C.) to 88 B.C. For 
further details, vide Bake, p. 
133 s%q., 248 sqq. ; Mailer, 249 
sqq. ; Scheppig, 24 sgq. 

1 Diog. vii. 142: irepl 5r? ovv 
TTJS *yVCTca$ Ko.1 T7J$ <pdopas TOV 
K6crfJLOv (p-rjcrl Z^vtiiv ev re? 
vspl 'oXov, Xpixwnros 5 3 Iv r<$ 

vios iv wfK&Ttp irzpl KOffftov, &C. 
Jlavairios 5' &$>Qa.pTQV airety'fji'aro 
TOV KOO-JAOV. That in these words 
not merely the discussion, but 
the assertion, of the beginning 
and destruction of the world is 
ascribed to Posidonius, is self- 
evident. In confirmation of 
this statement we have the 
remark (Pint. Plao. ii. 9, 3 par.} 
that Posidonius, deviating from 
Ms predecessors, would only 

allow so much space external 
to the world, as would be neces- 
sary for the world's eKirvpcacris. 
The contrary statement in 
Philo, ^Stern. Mimdi, where, 
in the passage quoted supra, 
p. 44, 1, was read (previously 
to Bernays' correction), instead 
of "BoyQbs 6 SiSc^iosr, Bo7]8. Kal 
Tloffiddvios, is nullified by this 
restoration of the true text, 
which also does away with 
Hirzel's objections (Uiiters. zu 
Oie. i. 225 5^/7.) to my exposi- 
tion of the theory of Posido- 

2 Further details will be 
found in the passages quoted, 
PUL d. Gr. HI. i. 337, 1. We 
there learn that Posidonius had 
treated of prophecy not only 
in the 2nd book of his <j>vtfiKbs 
\6yos, but also in a separate 
and comprehensive book; that 
he sought to establish belief in 
it, and to explain its possibility 
more particularly by other 
arguments (ibid. III. i. 339, 
1 ; 341, 3 ; 343, 5) ; that his 
acceptance of fulfilled pro- 
phecies and dreams was just 
as uncritical as his predeces- 
sors Antipater and Chrysippus 
(IMd. III. i. 339, 5). To him, 
indeed, is to be referred (cf. 
ibid. II. i. 337, 1) the en- 


value to this belief that might incline us to consider 
him not merely a Stoic but a Syrian Hellenist. The 
belief in demons was also taken under his protec- 
tion and utilised in support of a belief in pro- 
phecy ; l likewise the immortality of the soul, 2 which 
Pansetius had opposed. But on the whole he is, in 
his mode of thought, unmistakably the disciple of 
Pansetius. The chief problem of philosophy for him 
also avowedly lies in ethics : it is the soul of the 
whole system ; 3 a point of view which in and for 


tire representation of the Stoic 
doctrine of prophecy in the 
1st book of Cicero's treatise De 

1 Cf. Phil.d. Gr. III. 319,2; 
320, 3 ; Cic.Z>m^.i. 30, 64 : Trilus 
modis censet (Posid.') Deorum 
adpiilm homines somniare : WIG 
quod promdeat animus ipse per 
sese, quippe qui JDeorum cog- 
natione teneatur, altero giioci 
plemis aer sit immortalium ani- 
morum, in quilnis tumquam 
imignitce notce veritatis ad- 
pewea-nt, tert'w, quod ijM Dl 
cum dormwnti'bvs conloquantur. 

2 Hirzel (U'lrters.zu Cio.L 231 
' sq.') indeed thinks that as Posi- 
donius like Pansetius disbelieved 
in the conflagration of the world, 
so like him he must have entirely 
denied the doctrine of immor- 
tality. But even if this were 
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) j for he who allows the 

existence of immortal souls 

fenerally has no ground for 
enying human souls to be 
immortal. But we also learn 
from Cicero (/. 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, m-iilto 
magis faciet post worte?]}, cum 
om-ttitw norj)ore excesserit. Ita- 
que adpropinquante morte niulto 
eat divinior. As, moreover, it has 
never been said in any quarter 
that Posidonius doubted the 
life of the soul after death, 
though 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, 
p. 67, 4. 

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



CHAP, itself was already likely to cause a certain indiffer- 
IIL ence to dogmatic controversies. The adornment of 

His lave of speech, and the general intelligibility of dis- 

rUetoriG. course had also for Posidonius a value which they 
had not for the older Stoics ; he is not merely a 
philosopher but a rhetorician^ and even in his scien- 
tific exposition he does not belie this character. 1 If, 

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

Natural and erudite knowledge. 2 If the interest in natural 
science was stronger in him than was usual in the 
Stoic school, this circumstance might also contribute 
to tarnish the purity of his Stoicism, and to bring 
him nearer to the Peripatetics. 3 His admiration 

1 Of. Strabo, iii. 2, 9, p. 147: even the mechanical arts were 

TloffeiddvLos 5e rb irh.r)Qo$ r&v invented by the philosophers of 

jueTaAAaw (in Spain) eVcuz/<j> teal the Golden age. Perhaps he is 

r^v ape-7-V OUK oare^Tai rrjs ffvv- responsible also for what Strabo 

'ftdovs priropeias, oAAa vwevdov- says, i. 1, that as philosophy is 

<na rais vireppoXeus. Even the the knowledge of things human 

fragments we possess are some- and di vine (Pjiil.el.Gb*. III. i.238, 

times ornate in style, but 3), so 7ro\vpddeia can belong to 

always well written, and show no one except to a philosopher ; 

no trace of the tasteless mode geography is consequently a 

of exposition delighting mostly part of philosophy, 

in the form of scholastic in- 3 Strabo, ii. 3, 8, p. 104: 

ference employed by Zeno and TTOTU) yap e<m rb a.lrLoKojLKbv 

Chrysippus. Trap' avr (ytrabo is speaking 

- According to Seneca, Ep. primarily of his geographical 

88, 21, 24, he reckoned mathe- work) ical rb apLffroreXifo^ tinep 

matics and all liberal arts eiwXivQvffiv ot T^ue'repo: (the 

under philosophy. Seneca, Stoics) 5i& r^v e-nlKpv^iy r&v 

13p. 90, 7 sgq., combats the alriw. Some particulars bor* 

statement which Posidonius rowed by Posidonius from Ari* 

had tried to establish that stotle are given by Simplicius 


for Plato l was just as great (after the example 
of Panaetius) ; and in his commentary on the 

Timsgus, 2 we may well suppose that he tried to 
combine the Stoic doctrine with the Platonic. Even 
his agreement with Pythagoras Is of consequence in 
his eyes ; 3 and Democritus himself is reckoned by 
him among the philosophers ; 4 to which the earlier 
Stoics would have demurred on account of the re- 
lation of Democritus to Epicurus. 5 Hence it is mani- 


Phys. 64, #. OT. (from Gnminius' 
abstract of bis Meteorology.) 
De ccelo, 309, &, 2 K ; SchoL in 
Ariat. 517, , 31 ; Alex. Aphr. 
Meteorol. 116, a, o. 

1 Galen, Hipp, et Plat. iv. 7, 
421 : Kairoi. K.a.1 rov TlXdrrcavos 

?s Kal 6 
aL 6av- 

. [jLcifov T^JS &v$pa Kal Belov OLTTO- 
Ka\i, ws Kal Trpecr/Beuaji' avrov TO. 
re Trspl TWV Tradcav So'yfj.a.Ta. Kal ra 
Trepi r>v rTJs^v^s fivj/duetov, &c. 
Posid. ibid. v. 6, p. 472 : Sxrirep 6 
riAarwj/ fjfjLas 65i'5ae. 

2 Best. Math. vii. 93 ; Plut. 
Procr. An. 22, p. 1023; Theo 
Smyrn. De Mus. c. 46, p. 162, 
Bull.; Hermias in Pheedr. p. 
H-ijAst., if a commentary on the 
Pksedrus of his own is not here 
referred to. That he perhaps 
wrote a commentary on the 
Parmenides has already been 
observed, siipra, p. 43, 1. 

3 Galen, I. c. iv. 7, p. 425 ; v. 
6, p. 478. What Plutarch, L c., 
quotes from Posidonius (vide 
Phil, d Gr. II. i. 659, 1) belongs 
to the exposition of the Timseus, 
not directly to his own theory ; 
and the Pythagorean opinion 
ap. Sext. Z. <?., as the comparison 

of the passage in Math. iv. 2 sqg. 
shows, does not belong to the 
citation from Posidonius. Also 
the remark in Theo Smyns. 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 Platonic utterances, 
and therefore can prove nothing 
in regard to Posidonius' own 
adhesion to the Pythagorean 
number system. Patter iii. 701. 

4 Sen. 23jp. 90. 32. 

5 His eclecticism would have 
gone still further if Posidonius 
really, as Hitter, iii. 702, says, 
had derived Greek philosophy 
from Oriental tradition. This, 
however, is not correct in so 
universal a sense ; he merely 
said of Democritus that Ms 
doctrine of atoms was taken 
from the supposed Phoenician 
philosopher Mochus (Phil. d. Gr. 
I. 765), but this tells nothing as 
to the philosophical tendency 
of Posidonius, but only as to 
his deficiency in historical 
criticism, which is abundantly 
attested by Cicero and Strabo. 


CHAP, fest that tie must necessarily have approximated the 
IIL other systems to Stoicism,, and Stoicism to the other 
systems. A special opportunity for this seems to 
have been afforded to him, as to his contemporary 
Antiochus (vide infra), by the polemic against 
scepticism. In order to repel the accusations 
which were derived from the conflict of the philo- 
sophic systems, it was asserted that in the main 
they were agreed. 1 It does not appear, however, 
that he allowed himself many departures in material 
respects from the ancient Stoicism : our sources, at 
any rate, only mention one important divergence, his 
&$ Platonising anthropology. 2 Whereas the Stoic doc- 

trine, in opposition to that of Plato and Aristotle, 
denied a 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 
explained in reference to one principle. He found 
it, like Plato, inconceivable that reason should be 
the cause of that which is contrary to reason and of 
the passions ; 3 and he believed that the fact of our 

1 To this the following pas- definitions, though they doubt- 
sage refers (Diog. vii. 129) : less contain many amplifica- 
5o/cet 8' O.VTOLS jU^-re 5ia tions and rectifications of the 
r^v dicxpcDviav a<(</rao-0cu (pi\o- earlier theories, tell us nothing 
croQias, eVel r<$ h.6yq> rovro) -rrpo- of any departure from the 
Aefyeiz/ o\ov rbv (3iov, &s ical Stoic doctrine in connection 
Uo(rei5(&vt.6s fytiffiv eV rols irpo- with his philosophical view of 
TpeTTTiKoIy. the universe. It will, there- 
'- The observation mentioned fore suffice to indicate the 
supra, p. 60,1, concerning empty quotations, Phil. d. Gh\ III. i, 
space outside the world is quite given in the account of the 
unimportant : and what we Physics of the Stoics, 
otherwise know of his physical, 3 Galen, De Hipp, et Plat. 
astronomical, and geographical (where this subject is treated 


affections being frequently at strife with, our will CHAP. 

could only be explained by an original opposition of " r 

the faculties working in man ; l he showed that 
passionate movements of the mind could not arise 
merely from our notions about good and evil things, 
for as soon as these notions are of a rational kind, 
they do not produce a passionate movement, nor 
have they this result with all persons in the same 
manner ; and even an existing emotion does not 
exclude a simultaneous and opposite activity of 
reason. 2 Finally he remarked that the 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 s%. ; v. 5, questions as the seat of the 

461. soul, and not only in regard to 

1 Loc. cit. iv. 7, 424 *#. points which may be decided 

2 LOG. (At. iv. 5, 397; c. 7, simply from immediate per- 
416 ; v. 6, 473 sg. ception or self-consciousness. 

3 L.c. iv. 7, 416s<2'. I pass over As an instance of the latter he 
some further arguments. When, brings forward mental condi- 
however, Bitter, iii. 703, repre- tions, and says of them that 
sents Posidonius as saying : In they require ov peuepuv^ \6yuv 
order to understand the doc- ov5' ouroSeQ-ewi/, n&vr\s Se arafjurfi- 
trine of the passive emotions (reas &v l/ecwrrore Tracrxo/uey. But 
there is no need of lengthy this does not mean, In order to 
arguments and proofs, I cannot understand them there needs no 
find this in the utterance in proof ;but,Their actual constitu- 
Galen, v. 178, ch. (502 jfc). Posi- tion is known to us immediately 
donius here blames Chrysippus through self -consciousness. 

for appealing to passages from 4 Galen, c. v. 1, 429 : Xp&r- 
the poets in regard to such nriros /xey o%v . . 



being distinct from reason, are determined by the 
constitution of the body : l he would have these 
forces regarded, however, not as parts of the soul 
but only as separate faculties of one and the same 
essence, the seat of which, according to the prevail- 
ing opinion of his school, he placed in the heart. 2 
Desire and courage must also, he thought, belong 
to the animals ; the former to all ; the latter only to 
those capable of changing their place : 3 an indica- 

iretparai Kpicrets rivet,* elvat rov 
KoyiffriKOv ra iraQy, 7A\v<*v S 5 oil 
ra$ Kpiffeis auras aXAa ras CTTL- 
yiyvop.Vct,s avrcus (rvffroXas Kal 
Xvcreis eTrdpffeis T Kal ras irrcfxreis 
ris iv6fj,L^ey elvai ra irdQ-rj, 

vexdeis GTraivsi re a^aa KO! irpocrie- 
rai rb TiXdrcavos $6yju.a Kal avri- 
\4yei rols irepl rbv Xp-ucmnrov 
ovre Kpiffsts elvcu. ra, irddr} 5eiK- 
vvtav ovre iri' /cptn'scrt, 
aXXa KLvf](rei$ nvas erepow dvvd- 

crev GTriQvfjiTirLK^v re tcai fluftoeiST?. 
Ibid. iv. 3, 139, et passim. 

1 LOG. cit. v. 2, 464 : &$ rfav 
iraSyrLK&v Kivf}ff<av rrjs tyvxns eiro- 
/j.VO)V aei rf, 5ia06<r6i rov <rcafJLaros. 

2 Loo. cit. vi. 2, 515 : o 5' 
'Apio-TOTe'ATjir re Kal 6 TloffeiScavLOS 
eiSr) ju.ev ^ fJLepT] fyvxys ou/c bvo- 
fj.dfova'n/ (which he has per- 
haps done in inaccurate lan- 
guage, infra p. 68, 5) dwdfjieis 
S' eivcLi fj>a(TL picis ovcrias e/c rys 
KapSlas 6pfjL(t)fj.evr)s. When Ter- 
tull. (De An. 14), departing 

the above exposition, 
Dividitur autem (sc. 
in paHes . . . decem 
qiiosdam Stoicorum, et in 
duas amplius apud Posidonium, 


qui a duolus eceorsii-s titulis, 
principali, qiiocl ajunt yye/ji.ovi- 
kbv, et a rat'ionali, guod ajunt 
KoyiKbv, in duodeoim exindegro- 
secuit, this discrimination of 
the yyeiwviKbv from the Xoyutov 
shows that we have here to do 
with a misunderstanding of 
his own in regard to what he 
had found in his authority. 
For conjectures as to the origin 
of this misunderstanding, vide 
Diels, Doxogr. 206. 

^ 3 Galen, Z. o. v. 6,476: tea 
juez> o?>v r&v ^cpw fiver K[vr\r* e<rrl 
Kal irpOffiretyvKora SlKrjv (j)vr(av 
rcus irerpais tf riffiv erepois rowi)- 
rois, eTTLdv/LLia fi6vy SioiKe'io'Qai 
Xeyei aura, ra 5' aXAa ra a\oya 
(rti/j.irai'rci rats $vvdfj.e(riv a/u.<po- 
repaLs xpvjcrdaL rf) r 1 Tn8vjjL7]rLKf} 
Kal rfj 6v/ULoeide"i, rbv av&ptairov 5e 
IJLQVQV rcus rpiffl, TfpoffeL\f]<pvai 
yap Kal rty XoyiffriK^v ap-^v. 
The distinction between ani- 
mals which are capable of 
motion from a place and those 
which are not, together with 
the observation that even the 
latter must have sensation and 
desire, is first met with in 
Aristotle (cf . PMl. d. 6fr. II. ii. 
II. &, 498). 



tion that Posidonius, in agreement with Pansetius T 
and Aristotle, 2 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, like Plato, drew the further 
inference from the opposition of the rational and 
irrational soul, that the former, before its entrance 
into the body, existed without the latter, and will 
exist without it after death, is uncertain ; 4 but if he 
held this, even with the modifications required by the 
doctrine of 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, His 
indeed, the influence on the other doctrines of Posi- et ' t>ic8 - 

1 Vide supra, p. 47, 2. 

2 Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 499. 

3 Cf. Schwenke (Jakrb. / 
Class. Pliilol. 1879, p. 136 *#.) 
who here appeals to the ob- 
servation of Cicero, apparently 
derived from Posidonius, N. D. 
ii. 12, 33 : Plants are endowed 
(<j>vcrL crvvexecrQat, cf . PJlil. d. CrT. 
in.i. 192, 3) witha^^m/ les- 
tiis autem, sensum et matum de-Ait 
(sc. natura) . . . Jioc liomini 
amplius, qiiod addidit ration&m. 

4 Cicero remarks (De Divin. 
i. 51, 115) in order to establish 
foreknowledge in dreams : The 
spirit lives in sleep li"ber ab 
s&nsibus. Qui quia vixit ab 
omni ceternitate versaiusque est 
cum innumerabiWbus animus, 
omnia QUOB in natura rervm 
sunt, videt, &c. ; and in c. 57, 
131, he returns to the subject: 
Cumgue animi hominwn sewiper 

fuerint fvturiqiie mnt, \_q\iid estj 
cur ii quid esc quoque eveniat et 
quid qiiamqiiB rem sigmfcet 
yperspie&re non possint ? If 'this 
agrees with the other contents 
of the first book of Posidonius, 
the pre-existence of the soul 
(Corssen,te Posid., Bonn, 1878, 
p. 31) must have been found 
there. But the semper and ab 
omni ester nitate must even then 
be laid to Cicero's account, for 
Posidonius could admit souls to 
exist neither before the begin- 
ning nor after the end of the 
world to which they belong 1 . 
It is all the more questionable 
whether the exposition of this 
Stoic has not beeo here ampli- 
fied by Cicero, or whether some- 
thing which he hypothetically 
quoted from Plato may not 
have been taken in a more 
definite sense. 

F 2 


CHAP, donius which, we might have expected from his own 
_L_ utterances ; though he decidedly recognises the de- 
pendence of ethics upon the theory of the emotions, 1 
there is nothing told ns of his ethics which would 
clash with the Stoic moral doctrine : for the state- 
ment of Diogenes, 2 that he did not hold virtue to 
be the only good, and sufficient for happiness, we 
have already seen to be untrustworthy ; 3 and if he 
was of opinion that many things, even for the pre- 
servation of one's country, ought not to be done, 4 
this, though a deviation, was, in any case, only such 
a deviation from the cynicism of the oldest Stoics 
as may be considered an amendment in harmony 
with the spirit of the system. 5 Nevertheless, we 
cannot regard the Platonising anthropology of our 
philosopher as a merely isolated admission of alien 
elements into the Stoic system ; for in this alliance 
with Plato and Aristotle there comes to light an 
internal, historical, and not unimportant transform- 
ation of Stoicism. This system had, in its theo- 
retical part, abolished the Platonic and Aristotelian 
duality of form and substance, spirit and matter : 

1 Loc. tit. iv. 7, 421; v. 6, (ap. Clem. Strom, ii. 416, B) : 
469 ; 471 S$. rb fijv Bewpovvra rty r&v e 6\uv 

2 vii. 103 ; 128. aA^emz/ /cal T&%LV teal crwyKara- 

3 Vide supra, p. 47, 4. ovcevafaz/ af/rbv Kara rb Svvarby, 

4 Cic. Off. i. 45, 159. Kara fj.riv a^pevov inrb rov 

5 Even the contradiction a\6yov pspovs ry$ tyv^s, is only 
given by Posidonius to an in- a formal extension of the older 
adequate explanation of the definitions. The difference be- 
requirement of life according to tween Posidonras and Ghrys- 
nature (G-alen, I. c. v. 6, p. 470) ippus (mentioned Phil, d. 6V. 
does not touch the nucleus of III. i, 232, 2), in regard to 
the Stoic theory, and his own diseases of the soul, is also 
definition of the highest good unimportant. 


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

1 This dualism, is expressed TT\S re av^oXoyias KO! rov KCUC&- 
also in the notice in Plutarch, SaL^ovos J3iov, r"b ^ Karct. irav 
F<r. 1, Utr. an. an eorj). s. (Bgr. c. Iirecrdat r<p ev avrcp Salmon crvy- 
6, which says that Posidonius yevei re %VTI teal r^v dpoiay <pv(rw 
divided all human activities e^ovn r<p rbv '6\ov fc6a"fjt,ov 5toi- 
and conditions into tyvxtKo., ff(a ~ ttovvrt., r<$ 2> x ^P oyi Ka ^ &<*>$** 
partita, ffa/JLariKci vepl i|/v%V and Trore ffvvettK\ivovra$ (pepecrdai. ol 
tyw%tKa TTpl crw/xa. Se rovro iraptlSdvres ovre ev rotv- 

2 Ap. Galen, v. 6, p. 469 : rb rots fieXnovcri rfyv alriav r&v 
^ r&v TTft^wy c&nov, rovrecrri iradoay, ovr 3 ey ro7s irepl rrj$ 






A link 


the Stoic 


and Neo- 



Stoics of 
the first 

which constitutes with. Posidordus the proper nucleus 
of the Platonising triple division clearly enunciated ; 
but it is also said that this dualism chiefly appears 
necessary to the philosopher for the reason that it is 
the anthropological presupposition of the ethical 
opposition of sense and reason. The first symptom 
of this bias we have already noticed in Panaetius 
in the distinction of tyvxy and foe is ; in its further 
development in Epictetus and Antoninus we shall 
find, later on, one of the phenomena which prepared 
the transition from the Stoa to NeoPlatonism. 
The psychology of Posidonius therefore appears as a 
link in a great historical nexus ; that it was not 
without importance for the later conception of the 
Stoic doctrine, we may see from the statement of 
(Men, 1 that he had met with none among the Stoics 
of his time who had known how to answer the 
objections of Posidonius against the old Stoic 
theory. 2 

In the period immediately following Posidonius the 
spread of the Stoic schoolisindeed attestedbythe great 

evSaifLoviasr ical ofjLoKoyias opdo- 
tioj-ovtrLV. ov yap fiKtirovcrtv 'fai 
irp&r&v sffnv sv avrfj rb K.&T& 
firjSev &ycrOa.t virb rov a\oyov re 
Kal KOKodaifj.oi'OS real aBeov TTJS 
$VXTJS. Of. ibid. p. 470 *#., and 
what is quoted &vpra>, 68, 5, from 
Clemens. In opposition to the 
moral dignity of the spirit, 
PosidoniuSj ap. Sen. Ep, 92, 10, 
speaks of the body as iwwtiMs 
GO/TO et flitida, recejotandis taffi* 
turn ciUs JiaMlis. 

1 LOG. ait. iv. 7, end ; 402 tg. 

2 In the preceding pages it 

has been shown what is pecu- 
liar to 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 
earlier sections of this work, 
are enumerated by Bake. In his 
collection, completed by Mxiller, 
Fragm, JBRst. Gr. iii. 252 sg$., 
and Scheppig, De Posid. 45 sqq.> 
are to be found the historical 
and geographical fragments and 
theories of this philosopher. 



numbers of its members with whom we are acquainted ; l 
but only a portion of these seem to have occupied 
themselves independently with philosophy, and even 
of that portion there was certainly not one philosopher 
to compare with Pansetius and Posidonius in scientific 
importance and influence. It is, therefore, all the 


1 Beside those already enu- 
merated, p. 52 $<., the follow- 
ing may here be mentioned : 
(X) Greeks: Dionysius, who, 
according to Cicero (Tiisc. ii. 11, 
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 
young interlocutor in that city. 
In that case he must be distin- 
guished from Dionysius of 
Cyrene, the disciple of Panse- 
tins (p. 53) ; but he is no 
doubt the same person spoken 
of by Diog. vi, 43, ix. 15, and 
opposed by Philodemus IT. 0-77- 
jueiW, col. 7 sqq. (as results from 
col. 19, 4: sq. after Zeno). If 
he was the head of the school, 
he can scarcely have followed 
immediately after Mnesarchus 
(vide supra, p. 53) ; perhaps, as 
has already been shown, loo. 
cit., 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, 
3, et passim') ; Phanias (Diog. 
vii. 41) and Jason, the son of 
his daughter, who succeeded 
him as head of the school in 
Bhodes (Suidas, sufi vocc ; while 
on the other hand, as is 
shown, PUl d. G-r. III. i. 
48, he cannot be, as Compa- 
retti supposes, the anonymous 
disciple of Diogenes alluded to 

In the Ind. Here. col. 52, 1) ; 
and Leonides, whom Strabo, 
xiv. 2, 13, p. 655, describes as a 
Stoic from Pihodes was probably 
a pupil of Posidonius. Also 
the two teachers of the younger 
Cato, Athenodorus with the 
surname Cordylio, from Tar- 
sus, whom Cato took with him 
from Pergamum to Borne and 
kept with him till Ms death 
(Strabo, xiv. 5, 14, p. 674. 
Plut. Cato Min. 10, 16; Epit. 
Dioy.}, previously overseer of 
the library at Pergamum in 
which he capriciously corrected 
the writings of Zeno (Diog. 
vii. 34) ; and Antipater of 
Tyre (Plut. Cato, 4 ; Strabo, xvi. 
2, 24, p. 757; Epit. Diog.\ 
doubtless the same who, accord- 
ing to Cicero, Off. ii. 24, 86, 
died shortly before the compo- 
sition of this treatise, in 
Athens, and had written, it 
would seem, upon Duties; a 
treatise of his irepl K6(r/mov, is 
quoted in Diog. vii. 139 etpass. ; 
and respecting two other trea- 
tises, it is uncertain to which 
Antipater they belong. Ac- 
cording to 2nd. Hero. col. 79 
(supra, p. 54) he had one or 
perhaps two disciples of Panse- 
tius for his instructors. Apol- 
lonius of Tyre seems, accord- 
ing to Strabo, Z.0., to have been 
somewhat younger; treatises 
under his name are quoted by 



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 
alien elements less strictly than before ; and partly 

Strabo, and ap. Diog. vii. 1, 2, 
6, 24, perhaps also ap. Phot. 
Cod. 161, p. 104, 5, 15. Dio- 
dotus, who instructed Cicero, 
and who afterwards lived with 
him, finally having become 
blind, died at his house about 
60 B.C. and made Cicero his 
heir (Cic. Brut. 90, 309 ; Acad. 
ii. 36, 115 ; N. JD. i. 3, 6 ; ad 
JDiv. xiii. 16, ix. 4 ; Two. v. 39, 
113; ad Att. ii. 20); a disciple 
of his, a freedman of the 
triumvir Crassus, Apollonius 
by name, is mentioned by Cicero, 
ad Fam. xiii. 16. From Mm 
must be distinguished the 
Apollonius of Ptolemais in 
the Ind. Here. col. 78, whom 
the compiler of that catalogue 
calls (pixos 7)fj.caj> ; 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 90 
B.C. ; whereas the Apollonius 
of Cicero, as a boy in his 
house, long after this date, 
enjoyed the instruction of 
Diodotus and accompanied 
Caesar (though not probably in 
extreme age) to the Alexandrian 
war. Comparetti (1. c. p. 470, 
547) wrongly identifies them. 
Apollonides, the friend of 
Cato, who was about him in 
his last days (Plut. Cat. Min. 
65 *#. ; cf. Phil. d. Gr. III. i. p. 
48). Athenodorus, the son 

of Sandon, from Tarsus or the 
neighbourhood, perhaps a dis- 
ciple of Posidonius, the teacher 
of the Emperor Augustus, con- 
cerning whom cf. Strabo, xiv. 
5, 14, p. 674 ; Lucian, Macrob. 
21, 23 ; Dio Chrysost. Or. 33, 
p. 24 R; ^Elian. V. T. xii. 25 ; 
Plut. Pojjlic. c. 17, and Apopti- 
tliegm. jReg. Cm. Aug. 7, p. 
207 ; Qu. Com. ii. 1, 13, 3, p. 
634 ; Dio Cass. lii. 36 ; Ivi. 43 ; 
Zosim.-S^. i. 6 ; Suid. J A07p(f&. ; 
Muller. Fragm. Hist. Gr. iii. 
485 8%. Whether the writings 
and sayings quoted from 
Athenodorus belong to him 
or to another person of the 
same name, in most instances 
cannot be discovered with cer- 
tainty, but it seems to me 
probable that by the Atheno- 
dorus mentioned in Sen. 
Trtmgu. An. 3, 1-8, 7, 2 ; Ep. 
10, 5, without further descrip- 
tion, is to be understood our 
Athenodorus, since at that 
time he was certainly the best 
known man of the name in 
Home ; that he was likewise 
the same who wrote about, i.e. 
against, the Aristotelian cate- 
gories, and who was opposed 
on particular points by Conutus, 
we find from Simpl. 5, a. 15, 5. 
41, 7. (Schol. in Arist. 47, ~b, 
20 ; 61, a, 25 54.) 32, e. 47, f. ; 
Porph. itfy. 4, 1, 21, I (ScJiol. in 
Arist. 48, 5, 12) ; cf . Brandis, 
Abhandl. d. Berl. Akad, 1833 ; 


in its learned activity, partly in the practical appli- 
cation of its principles, came into amicable contact 
on many points with other schools. An example 
showing the extent to which this eclecticism attained 
in individuals will be presented to us in Arms 

other Stoics of this name, one 
of them from Antioch, men- 
tioned by Suidas, 0eW ^pvpv^ 
the other from Tithora, men- 
tioned by Diogenes, is. 82, we 
do not know the dates, but 
the latter must be older than 
JEnesidemas.) Lastly, Strabo, 
the famous geographer, con- 
sidered himself as belonging 
to the Stoic school. His birth 
must be placed, as Hasen- 
muller says, D& Strab. Vita 
Diss.* Bonn, 1863, p. 13 s$. 
(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- 
tieth year (Strabo, sii 6, 2 
p. 568), and saw him in Ptome, 
whither Strabo can scarcely 
have gone before his fourteenth 
year. Bis native city was 
Ainasea in Pontus (Strabo, sii. 
S, 15, E9, p. 547, 561) ; he lived, 
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 
and 19 after Christ.) He 
betrays himself to be a Stoic 
not only by utterances such as 
i. 1, p. 2 (the Stoic definition 
of philosophy), i. 2, 2, p. 15> 
but he also calls Zeno 6 ^/teVepos 
i. 2, 34, p. 41, and xvi. 4, 27, 
p. 784 5 vide mj)ra, p. 62, 3* 


t. Kl. 275; Prantl. 
GeseJi. d. Log. 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 
doubt the Athenodorus Calvns, 
who inspired Cicero's treatise 
on Duties (Cic. ad AU. xvi. 
11, 14) ; while on the other 
hand the author of the icspi- 
irarat, which Diogenes fre- 
quently cites, is more probably 
the Peripatetic of the same 
name spoken of infra y p. 124:. 
To this same period belongs 
Theo of Alexandria, who ac- 
cording to Suidas. sub voce, 
lived under Augustus and was 
the author of a work on Eheto- 
ric besides an epitome of 
Apollodorus' Physics. Perhaps 
he may be the person al- 
luded to in the Ind. Here. 
col. 79, in the words &v J AAean~ 
Speus, thought by Gomparetti 
to be Dio of the Academy 
(vide infra, p. 100). In that 
case he was a disciple of 
Stratocles (vide supra, p. 54) 
and only the latter part of his 
life can have fallen under 
Augustus. If he survived 
Arms (vide infra, 106 , 1 : Suidas 
says : yeyov^s eiri AiryOTJcrrov 
fjiera "Apewv) he musfe have 
lived to a great age like Ms 
master Stratocles. (Of two 



Didyrmis, who indeed counted himself a member of 
the Stoic school, but who approximates so closely to 
Alexander the Academician, that it seems preferable 
to speak of him after that philosopher. 

Perhaps Athenodorus, the son of 
Sandon, may have introduced 
him to Stoicism ; whom, he 
calls -ri/juv eTcupos (xvi. 4, 21, 
p. 779), and concerning whom 
he shows himself to be accu- 
rately informed (xiv. 5, 14, p. 
674). Meanwhile he had also 
heard the Peripatetic Tyrannic 
Oii. 3, 16, p. 548) and Xen- 
archus (xiv. 4, 4, p. 670) and 
had had the still more famous 
Boethus either as a fellow dis- 
ciple or more prohably (for the 
word crvj/e<f>i\ocroct>'f)(ras.i.i' in xvi. 
2, 24, p. 757, permits also this 
interpretation) as a teacher. 
(Of a third instructor, Aristo- 
demus, 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 
unknown. () Among 1 the 
Bonaans of this period, the 
following are known to us as 
adherents of the Stoic doc- 
trine : Q. Lucilius Balbus, 
whom Cicero praises as a dis- 
tinguished Stoic (JV: D. i. 6, 15) 
and whom, in the second book 
of this treatise he considers as 
the representative of the school. 
M. Porcius OatoUticensis, 
already described by Cicero 

(Parad. Procem. 2, as perfectus 
Stoicvs', in Brut, 31, 118 as 
perfectissimus Stoieus ; and in 
Pro Mur. 29, 61 attacked on 
account of Stoical asperities, 
called in De Flnibus 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 (PJiil. 
d. ffr. III. i. 254, 3). His teachers, 
Antipater and Athenodorus 
and his friend Apollonides 
have already come before us. 
Concerning his Stoicism vide 
also Pliny, Hist. Nat. vii. 30, 113, 
xxxiv. 8, 92. M. Favonius, 
a passionate admirer of Cato's, 
respecting whom cf . Plut. Brut. 
34; Cato Min. 32, 46; Cfesar, 
21 ; Pomp. 73 ; Sueton. Octav. 
13 ; Valer. Max. ii. 10, 8 ; Dio 
Cass. xxxviii. 7, xxxix. 14. Also 
Valerius Soraiius, an older 
contemporary and acquaintance 
of Cicero's (Cic. Brut. 46, 169), 
seems from what is quoted by 
Augustine (Civ. D. vii. 11, 13), 
probably from his treatise on 
the Gods (Bernhardy, Rom. 
Lit. 229), to have belonged to 
the school of Pansetius. Some 
others who are also occasionally 
reckoned among the Stoics, as 
Varro and Brutus, will be spoken 
of later on. 




THIS approximation and partial blending of the 

schools of philosophy, as has been already observed, 

was accomplished in a still more decisive manner in c - Tfo 
the Academy. We have seen how effectively the way 
was cleared for eclecticism, partly through the scep- 
ticism of the Academy, and partly through the theory 
of probability connected with that scepticism ; and 
how in consequence certain traces of this mode of 
thought appear even among the first disciples of 
Carneades. 1 It was still more definitely developed 
after the commencement of the first century before 
Christ, by Philo and Antiochus. 

Philo, 2 a native of Larissa, in Thessaly, 3 was the 
disciple and successor of Clitomachus in Athens. 4 In 

1 PHI. d. &r. III. i. 526, 2 ; ler Griefsw. 1 869), col. 33, he 
supra, p. 5, 2. came when he was about 

2 C. F. Hermann, De PMlone twenty-four to Athens, and here 
Lwrissceo : G-ott. 1851 ; ibid. D& for fourteen years attended the 
PMlone Lariss. disputatio al- school of Clitomachus, after he 
t&ra, 1855 j Erische on Cicero's had previously been instructed 
Academica, G-otting&r Studien, in his native city (according 
ii. 126-200, 1845. to Biicheler's emendation, for 

3 Stob. JEcl. ii. 38. eighteen years ; therefore, from 
* Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 17 : Clito* his sixth or seventh year ; I 

maclw PMlo vester operavi mul- should rather conjecture : irepl 

tos awnos dedit; Pint. Oic. 3; o/c[rcb ovceSbj']^, or something 

Stob. 1. o. According to the JiM. similar) by Callicles, a disciple 

JIerc.Academic&rum(ed..'Bviche- of Carneades. According to the 




the Mithridatic war lie fled, with others on the Koman 
side, to Borne, 1 and here gained for himself great 
esteem, 2 both as a teacher and as a man. Through 
him Cicero was won over to the doctrine of the new 
Academy, as Philo had apprehended it. 3 "Whether 
he ever returned to Athens we do not know ; but in 
any case he does not seem 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 Stoic, at least the imper- 
fect text seems to mean this ; 
but whether Apollodorus is the 
Athenian mentioned (supra,^. 
53) or the Seleucian mentioned 
(Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 47) seems 
the more doubtful, as Philo's 
own leadership of the school 
(sujpra, p. 53) can scarcely 
have begun later than that of 
Apollodorus of Athens, and 
as the predecessor of the latter, 
Mnesarchus, was the teacher 
of Philo's pupil Antiochus (vide 
infra, 86, 1). That he followed 
Glitomachus as head of the 
school, we find from the Ind. 
Herd, and Bus. Pr. J&v. xiv. S, 9 
(according to Numenius) ; and 
from Cic. Brut. 89, 306, that he 
was the most important philoso- 
pher of the Academy of his time 
(princeps Academice} ; Aead. ii. 
6, 17 (PMlone autem vivo patro- 
einium Academics non deficit}. 
In Athens Antiochus was his 
pupil (vide infra 86, 1). Besides 
philosophy he taught rhetoric 
very zealously (Cic. De Or tut. iii. 
28, 110). 

1 Cic. Brut. 89, 306. Concern- 
ing the instructions he gave 
there in philosophy and rhe- 

toric, vide Tuso. ii. 3, 9 ; 11, 26. 
2 Plut. 6^. 3 : $iXa>vos SrfiKova-e 

'Pajjjicuoi T&V KAeiro/m^ou orvvii- 
Qwv KoL Sia >rbv \6yav sQcLVfjiaa'av 
KCU 5ia rbv rp6irov Tiydir-ricra.v. 
Cic. Acad. i. 4, 13 : PMlo, mag- 
mis vir. Cf . the following note, 
and also Stob. Eel. ii. 40. 

3 Plut. I. o. ; Cic. Tusc. I. c. ; 
JV". D. i. 7, 16 ; Brut. I.e., totum 
ei me tradidi. 

4 The Mithridatic war broke 
out in 88 B.C., and probably 
Philo came immediately after 
this to Borne. We hear of a 
treatise he had composed while 
Antiochus was with Lucullus 
in Alexandria (Cic. Aoad. ii. 4, 
11), which, according to Zumpt 
(AM. d. Berl. Acad. 1842; 
Hut. Phil. JZl.p. 67), would fall 
in the year 84, according to Her- 
mann I. G. 1. 4, in 87. When 
Cicero came to Athens in 79 B.C. 
he cannot have been there, as he 
would otherwise have been 
mentioned in Plut. Cic. 4 ; Cic. 
Brut. 91, 315 ; Fin. v. 1, 1. Per- 
haps he remained in Kome, or, 
as seems to me more probable, 
was no longer living. How the 
statement as to the length of 
his life is to be completed can- 
not be ascertained. Biiclaeler 

PHILO. 77 

are told, zealously defended the doctrine of Carneades CHAP. 
in its whole content; in the sequel, however, he IY * 
became unsettled in regard to this doctrine, and 
without expressly abandoning it, he sought greater 
fixity of conviction than the principles of his pre- 
decessors afforded. 1 Though it was not in itself con- 
trary to the spirit of scepticism that he should 
regard philosophy from the practical point of view, 2 
yet this mode of treating it received from him an timl ms ' 
application which went beyond scepticism : he was 
not satisfied, like Pyrrho, by the destruction of 
dogmatism to clear away hindrances, with the re- 
moval of which (according to that philosopher) 
happiness came of itself; but in order to attain this 
end he found complete directions for right conduct 
to be necessary. The philosopher, he says, may be 
compared 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 ej-rjKOvra rpla, for lie says eiredv^e^ ev olcrfl' 5Vi, ra>v 

there is no room in the lacuna 6vr<av rvxew, e iva ^ eS&c 

for epfiojj.'fjKOj'ra (Inci. HeTC. v&ra jSaAAooz/ avrtis CK&J' . 

Aead. 33, 18). That Philo had at first professed " 

1 Numen. ap. Bus. Pr. Uv. the Academic scepticism more 

xiv. 9, 1 : At the beginning of unconditionally than he after- 

his career as a teacher, Philo wards did, follows from Cic. 

was full of zeal in defending Acad. ii. 4, 11 sg. ; vide infra t 

the doctrine of the Academy : p. 80, 2. 

leal ra &o7,ueVa T$ KAem>- 2 Pyrrho had already done this 

flaxy i?ve Kal rots STou/coTs (cf. Pliil. d. 6rr* III. i. 484, 3). 
e'/copvo-crero v&po-jri x^A/c^. Sub- 3 Stob. Eel. ii. 40 sy. : eoucevat 

sequently, however, ouSev 5e (pyffLT&vQi^croipoj'iarpq} 

Kara ra avra laur^J evJei, f) 5e rcav Kal yap rrj larpiKy cnrovB^j iraffa. 

irad7)]ut.dra)v avrbv ave<Trpe<pep irepl rb re\os y rovro 5 J %v vyleia, 

evdpyetd re Kal dpo^oyta. TTO\- Kal ry <f>i\0(TO<plq Trepl r)jv 



* IV. 

lie derives the six divisions of philosophy which he 
assumed, 1 and according to which he himself treated 
of ethics in its whole extent. 2 Where the interest 
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 strength- 

1 According to Stobseus, I. c., 
they are the following. The 
first thing that is necessary, he 
says, is that the sick man 
should be prevailed upon to 
submit himself to medical 
treatment, and that other 
counsels should be opposed 
this is the \6yos irporpeTrriKbs 
(jrctpop/JLcay irl rty aperV), which 
has partly to prove the worth 
of virtue (or, perhaps more ac- 
curately, of philosophy) and 
partly to confute the objections 
against philosophy. (The irpo- 
rpeirriKos of Philo is thought 
by Krische, I c. p. 191, and Her- 
mann, i. 6, ii. 7, to be the pro- 
totype of Cicero's JEFortensius ; 
cf ., however, Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 
63). This being attained, there 
must, secondly, be a remedy 
applied on the one hand, 
false and injurious opinions 
must be discarded, and, on the 
other, right opinions must be 
imparted & Trepl aya6tav KCU 
KaKtov rfaos. The third is the 
x6yos TTpl reXcav. In this part 
of Philo 's -ethics Hermann con- 
jectures (ii. 7) the source of 
the 4th book of Cicero's treatise 
JDe Finibus. This, however, 
not only cannot be proved, but 
it is also improbable, as Philo, 
and not Antiochus, was the first 

to maintain that the Stoic 
ethics agreed so entirely in all 
things essential with those of 
the Academy and Peripatetics, 
that Zeno had no occasion to 
separate himself from the Aca- 
demy, The fourth part treats 
TTspl (Slav, and fixes the Qecap^- 

rov r4\ov$, primarily for the 
conduct of individuals. The 
same problem is undertaken by 
the fifth part, the TroAm/eds, in 
regard to the commonwealth. 
In order to provide not only 
for the wise, but also for the 
peffcas SiaKel/j.evoi Mpcairoi, who 
are unable to follow logical in- 
vestigation, the sixth part is 
required, the viroQ<-riKbs \6yos, 
which coins the results of ethics 
into rules for individual cases. 
2 This is evident from the 
concluding words of Stobseus, 
p. 46 (in regard to Arius Didy- 
mus) : auras IJ.GV ofiv 


rot. Trepl 


Any one who agrees with Her- 
mann's conjecture respecting- 
Fin-, iv. has the less right to 
dispute this, as Hermann does 
(ii. 5). 

PHILO. 79 

ened and the inclination to scepticism weakened ; l CHAP. 
and so we actually find that Philo withdrew from Iy - 
the standpoint which had simply disputed the pos- Modifier 
sibility of knowledge. The Stoic theory of know- timi f ^ 
ledge he could not, of course, adopt ; against the If'tlT* 
doctrine of intellectual cognition, he argued with Academ y- 
Carneades that there is no notion so constituted 
that a false notion may not co-exist with it : 2 and 
the truth of sensible perception from which the 
Stoics ultimately derived all notions he denied for 
all the reasons which his predecessors in the Academy 
had given ; 3 and little as he could agree with the 

1 This connection Is, indeed, impre&wm effietumque ex eo> 
denied by Hermann, 1. o. ; but unde esset, guale esse non posset 
as we know (from Stob. I.e.} ex eo, unde non esset . . . JIQG 
that Philo placed the ultimate cum infirmat toUitque Philo, 
end of philosophy in happiness, judicium tollit incogniti et 
that he believed this to be cogniti. But this does not 
conditioned by right moral mean, as Hermann (ii. 11) as- 
views (f>yi&s Uxovo-ai 86ai, 0e- serts, that Philo maintained 
frfmara &rt 0fov), and by a whole that if there were a visum like 
system of such views, and de- that required by Zeno, no corn- 
voted one of the six sections of preJiensio would be possible ; 
his ethics expressly to the re- but rather, if the comprehen- 
moval of false and the impart- sible must be a visum impres- 
ing of true opinions, the in- sum, and so forth, there would 
f erence is inevitable that he be nothing comprehensible ; the 
held true opinions to be neces- same statement that is made by 
sary, and consequently did not Sest. PyrrJi. i. 235 (infra, p. 
maintainat any rate, for the 81, 2). Of. as to the cone-' 
practical sphere the stand- spending propositions of Car- 
point of pure doubt, nor was neades, PMl. d. 6V.IU. i. 501 sq. 
satisfied with mere probability ; 3 If we have no direct in- 
and what we know of him formation on this point, it 
shows that this was not the follows with great probability 
case. from what we can gather of 

2 Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 18: Cum, the contents of the lost 1st 
enim ita negwet, qutequam esse book of Cicero's Academies 
quod eompreliendi posset, . . . Priora and the 2nd book of 
si illud esset sicut Zeino dejmiret the Academica Posterior a \ from 
tale msum . . . visum igitw Acad. ii. 25, 79, and from the 


CHAP, adversaries of the Academic doctrine as hitherto 
IY< understood, he as little desired to renounce the 
doctrine itself. When his disciple Antiochus ad- 
vanced the proposition that the school of the 
Academy had been untrue to its original tendency 
since the time of Arcesilaus, and that there must 
therefore be a return from the new Academy to the 
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 
one genuine Academic doctrine. 1 But when we 
look more closely, this union of the new Academy 
with Plato, as that of Philo with the new Academy, 
is only to be attained by a subtlety which even his 
contemporaries did not fail to rebuke. 2 Scepticism, 

fragments preserved by Nonius the new Academy, that of Cli- 

(c. the arguments of Krische, tomachus and Carneades, which 

L <?., p. 154 &#., 182 sg[. ; Her- he undertakes to defend against 

mann, ii. 10). Antiochus. Of. Augustin, c. 

1 Cic. Acad. i. 4, 13: An- Acad. Hi. 18, 41: Hide (An- 

tiocfti tnagister PMlo . . . negcct tiochus) arreptis tterum illis 

in Wwis, quod coram etiwn ex armis et Pkilon restitit donee 

ijpso audiebawius, duas Ac&de- morervtur,, et owinen ejus reli* 

mias esse, erroremque eorum, qui q'ttias Tullivs noster oppres&it. 

itaputarimt(&sA.ntioclcms,vid l # From Philo are probably de- 

infm'), coarguit. The same is rived the arguments of Cicero 

maintained by Cicero as an (ap. August, iii. 7, 15) on the 

adherent of Philo's doctrine superiority of the Academy to 

(he has just before directly ac- all other schools, 

knowledged himself a follower 2 When Philo's treatise came 

of the new Academy), c. 12, 46. into the hands of Antiochus 

In relation to this subject (as Cicero relates, Acad. ii. 4, 

Cicero says (Acad. ii. 6, 17) : 11) he was quite startled, and 

Pldlone autem vivo patrooimum asked Heraclitus of Tyre, for 

Academics non defuit. The many years the disciple of Philo 

Academy which he defends is and Clitomachus : Viderenturne 



Philo believed, was, as against the Stoic arguments, CHAP. 
perfectly well established ; for the rational concep- ' 

tion, which they had made the criterion, was as such His theory 
not available : but in themselves things are not un- ledge. 
knowable ; 1 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 Stoic crite- 
rion, 3 while genuine Platonism was maintained as 
the esoteric doctrine of the school. 4 As the 
danger from the Stoics no longer appeared to be 
pressing, he considered it an opportune time to go 
back to the original doctrines professed by the 

ilia Pltil&nis, aiit ea <num Tel e 
Philotie vel eos ullo Academico 
audivisset aliqiiando ? to which 
lie replied in the negative. In 
the same work Philo "s statement 
concerning the doctrine of the 
new Academy is described as 
an untruth, and this censure is 
repeated, 6, 18. 

1 Sext. Pyrrh. i. 235 : ot Be 
v t '6ffov fj-ev exl 

), Tovrecrn TT? 
LKy tyavracriq, aitard- 
a elvai TCL irpd'yfJi.aTa, fiffov Se 

But the expression 
' must here be taken 
in a somewhat wider sense; 
cf. inf. p. 82, 3. 

2 Cic. Acad. it 4, 12. The 
arguments of Antiochus against 
Philo he will pass over, minus 
enim acer adversariiis est is, qui 
ista> qiLcs sunt lieri defensa (the 

pure Carneadean scepticism, 
the representative of which in 
the first edition of the Aca- 
demica was Catulus), negat 
Academicos omnino dicere (cf. 
ibid. 6, 18). 

3 Thus the rise and design 
of the scepticism of the Aca- 
demy is represented by Augus- 
tine (C.Aead. ii. 6, 14), who no 
doubt derived this conception 
from Philo as explained by 
Cicero. Cf. sitpra, note 1. 

4 This statement meets us 
often (vide PML d. Gv. III. i. 
493, 4) ; that it is ultimately 
derived from Philo is probable, 
partly from its inter-connection 
with all other presuppositions 
of Ms, and partly because it is 
not only found in Augustine, 
C. Acad. iii. 17, 38 j 18, 40 ; but 
in c. 20, 43, Augustine expressly 
appeals to Cicero for it. 



Platonic school ; 1 but lie could not see in this re- 
storation of the old Academy any abandonment of 
the tendency of the new, since he held that the new 
Academy had not departed at all from the original 
Platonism. 2 Eut if we ask in what consisted this 
genuine Platonism, the answer is not very satis- 
factory. On the one hand, Philo, in agreement with 
his predecessors of the new Academy, denied the 
possibility of a complete knowledge, of compre- 
hending ; not merely in regard to the Stoic theory 
of knowledge, but quite universally ; for like those 
predecessors, he lacked a sure criterion for the dis- 
crimination of true and false. 3 Notwithstanding., 

1 August, iii. 18, 41 (doubt- 
less after Cicero) : Antioohus 
PMlonis auditor, hominis yuan- 
tutn arbitror oircutnspectissimiy 
qui jam veluti aperire oe- 
dentibus Tiostibus portas ccepe- 
rat et ad Platonis auctoritatem 
Academiam legesque revocare 
(as he saw the enemy in re- 
treat, he 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 ; 
J3rut. 2) may call Philo the 
head of the new Academy, and 
Antiochus that of the old ; and 
similarly Cicero (Acad. i. 4, 33 ; 
ii. 22, 70) may describe Antio- 
chus as the man who through 
the renovation of the old Aca- 
demy fell away from Philo 
while he himself conversely sees 
in Ms retrogression from An- 

tiochus to Philo a remigrare in 
novam.' domum e vetere. 

3 This is evident from Cic. 
Acad. ii. 22, 69. After Cicero, 
as an adherent of Philo, has 
defended the proposition, niJiil 
esse gwocL percipi possit, with 
the old sceptical argument, the 
impossibility of finding a crite- 
rion for the discrimination of 
true and false, he here con- 
tinues : Sed priiis pauca cum 
AntiocJio, gui TICSG ipsa, yMt? & 
me defenduntur, et didicit apiid 
Philonem tain diu, itt const aret 
diirtim didicisse neminem, et 

etidem licec non acriiis accusavit 
in senectute quam antea defensi- 
taverat . . . qitis enim iste dies 
inlitxerit, qucero, g\ii illi osten- 
derit earn, giiam multos awnos 
esse negitavisset, veri et fain 
notam? Vide the following 


CHAP, part with Ids disciple Cicero. When, however, we 
IV ' find that he did not venture to ascribe to this know- 
ledge the full certainty of intellectual cognition, and 
consequently assumed manifestness to be a kind of 
conviction, the certainty of which transcends mere 
probability, but does not reach the unconditional cer- 
tainty of the conception this is very characteristic 
of the middle position of our philosopher between 
Carneades and Antiochus, 1 and it was so far not 
without reason that Philo was distinguished from 
his predecessors, no less than from his successors, 2 as 
the founder of the fourth Academy; while, on the 
other hand, this 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 I believe to 79, 2; 82, 3) that there is no 

be justifiable, notwithstanding nota veri at falsi, niMl esse 

Hermann's contradiction (I. c. qitod yercipi possit. On the 

ii. 1 3), for I cannot admit that contrary, when he missed even 

Philo's perspicuitas coincides in the Stoic fywraffia Kara- 

with the unconditioned cer- A^n/c^ the sign of true know- 

tainty, which, according to ledge, and consequently the 

Plato, is present in the intuition nota veri et falsi, he must have 

of ideas, and excels in truth discovered it all the more in 

the intellectual knowledge of that knowledge to which he 

the Stoics. Had this been ascribes such unconditional 

Philo's meaning he could not certainty. 

possibly have maintained uni- 2 Of . PML d. Grr. III. i. 526, 2. 

versally as he does (vide sugra, 3 Sit/pra, p. 77 sg. 

PHILO. 85 

But in itself Philo's scientific position could not CHAP. 
long be maintained. He who assumes a certainty. 

as Philo did in his doctrine of the self-evident or 
manifest, could not, without inconsistency, deny that 
every sure token of distinction between the true and 
the false is wanting to us ; he could no longer pro- 
fess the principles of the new Academy; conversely, 
he who did profess them could not logically go be- 
yond Carneades' doctrine of probability. If a man 
found it impossible to satisfy himself any longei 
with that doctrine, there remained nothing for him 
but to break with the whole standpoint of the scep- 
ticism of the new Academy, and to claim afresh for 
human thought the capability for the knowledge of 
truth. This further step was taken by the most 
important of Philo's disciples, 1 Antiochus 2 of 
Ascalon. 3 

This philosopher had for a long time enjoyed AntwcTm* 
Philo's instructions, and had himself embarked upon 
works advocating the scepticism of the Academy, 
when he began to grow uncertain about it. 4 This 
may have been in great measure the result of his 
having attended the lectures not only of Philo, but 

1 Of whom those known to Par. 1856; but, as the treatise of 
us are mentioned infra,, p. 99s^. Chappe was unknown in Ger- 

2 Concerning him, mde many, this flagrant plagiarism 
~K.iische,6rott.Stud.ii> 160-170; was only discovered after the 
and C. Chappins, De AntiooM death of its author. 

Asc. vita et, Paris, 3 Strabo, xvi. 2, 29, p. 759 ; 

1854 ; who, however, does not Pint, Luc. 42 ; Cic. 4 ; Brut. 2 ; 

go beyond what is well known. JElian, K.JET.xii.SS. 'AffKaXoivlrys 

A literal copy of this disserta- is his most usual appellation, 
tion appeared in D'AHemand's * Sitjpra, p. 80, 1; 82, 1, 3; 

J)e Antioclw Asc. Marb. and Cic. Acad. ii. 2, 4; 19, 63. 


CHAP, of tlie Stoic Mnesarchus, 1 who, as the disciple of 
1 Pansetius, had indeed opposed the scepticism of 
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 
by Antiochus. During the first Mithridatic war, 
we find him with Lucullus in Alexandria ; 2 and 
only then did things come to an open ' rupture be- 
tween him and Philo. 3 He afterwards stood at the 

1 Kumen. ap. Ens. Pr. Ev. ing the Stoic whose name the 
xiv. 9, 2 ; Augustine, C. Acad. treatise of Antiochus bore, p. 
iii. 18, 41, doubtless taken from 53, %.). Either in this work or 
Cicero j cf. Cic. Acad. ii. 22, in the Kav<w/ca, from the second 
69 : Quid ? eum Mnes&rcM book of which a passage is 
pcenitebat? quid? Dardani? quoted in Sext. Math. vii. 201 
giii erant Athenis turn prin- (vide sup. p. 30, 1), but pro- 
oipes Stoicorum, He only sepa- bably in the former, we have 
rated himself from Philo at a the source of the whole polemic 
later date. Concerning Mne- against the scepticism of the 
sarchus and Dardanus, vide Academy, which Cicero (Acad. 
siipra, p. 52, 3. ii. 5 $##.) represents Lucullus 

2 Cic. Acad. ii. 4, 11 (cf. as repeating from spoken dis- 
swpra, 76, 4); ibid. 2, 4; 19, courses of Antiochus (vide 5, 
61. Whether he went straight 12 ; 19, 61). Cf. Krische, I c. 
from Athens to Alexandria, 168 sg$. Of the second version 
however, or had accompanied of the Aoademica Cicero ex- 
Philo to Borne, and here allied pressly says (Ad Att. xiii. 19), 
himself with Lucullus, is not %uce erant contra cucaraXiitylav 
stated. prceclare collecta, ab Antioeho, 

3 According to Cicero, 1. o. t it Vcvrrarvi dedi ; but Varro had 
was in Alexandria that An- now taken the place of Lucullus. 
tiochus first saw the work of Cicero also made use of Antio- 
Philo, which he was so unable chus by name in the books DG 
to reconcile with those doc- JFinibw, the fifth of which is 
trines of Philo already known taken from him. Also, in re- 
to him that he would scarcely gard to the Topica, Wallies (Zte 
believe the treatise to be Font. Topic. Oio., Halle, 1878) 
genuine (w^sz^. p. 80, 2); and shows it to be probable that 
this induced him to write a work Cicero follows Antiochus in 
against it, called Sosus (vide chapters 2-20. But as in the 
-ZVI D. i. 7, 16), to which Philo rapid compilation of this short 
seems again to have responded treatise he had no books at hand 
(vide sup. p. 80, 1, and concern- and consequently wrote from 



head of the Platonic school in Athens when Cicero, CHAP. 

in 79-78 B.C., was his pnpil l for half a year. About ! 

ten years later he died. 2 

Through Antiochus the Academy was so decidedly Sis 
diverted from the sceptical tendency to which it had 
abandoned itself since Arcesilaus, that it never, as a 
whole, returned to it ; and Antiochus is, therefore, 
called the founder of the fifth Academy. 3 When 
he had once freed himself from the scepticism of 
Carneades, he made a polemic against it the special 
task of his own life. 4 The sceptic, as Antiochus 
believes, abolishes, with the certainty, even the 
probability which he himself maintained; for if 

memory (Top. i. 5) we may 
also 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 

1 Plut. C'w. 4: ; Gic. Fin. v. 1, 
1 ; Brut. 91, 315 ; cf. Acad. L 
4r, 13 ; ii. 35, 113 ; Legg. L 21, 
54. Atticus also had made his 
acquaintance in Athens (Legg* 
Z. c.). To this later time must 
be referred what is said in the 
Ind. Acad. Hero. 34, of mis- 
sions (7r/?flrj3etW) to Rome and 
to the generals in the pro- 

2 We see this from Cic. Acad. 
ii. 2, 4:, and more distinctly 
from c. 19, 61 : Hcec Antiochus 
fere et Alexandra turn et mul- 
tis annis post wmtlto etiam ad- 
severantius, in Syria cum essst 
mecum, p^ulo ante qztam est 

mortuus (cf. Pint. Luc, 28, ac- 
cording to which Antiochus 
had mentioned the battle at 
Tigranocerta, perhaps as an 
eye-witness). Since this battle 
took place on October 6, 685 
AJJ.C. (69 B.C.) Antiochus 
must have lived at least till 
the following year. On the 
other hand, we see from the 
Ind. Sere. 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 Aris- 
tus in Athens (Cic. JSntt. 97, 
332, with which Tusc. v. 8, 21, 
does not disagree). More pre- 
cise dates for the life of An- 
tiochus it is not possible to fix. 

3 Phil. d. Gr. m. i. 526, 2. 

4 Cf. Cic. Aead. ii. 6, 12 ; 
Augustine, C. Acad. 6, 15: 
Nihil tamen magis defendebat* 
quam, verum percipere 


CHAP, the true does not allow itself to be known as such, it 

_____J cannot be said that anything appears to be true; 1 

consequently he not only contradicts the natural 
necessity for knowledge, 2 but also makes all action, 
impossible ; for Antiochus, like Chrysippus, rejected 
the notion that we might follow probability in action, 
even without knowledge and assent ; partly because, 
as we have seen, without truth there can be no 
probability, and partly because it is impossible to act 
without assent and conviction, or, on the other hand, 
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 a sacrifice to his fulfilment of duty, if he 
had no fixed 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 his adversaries even in the sphere 
of theory. 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- 
tinguished with certainty from false. 5 Against this 

1 Cic. Acad. ii. 11, 33, 36 ; In the first of these passages 
17, 54 ; 18, 59 ; 34, 109. Lupullus says, in reference to 

2 LOG. oit. 10, 30 sg_ t Philo's objections against ra- 
8 LOG. cit. 8, 24 ; 10, 32 ; 12, tional conceptions (sitjcra, 79, 

37 B$q. 2) : Omnis oratio contra, Acade- 

4 LOG cit. 8, 23 ; cf. 9, 27. miam susoipitiur a noMs, ut 

5 Phil. d. 6fr. III. i. 501 sgg. retineamus earn definitionem,, 
and Cic. Acad. ii. 6, 18 ; 13, 40. quern PMlo wluit evertere. 


the sceptics had chiefly urged the -various cases CHAP. 
of deceptions of the senses, and similar errors. The iy - 
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- 
ished, and all rules of foresight and prudence are 
to be observed, if the testimony of the senses is 
to be valid. 1 In themselves the senses are for us 
a source of true conceptions ; for though sensation 
is primarily only a change taking place in ourselves, 
it also reveals to us that by means of which this 
change is effected. 2 "We must likewise, as Antiochus 
readily admits, allow truth to general concepts, if we 
would not make all thought, and all crafts, and arts 
impossible. 3 But if, as against this, the imagina- 
tions of dreamers or lunatics are brought forward by 
his opponents, Antiochus replies that these are all 
wanting in that self-evidentness which is proper to 
true intentions and conceptions ; 4 and if they seek 
to embarrass us with their sorites, 5 he answers 
that from the similarity of many things it does not 
follow that there is no distinction between them; 
and if in particular cases we are obliged to 
suspend our judgment,, 6 we need not, therefore > 

1 LOG. cit. 7, 19 sg_q. 6 That Antiochus after the 

3 Sext. Math. vii. 162 *#. precedent of Chjysippns (Phil. 

3 Oic. I, c. 7, 21 8$. d. 6^.111. i. 115, 2) adopted this 

4 Loc. cit. 15, 47 *##, ; 16, 51 expedient even in regard to 
sq. According to 16, 49, An- purely dialectical objections, 
tiochus must have discussed such as the so-called ^ewJ^evas- 
this objection at great length. we see from Gic. Acad. ii. 29* 

a Of. Phil d. Gr* HI. i, 503. 95 s%^ 


CHAP, permanently renounce all claim to it. 1 The seep- 
IVt tics themselves, however, are so little able to carry 
out their principles that they involve themselves 
in the most striking contradictions. Is it not 
a contradiction to maintain that nothing can be 
maintained, and to be convinced of the impossibility 
of a firm conviction ? 2 Can a person, who allows no 
distinction between truth and error, use definitions or 
classifications, or even a logical demonstration, of 
which he is absolutely ignorant whether truth belongs 
to it ? 3 Lastly, how can it be simultaneously main- 
tained that there are false notions, and that between 
true and false notions there is no difference, since 
the first of these propositions presupposes this very 
difference? 4 We must allow that some of these 
arguments, especially those last quoted, are not 
deficient in subtlety, but others must certainly be 
called very superficial, and rather postulates than 

In any case, however, Antiochus believed him- 
self justified by such reasoning in repudiating the 
demand that we should refrain from all acquies- 
cence ; 5 and in striving after a dogmatic knowledge 

1 LOG. tit. 16, 49 sq. ; 17, 54 tiochus. Arcesilaus drew this 
SQg. inference : Si ulli rei sapiens 

2 Loo. tit. 9, 29 ; 34, 109. adsentietur unguani, alflqucmdo 

3 Loc. oit. 14, 43. etiam opinabitur ; tmnquam 

4 LOG. cit. 14, 44 ; 34, 111, autem opindbitw ; nulli igitu.r 
where there is also the obser- rei adsentietivr. Carneades ad- 
vation that this was the objeo mitted that the wise man some- 
tion which caused Philo the times agreed, and therefore 
most embarrassment. had an opinion. The Stoics and 

5 Cic. I. o. 21, 67 8%. He thus Antiochus deny this latter ; but 
formulates the relation of Ar- they also deny that from agree- 
cesilaus, Carneades, and An- ment opinion necessarily fol- 


instead of sceptical nescience. But he was not CHAP. 
creative enough to produce an independent system ; IV ' 
he therefore turned to the systems already existing, 
not to follow any one of them exclusively, but to 
adopt that which was true from all ; and as it was 
the mutual contradiction of the philosophical 
theories which appeared to give to scepticism its 

greatest justification, Antiochus believed that he 
could not better establish his own conviction than 
by asserting that this contradiction in some cases went of all 
did not exist, and in others concerned only un- 
essential points ; that all the most important schools 
of philosophy were in the main agreed, and only 
differed from each other in words. He counted 
himself, indeed, as belonging to the Academy ; he 
desired to re-establish the Platonism which his pre- 
decessors since Arcesilaus had abandoned, and to 
return from the new Academy to the old. 1 But 
this, in his opinion, did not exclude a simultaneous 
alliance with Zeno and Aristotle. The Academic 
and Peripatetic doctrines are, he says, one and the 
same form of philosophy bearing different names ; 
their diversity lies not in the fact but only in the 
expression. 2 The same is the case with the Stoics : 
they also adopted the Academic-Peripatetic philo- 

lows ; for a man can distinguish l Sup. 82, 2 ; Cic. Acad. i. 

false and true, knowable and 12, 43 ; Fin. v. 3, 7 ; JBrut. 91, 

unknowable. The ultimate 315 ; Augustine, <7. Aead. ii. 6, 

question, therefore, is always 15 ; iii. 18, 41. 

this : whether there is anything 2 Cic. Acad. i. 4, 17 ; 6, 22 ; 

which lets itself be known ii. 5, 15 ; 44, 136 ; Fin. v. 3, 7 ; 

with certainty, a Qavra&ia 5, 14 ; 8, 21 ; cl iv. 2, 5. 
f . sup. 87, 4; 88, 5). 



Jlis eclec- 

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

Antiochus divided philosophy in the usual man- 
ner, into three parts ; 5 that he did not ascribe the 
same value to each of these is clear from the posi- 

1 Cic. Acad. ii. 5, 15 ,* 6, 16 ; 
Fin. v. S, 22; 25,74; 29, 88; 
N. JO. i. 7, 16 ; Legg. i. 20, 54 ; 
Sext. Pyrrh. i. 235. 

2 Acad. i. 9, 35 &%. 

3 Ibid. 1 2, 43 : Verum esse 
autem, a?'fiitro7', ut AntiocJw 
nostro famttiari placebat, cor- 
rectionem veteris Academic 
potim qiittm aligruam viovam dis- 
dplinam pirtandam \_St 


Of. Plut. Cic. 4. When Cicero 
heard Antiochus. he had already 
left the new Academy: rbv 
2rauVc)j' GK fj.eraftoh.'rjs depaireiLKav 
Xojov eV roTs irK^liTTOLs. Sext. 
Pijrrli. i. 235 : 6 5 Avr/o%oy rfyv 

a?s real 

rea zprja'&a.i 

4 Acad. ii. 43, 132: Antio- 
efiiis, c[ui appellabatur Acade- 
vvieus, erat gid&em si perpaitca, 
mntavisset, germanissimus Sto- 
ious ; or, as it is said in 45, 137, 
Stoicus perpawa T}aibutien&. 

August. C. Acad. iii. 
18, 41. 

5 Cic. Acad. i. 5, 19 (cf. ii. 
36, 116). That these two re- 
presentations reproduce the 
views of Antiochus, Cicero ex- 
pressly states, Acad. i. 4, 14; 
Mn. v. 3, 8. 


tion lie assigned to them; for he placed ethics, as CHAP. 
the most important division, first, physics second, R ' 
and logic third. 1 He paid most attention to the 
theory of knowledge and ethics. 2 Ethics, especially, 
is said by Cicero to have been in his opinion 
the most essential part of philosophy. 3 In his Hi* theory 
theory of knowledge the principal thing is that 
refutation of scepticism which we nave already 
mentioned; for the rest he adhered, according to 
Cicero, 4 strictly to the principles of Chrysippus ; and 
this is not contradicted by the fact that he also held 
the Platonic theory ; for he seems to have regarded 
as the most essential element of the latter those 
universal determinations in which Platonism agreed 
not only with the Peripatetic doctrine, but also 
with that of the Stoics: that all knowledge pro- 
ceeded, indeed, from sensible perception, but in 
itself was an affair of the understanding. 5 The 

1 So at least we find in Acad. qiiitur . . . ant ipsitm Aristo- 
i. 5 ###., not only in the enume- telem, . , . ? a Chrysippo pedem 
ration, but also, and repeatedly, niisguam. So, in c. 28-30, An- 
in the exposition of the three tiochus is throughout opposed 
divisions. on the assumption that he re- 

2 Antiochus, ap. Gic. Acad. cognises the dialectical rules of 
ii. 9, 29, etenwi duo esse JKBG Chrysippus. 

maxima in pJdlosop7iia,j indicium 5 Acad.i. 8, 30: Tertia deinde 

I'eri etfinem "bonorum, &c. philosophies pars . . . sic trac- 

3 Acad. i. 9, 34. tabatuv ab ittrisQiie (Plato and 

4 Acad. ii. 46, 142 : Plato Aristotle) ; quanguam oriretur 
aidem omne judicium veritatis a sensibus tamen non esse judi- 
veritatemgiie ipsam, dbductam cium veritatis in sensibus. 
ab opinionibus et a sensibus, Mentem vulebant rerum esse 
cogitationis ipsiics et mentis judicem, &c. But the disciple 
esse wluit* NumgiiiA horuni of Antiochns speaks in a pre- 
probat noster Antioehus ? ille cisely similar manner of Zeno 
vero ne majorum gitidem snwwtm, (11 , 42). 

ubi enim aut ^enocraten se- 





doctrine of ideas, on the other hand, he abandoned, 1 
_and thus, in his efforts for unity, it might well 
appear to him at last that the Stoic theory of know- 
ledge was only an extension and closer definition of 
the theory of Plato and Aristotle. 2 To what an ex- 
tent Aristotelian and Stoic definitions and expres- 
sions were mingled in his logic, we see in Cicero's 
Topica^ supposing this account really follows 
Antiochus. 4 In the same superficial manner, Antio- 
chus combines the Platonic metaphysics not only 
with those of Aristotle, but also of the Stoics ; for 
he, or Varro in his name, 5 represents the supposed 
identical doctrine of Plato and Aristotle as follows : 
there are two natures, the active and the passive, 
force and matter, but neither is ever without the 
other. That which is compounded of both is called 
a body or a quality. 6 Among these qualities the 
simple and the compound are to be distinguished ; 
the former consisting of the four, or, according to 
Aristotle, five, primitive bodies ; the latter, of all 
the rest ; of the first category, fire and air are the 
active, earth and water the receptive and passive. 
Underlying them all, however, is the matter without 
quality, which is their substratum, the imperishable, 

1 Vide Acad. i. 8, 30, com- 
pared with 9, 33 and sup. p. 93, 4. 

2 Of. Acad. i. 11, 42 sq. 

3 Vide sup. p. 86, 3. 

4 As "Wallies demonstrates 
thoroughly (De Font, Top. Cic. 
23 ##.). 

5 Acad. i. 6, 24 sqq. 

6 Cicero expressly says, qiiali- 
tas ', and as on this occasion, 

as he himself remarks, he in- 
troduces the word qualitas 
newly into the Latin language 
as a translation of the Greek 
7roi(Jr^s, he must have found 
-JTOI^TTJS and not iroibv, employed 
by his predecessor. Qualities 
were declared to be bodies by 
the Stoics (cf . PMl. d. Gr. III. i. 
99, 111X 


but yet infinitely divisible elements, producing in CHAP. 
the constant change of its forms definite bodies IV> 
(qualict). All these together form the world ; the 
eternal reason which animates and moves the world 
is called the Deity or Providence, also Necessity ; 
and, because of the unsearchableness of its workings, 
sometimes even Chance. To the man who could so 
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 
in the work we have so often mentioned, 1 it is only 
said that Zeno discarded the fifth element of Aris- 
totle (aether), and was likewise distinguished from 
the earlier philosopher in that he held bodies alone 
to be real. How far even this one distinction ex- 
tends, the eclectic does not seem to suspect. He 
expressly confounds mind with sense ; 2 and says 
of Aristotle that he represents spirits as consisting 
of sether, for which Zeno substituted fire. 3 We may 
with certainty assume that he did not enter into 
special physics. 

In regard to morals also, Antiochus remained 
true to his eclectic character. He starts, like the 
Stoics, from self-love, and the fundamental impulse 
of self-preservation as the fundamental impulse of 
human nature, and attains from this starting point 

1 LOG. cit. 11, 39. smimfom est, atque etiam ipsa 

2 Acad. ii. 10, 30, Lucullns sensus est, &c. 

says : Mens enim i^sa t gw sen,- 3 Acad. i. 7, 27; 11, 89. 


CHAP, the ground principle of the Stoics and Academics, 
' that of life according to nature. 1 It is as much a 
doctrine of the Stoics, however, as of the Academy 
that that which is according to nature is determined 
for each creature according to its own particular 
nature, and that therefore the highest good for man 
is found in a life according to human nature, per- 
fected on all sides. 2 But herein the point is already 
Indicated at which our 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 
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 merely to be desired 
for the sake of another, but in and for themselves. 3 
The highest good, therefore, according to him, con- 
sists in the perfection of human nature in regard to 
soul and body, in the attainment of the highest 
mental and bodily completeness ; 4 or, according to 
another representation, 5 in the possession of all 
mental, bodily, and external goods. These con- 
stituents of the highest good are doubtless of un- 

1 CIc. Fin. v. 9, 11. jooris per $e ipsum expetit qui 

2 Vivere ex hominis n&ttira est maxime e natura. So also 
undique perfeota et niMl re~ Varro, as will be shown later 
qwvr&wbe (Cic. I. c. 9, 26). on. 

3 Acad. i. 5, 19 ; 'Mn. v. 12, 4 Fin. v. 13, 37 ; 16, 44 ; 17, 
34 ; 13, 38 ; 16, 44 ; 17, 47. Beanty, 47. 

health, strength, are desired s Acad.i. 5, 19, 21 .<?#,, in the 

for themselves : Quoniam enim description of the Academic- 

natwa suis omnibus expleri Peripatetic philosophy 
Jiunc statum cor- 


equal worth : mental endowments have the highest CHAP. 
value, and among these, moral endowments (volun- ______!___ 

tarice) have a higher place than merely natural 
gifts ; l but although corporeal goods and evils have 
only a slight influence on our well-being, it would 
be wrong to deny all importance to them ; 2 and if 
it be conceded to the Stoics that virtue for itself 
alone suffices for happiness, yet for the highest stage 
of happiness other things are likewise necessary. 3 
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 to action, Antiochus placed the two ends side 
by side, since both depend upon original impulses of 
nature. 7 If the Stoics had maintained the unity, 

1 Fin. v. 13, 88; 21, 58, 60. tion) is recognised as an au- 

2 Fin. v. 24, 72. thentic source of the Peripa- 

3 Acad. i. 6, 22 : In ima tetic doctrine ; so that even 
virtute esite positam. 'beatam. here in respect to the Academic 
vitam, nee tamen "beati&wmam, school, Antiochus wishes his 
nisi adjungerentnr et corporis innovations to be regarded 
ft cetera, qucB supra, dicta simt merely as a resuscitation of 
*ad virtutis iisum idonea (ii. 43, the original doctrine of the 
134 ; Fin. v. 27, 81 ; 24, 71). Academy. 

4 Gf. Phil. d. 6V. ILL 881, 5. G Fin. v. 24, 72. 

5 Fin. v. 5, 12; 25, 75. 7 Fin. v. 21, 58: Actlonvm 
Aristotle himself is thus sepa- aictem getiera plura,, irt ol- 
rated from his school, and scurentur etlam minora major- 
beside him Theophrastus only ilust. Maxima* autem writ 
(though with a certain limita- prtmuni consi 





and tlie Peripatetics the plurality of virtue, Antiociius 
_ declares that all virtues are inseparably connected 
with one other, but that each of them presents itself 
in an individual activity ; l he does not, however^ 
attempt, as Plato did, to give any deeper account 
of their difference. If the Stoic schools were not 
quite agreed whether or not community with other 
men were a good in the strict sense something to 
be desired in and for itself Antiochus here again 
seeks to mediate ; for while he most fully acknow- 
ledges the value and necessity of this relation, 2 he 
makes a double distinction among things of value 
in and for themselves : viz., those which are directly 
a constituent of the highest good (the endowments- 
of the soul and the body), and those which are to be 

v&rum ccelestiuvi, &c. Delude 
T&nvni yMiemwm adminis- 
tratio . . . vellqiiffiqiie vlrtvtes 
et actiones mrtuti'bws Gonqru&n- 
tes. Of. 18, 48 ; 20, 55 ; 23, 66. 

1 Fin. v. 23, 66 s$. 

~ 3f\n. v. 23, 65 sqq. ; Acad. 
i. 5, 21. 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 
first appearance in family love, 
spreads itself in an ever widen- 
ing circle and finally becomes 
universal love of mankind 
(caritas generis liAimani). This 
is essentially Stoic, and more 
particularly in the spirit of the 
later Stoicism; but the thought 
of a universal love of mankind, 
based upon the natural interde- 
pendence of men, was not alien 

to the Peripatetic school. Of. 
PMl d.Gr.II^ii. 693; 851, 1; 865, 
and Arist. Mil. -ZV.viiLl, 1155, a, 
16 sqq,, where it is shown in the- 
same way as by Antiochus that 
nature has implanted the love 
of parents to children (^A/a) 
and of members of the same 
race to each other, Ka 
TOLS avdpcairOLS, '66ev rovs 
Opdirovs cicaLvov/jiev, and it is 
added : tSot. 5* &v ns Kal *v rcus- 
ws OIKGIOV aTras frvdpanro? 
Kal <pl\ov. The same 
is developed (by Arius Didy- 
mus) in the account of the 
Peripatetic ethics, ap. Stob. 
J2ol. ii. 250 #., in a discussion 
which so distinctly recalls the 
manner of Theophrastus that 
we may doubtless derive it 
from this Peripatetic, of whom 
something similar is observed, 
Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 851. 


desired as an object of moral activity : only in the 
latter class does he place friends, relations, and 
fatherland. 1 Like the Stoics, Antiochus would only 
allow the wise to be regarded as rulers, as free, rich, 
and noble ; like them he declares all the unwise to 
be slaves, and mad; and demands from the wise 
man a complete apathy ; 2 notwithstanding that he 
thereby contradicted the doctrine of the older 
Aeademy 5 and had himself no right to such un- 
qualified statements, considering Ms own opinions 
respecting the highest good. But when we find 
him violently opposing the closely connected pro- 
position of the equality of all faults, 3 this trait may 
likewise show us that he was not very scrupulous 
about scientific consistency. 

Consistency, however, was not the quality on 

,.,., ,. ., -T i , i j j AntwcJvus* 

which the success of a philosopher at that time 
chiefly depended. Among the contemporaries of 
Antiochus in the Academy, who are mentioned to 
us ? only the elder seem to have held to the doctrine 
of Carneades ; 4 among the younger generation, on 

1 Mn. v. 23, 68 : Itafit ut duo t u s of Tyre, who is known to us 
genera propter se expetendorvni through. Cicero (Acad* ii. 4, 
reperiawtwr, unum, giiod est in 11 *#.) as a disciple of long 
iis, in quibus comyletur illud standing of Clitomachus and 
etvtremum, c^u(s sunt aut animi Philo, and a distinguished re- 
aut corporis: hcee avtem, %uce presentative of the new Aca- 
swt eaitrinsecus . . . ict amid, demy ; for the Academy is cer- 
ut parentes t ut Uteri, ut propin- tainly meant by the pfoilosopMo,, 
qui, lit ipso, patria, swot ilia qua nunc grope dimissa revoca- 
quidem swz sjponte eara, sed tur, as will be immediately 
eodem in genere, quo ilia, non shown. Through a misunder- 
sunt, &c. standing of the expression, 

2 Acad. ii. 44, 135 sq. ^Zumpt (JJeb&rcLen Bestand der 

3 IHd. 43, 135 sq. Phil* SGML in Athen.} Abh. d. 

4 This is true of Heraclei- fieri. AJtad. 3842; H-isrt.PMlol. 



the contrary, 1 was so successful, that, 
according to the testimony of Cicero, the doctrine 

Kl. 67 sg.) has "been misled into 
considering the disciple of Cli- 
tomachus and Philo as a Peri- 
patetic. He is perhaps the 
same person of whom it is said 
in the 2nd. Here. Acad. 33, 4, 
that he was seventy years old. 
Among the Romans who occu- 
pied themselves with Oreek 
philosophy, 0. Gotta is men- 
tioned (who was consul in 76 
B.C.) by Cicero (IV. D. i. 7, 16 
$.) as an acquaintance of An- 
tiochus, but a disciple and 
adherent of Philo. He criti- 
cises the Epicurean (I. o. i. 2J 
#.) and (iii. 1 sgg.") the Stoic 
theology from the standpoint 
of the new Academy. As 
hearers of Philo, Cicero also 
{Aead. ii. 4, 11) mentions 
Publius, Caius Selius, and 
Tetrilius Bogus. Diodo- 
rus, a partisan of Mithridates, 
is also mentioned in this period, 
who held to the Academic school 
(Strabo, xiii. 1, 66, p. 614) ; but 
he can scarcely be counted 
among the philosophers. 

1 Pre-eminent among their 
number isAristus, the brother 
of Antiochus, who succeeded 
him in his position of instruc- 
tor at Athens (Cic. Brut. 97, 
332 ; Acad. ii. 4, 12 ; i. 3, 12 ; 
Tusc. v. 8, 21 ; Plut. Britt. 2 ; 
2nd. Here. 34, 2 sq. In 51 B.C. 
Cicero (ad Att. v. 10 ; Tusc. v. 
8,22) met him there, and de- 
scribes him as the only man 
who formed an exception to 
the generally unsatisfactory 
state of philosophy in Athens. 
According to the Tnd. Here., 
lie had heard many other philo- 

sophers besides his brother. 
Plutarch (Brut. 2) places his 
moral character higher than his 
%is tv\6yoi$. Also Dio, doubt- 
less the same who (according 
to Strabo, xvii. 1, 11, p. 796 ; 
Cic. Pro Coel. 10, 23; 21, 51) 
perished as a member of an 
Alexandrian embassy to Rome 
in 56 B.C., and is the person 
mentioned by Plutarch as the 
author of table conversations 
(Plut. Qu. Com. Pro. 3). Also, 
according to the Ind. Here. 34, 
6 sgg. (where by avrov any other 
philosopher than Antiochus can 
scarcely be intended), Apol- 
las, of Sardis; Menecrates, 
of Methyma j and M n a s e a s , 
of Tyre. Concerning Aristo 
and Cratippus, who went 
over to the Peripatetic school, 
vide infra , p. 121, 2. Aristus 
seems to have been followed by 
Theopompus, whom Brutus 
heard in Athens (Plut. Brut. 
24) in 44 B.C., and who is men- 
tioned by Philostratus (v. 
$0jp7i. i. 6). At the same date 
there lived in Alexandria at the 
court of Ptolemy XII. (Diony- 
sus) Demetrius (Lucian, De 
Calwim. 16), of whom we 
know, however, no tiling further ; 
but, at any rate, he was a 
worthier member of the school 
than the Philostratus men- 
tioned by Plutarch (Anton. 80). 
Among the Bomans, besides 
Cicero, Varro, of whom we 
shall have to speak more par- 
ticularly later on, was also 
a disciple of Antiochus. M. 
Brutus had been instructed 
by Aristus (Cic. Brut. 97, 332 ; 



of the new Academy was in Ms time almost entirely 
abandoned. 1 JSnesidenms says the same thing; and 


Acad. i. 3, 12 ; Fin. v. 3, 8 ; 
Tusc. v. 8, 21), whom lie re- 
sembled both personally and in 
his opinions. Cicero (Acad. I. c. ; 
ad Att.. xiii. 25) classes him as 
a follower of Antiochus with 
Yarro, and in Par ad. Pro. 2, 
with himself. In Brut. 31, 120 ; 
40, 149, he enumerates him 
with the followers of the old 
Academy, and (Tusc. I. c.} puts 
a proposition of Antiochus into 
his month. Plutarch also (I. c., 
cf. DiOi 1) says that he was 
indeed well acquainted with 
all the Greek philosophers, but 
was himself an admirer of An- 
tiochus and an adherent of the 
old Academy, as opposed to the 
later and new Academy. His 
talent and knowledge are 
praised by Cicero (ad Att. xiv. 
20 ; ad I)h\ ix. 14 ; Brut. 6, 
22 ; Fin. iii. 2, 6 ; his writings 
in Acad. i. 3, 12 ; Tusc. v. 1, 1 : 
Fin. i. 3, 8 ; vide also, in regard 
to his writings, Sen. Consol. ad 
Heh\ 9, 4 ; Mp. 95, 45 ; Quintil. 
x. 1, 123 ; Charisius, p. 83 ; 
Priscian, vi. p. 679 ; Diomed. 
p. 378. On the preceding, vide 
Krische, Gott. St.ud.ii. 163 sq$.) 
M. Pi so also heard Antiochus 
with Cicero (according to Cic. 
Fin. v. 1 sg?([.}> acknowledged 
himself his disciple (I. c. 3, 7 $#.), 
and expounded his ethical prin- 
ciples (c. 4-25), bnt in such a 
manner that he still wished to 
retain his loyalty to the Peri- 
patetic school into which his 
housemate Staseas, of Naples, 
had introduced him (I. c. 3, 8 ; 
25, 75; De Orat. i. 22, 104). 
Cf. ad Att. xiii. 19 (according 

to which he was not living when 
Cicero wrote De Finibus). 

1 In Acad. ii. 4, 11, Cicero 
mentions, as we have observed, 
Heracleitus the Tynan : Homo 
sane in ista, -pltilowpltia* qua* 
nunc jyrope dlmlssa revocatur, 
prolattis et woHlis. That this 
philosophy can only mean the 
new Academy, is clear from the 
context. For when a disciple 
of Clitomaclras and Philo is 
mentioned, we can but conclude 
that the philosophy in which 
he distinguished himself was 
the philosophy of these men; 
and Cicero says expressly that 
Heracleitus opposed Antiochus, 
the rival of the Academy (of 
Carneades, &c.), dispassionately 
indeed, but zealously. The new 
Academy, therefore, which in 
Cicero's time had been almost 
universally abandoned, was by 
him revived. Cicero says the 
same thing most distinctly, 
_T. D. i. o, 11 : JVec Tero deser- 
tawnn relict arum giie rerum pa- 
troehiium smcepimiis (through 
the defence of the doctrine 
of the new Academy) ; non enini 
Itom i n urn mteritu sent entice- 
qiiocpie occidunt, sed lucem, awc- 
toris fortasse denderant^ lit IICKG 
in pliilosopliia- ratio contra owi~ 
nia dmer&ndi nullamque rem 
aperte judicandi grofecta, a- 
Socrate, repeMta &b Arcesila, 
confirm at a a Carneade mgue ad 
ywstram trigitit &tatem ; gitam 
nunc yrope orbam esse in ipsa> 
Acedia, intelligo. If these evi- 
dences are considered to be dis- 
proved by the saying of Augus- 
tine, C. Acad. iii. 18, 41 vide- 




with these testimonies everything that we know 
regarding the tendency of the Academic school l until 
nearly the end of the first century coincides. Our 
knowledge of this school at that time is certainly 
very incomplete, 2 but that the eclecticism of Antio- 
chus still maintained itself there, is plain from the 

supra, p. 79, 2), according to 
which Cicero would only have 
had to finish suppressing the 
raUquia of the false doctrines 
of Antiochus opposed by Hiilo. 
This is to ascribe an importance 
to the Augustinian phrase 
which clearly does not belong 
to it, since it is plain that the 
notion of Cicero's refuting the 
eclecticism of Antiochus is false. 

1 Ap. Phot. Cod. 212, p. 170, 
14 : of 8 s a7r& TTJS 'A/ca$7ftu.fas, 

ra rrjs vvv, KCU 2rwi- 
ai ez/iore (fcus, 

ra\-r]des elieeiv, Sreol- 
KOL tyaivovTai fj.a%6fj.evoi 'Srca'CKo'ts, 
Cicero and others judged in a 
similar manner of Antiochus; 
ride supra, p. 92, 4. 

2 Of the heads of the Athe- 
nian school we know none 
between Theomnestus (vide 
mi-pro) and Ammonius, the 
teacher of Plutarch ; of other 
members of the Academy, be- 
sides Eudorus, Nestor of Tar- 
sus (Strabo, xiv. 5, 14, p. 675, 
expressly distinguishes this 
Nestor from the previously- 
mentioned Stoic of, the same 
name vide supra,, p. 54 : the 
former, according to him, was 
the teacher of Marcellus, son 
of Octavia) and the Tubero 
spoken of in PMl. d. 6V. III., 
ii. 7, 5, only Dercyllides 
and Thrasyllus. Even of 
these we are told very little. 
Of Dercyllides, whose date 

cannot be definitely fixed, but 
who seems to have lived earlier 
than Thrasyllus, we find from 
Albinus, Introd. in Plat. 4 ; 
Procl. in Tim. 7, B. ; Porph. 
ap. Simpl. Phys. 54, &, ; 56, 
5, that he had composed a 
great work on the Platonic 
philosophy, from which perhaps 
the extensive astronomical frag- 
ment in Theo Smyrn. Astron. 
c. 40 8Q., and the smaller excerpt 
in Proclus in Plat. Hemp. 
(quoted from. A. Mai, Class. 
Aiiot. i. 362, by Martin on Theo, 
p. 74) are taken. Thrasyllus 
became acquainted in Rhodes, 
perhaps his native city, with 
Tiberius, to whom he succeeded 
in making himself indispen- 
sable as an astrologer (what is 
related, however, as to the proofs 
of his art in Tacit. Ann. vi. 20; 
Sueton, Ti7)er. 14; and, still 
more, in Dio Cass. Iv. 11 ; Iviii. 
27, is embellished with fables). 
He then lived, from the last 
years of Augustus (Sueton. Aug. 
98 ; Dio Cass.lvii. 15), in Rome, 
and died a year before Tiberius, 
36 A.D. (Dio, Iviii. 27). He is 
chiefly known to us through 
his division of the Platonic dia- 
logues into tetralogies {vide 
Phil. d. Or. II. i. 428). He is 
mentioned as a Platonist with 
Pythagorean tendencies by Por- 
phyry, Plot. 20. But as both 
Thrasyllus and Dercyllides 
seem to have been gramma- 



example of Eudorus, 1 a philosopher of Alexandria, 2 
and a contemporary of the Emperor Augustus. 3 

This philosopher is denominated a member of 
the Academy, 4 but he had expounded the works of f 
Aristotle, 5 as well as those of Plato, 6 and had dis- 
coursed at length on the Pythagorean doctrine, which 
he apprehended in the sense of the later Platonising 
Pythagorism. 7 This many-sided occupation with 

xians rather than philoso- 
phers, it may here suffice to 
refer, in regard to Thrasyllus, 
to K. F. Hermann, De TJtrasyUo 
(Ind. Schol. Getting. 1852); 
Miiller, Fragm. JHist. GT. iii. 
501 ; Martin on Tlieo. Astron. 
p. 69 sq. ; and in regard to 
Dercyllides to the work last 
mentioned, p. 72 sqq, 

1 Concerning Eudorus, vide 
Eoper, Pliilologus, vii. 534 sq. ; 
Diels, Doicogr. 22, 81 sq. et 


4 (Ar. Did. ap.) Stob. Z. 
rov 7 AK^av^p0 

2 Stob. Eel. ii. 46. Tide in- 
,Jra,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 ( TJeber die Grieali. Au$- 
leger des Aristot. Organons, AbJi. 
derS&fl. Acad. 1833 ; Hist. Phil 
XI. p. 275) infers that he was 
earlier than the Ehodian An- 

dronicus, from the manner in 
which Simplicitis {Scltol. in 
Arist. 61, a, 26 ; 73, &, 18) com- 
pares him with AndronicnSj and 
the latter passage, at any rate, 
seems to me conclusive. If, on 
the other hand, Stob. Eel. ii. 
46 sqq. is taken from Arins 
Bidymus (on this subject, ride 
infra), he must have written 
before him. 

JJ.LKOV <pi\off6<pov. Simp. ScJwl. 
in Arist. 63, a, 43 ; Achil. Tat. 
Isag. ii. 6 (in Petav. Doctr. 
Temj). Hi. 96 ; Endorus is also 
quoted in Isag. i. 2, 13, p. 74, 

5 His commentary on the 
Categories is often quoted in 
that of SimpUcius (cf. Schol. in 
Arist. 61, a, 25 sqq. ; 63, , 43 ; 
66, &, 18 ; 70, &, 26 ; 71, Z>, 22 ; 
73, I, 18 ; 74, &, 2, and Cat. ed. 
Basil. 44, e. 65, e). That he also 
expounded the Metaphysics 
does not certainly follow from 
Alex. 3Ifftaph. 44, 23; Son. 
Schol. 552, b, 29. 

Pint. De A}). Procr. 3, 2; 
16, 1, p. 1013, 1019 &q., seems 
also to refer to a commentary 
on the Timtsm. 

7 In the fragment quoted in 
PHI, d. Gr. I. 331, 4, from Simpl. 
Pliys. 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 . iMd. HJ. 
ii. 113 &.) to the One or the 
Deity as their uniform basis. 
The same theory, however, is 
ascribed by Eudorus even to 




the older philosophers, and especially his digest of 
the Aristotelian categories, would at once lead us 
to suppose that the Platonism of Eudorus was not 
entirely pure ; and this is confirmed by the state- 
ments of Stobseus concerning an encyclopaedic work 
of his, in which we are told he treated the whole of 
science problematically : i.e. he gave a summary of 
the questions with which the different parts of 
philosophy are concerned, and compared the answers 
given to them by the most important philosophers. 1 
In the epitome of ethics, which has been preserved 
to us from this work, the classification and termino- 
logy is rather Stoic than Platonic ; 2 and no doubt 

Plato, when, according to Alex. 
(uLMetaphA. 6, 988, a, 10), after 
the words ra yap eftty rov ri 
ecrrtv ctfna rois a\\oi$, ro?s S* 
efSecri rb ev, he added KO! rp vXy. 
On this theory, in agreement 
with the Stoic monism (on 

138, 145 $#.) though without 
its materialistic interpretation, 
even the vXy must have sprung 
from the Deity or the primal One. 
1 Eel. ii. 46 : frriv odv Ei^- 

concerning the question el TTOLV 
rb KaXbv Si' aurb atperbv. These 
extracts also, as far as p. 88, 
are no doubt borrowed from 
Eudorus by Arius Didymus 
whom Stobseus is here tran- 

3 Having divided the whole 
of philosophy into ethics, phy- 
sics, and logic, Eudorus dis- 
tinguishes three parts in ethics : 
irepl rr/v Qzcapiav rrjs /ca0' GKOLcfrov 

pov rov 

<$>iXoff6$ov Siaipetfis rov Kara 

ev (j> Tracrav 
irpofi\ii{J.artK(os rty 
The above explanation of this 
expression results from p. 54 
& w ^ 1 re the author, after 
he has given Eudorus' division 
of ethics, continues, apKreov 
3e rtav 7r/>o#A'fyuctra>j>, and then 
gives the views of the vari- 
ous philosophers first concern- 
ing the TeAos, then concern- 
ing goods and evils, lastly 

riit6v). The first of these 
parts then 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- 
which we find the truly Stoical 
titles ire pi rQv vpo'riyovfji.Gvwj', 
irepl epcaros, Trepl ffvjj.iroo'i&v- 

(cf . PMl. d. Gr. HI. i. 260 sq. ; 
241, 1 ; 273, 7 ; 283, 2). Even 
the doctrine of virtue, one of 
the sections of the second 
division (for this must be- 



it was the same with the details of Ms ethics, 1 so 
that Endoras in this respect entirely followed the 
precedent of Antiochus. That he did not confine 
himself to ethics appears from what has been already 
quoted, and from certain other indications. 2 

How widely spread, in the second half of the last 


divided by the words, p. 50, 
rb fj.ev ear i vepl rcav apeT&v, &C., 
before whicli ov or roiirov 5e 
may probably have been lost) 
primarily indicates the Stoic 
view, though among the four 
cardinal virtues, (ppovyo-is takes 
the place of the Platonic crocfu'a. 
The second main division of 
ethics treats partly of the 6pfj.7] 
generally and partly of the 
xa077, which are defined quite 
in the Stoic manner, into ^pfrJ? 
irAeoz/a^bvtra and appcaffr^fjia. 
The third main division is 
separated by means of sub- 
ordinate classes into eight 
TOVOL : 'jrapajJLvdirj'TiKbs, nra0oA0- 
s, irepl acr/d? crews, ire pi Kadij- 
<av, irepl Karopdafidraiv, irepl 
rcav, irepl fticav, Trepl ydfj.ov. 
How closely this whole classifi- 
cation resembles that of the 
Stoics will be seen from Phil, d, 
Gr. HE. i. 206 sq. Bucloras is so 
completely in agreement with 
what is there quoted from Sen. 
JBfp. 84, 14, and the commence- 
ment especially of Ms classifi- 
cation quoted by Stobseus 
bears such striking resemblance 
to the passage of Seneca, that 
either Seneca must have fol- 
lowed Eudorus, or both must 
have followed some common, 
and in that case Stoic, source. 

1 This is clear from the next 
section of Stobseus, which, as 
before observed, seems also to 

aAA. J 

s Kal 
i nvl 

be taken from Eudorus, espe- 
cially from p. 60 : tbroreAis 8' 
ecFTi T<5 trp&TQjs OLKG'IQV rov (j/j>ov 
Trades, a<p' ov KaT'fjp^aro crvvaiff- 
Qa.vearQa.1 TO fapov TTJS 
aurou, ovTrca Ao-ytK^v 
%.\oyov, Kara robs 
ff-rrepfjLarLKovs Xoyovs: . 
fj.evav yap r& <jiov t$K 
Trdvrcas evQvs l| apxys (Phil. d. Gr. 
III. i. 208 #.) How B^dorus 
was allied with Antiochus in this 
is shown by a comparison of 
the words immediately follow- 
ing &7T6p effrly wrorcAls, Keirai 8' 
ev TIVI rcoy rpicav* fy yap ev Tjfiovrj $ 
sv aoy^kficria. fy ei/ rots vptarois Kara 
fpvcnv} with what Cicero, JFYw. v. 
6, 16 (vide iUd. III. i. 518. 1), 
quotes from Antiochus. 

2 According to Strabo, xvii. 
1, 5, 790, ludorus and Aristo 
the Peripatetic mutually ac- 
cused each other of plagiarism 
in regard to a treatise on the 
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. 
Isag. 96 (169), mentions that 
Eudorus, agreeing with Panse- 
tius, believed the torrid zone 
to be inhabited, and the same- 
writer (as Diels shows, Doxogr- 
22) quotes something further, 
taken by Eudorus from Dio- 
dorus the mathematician, and 
from Diodorus bv Posidonius. 




Ii. Arius 
Didym m* 

century before Christ, was this eclecticism of which, 
as we have seen, Antiochus was the foremost repre- 
sentative, is also clear from the example of Arius 
Didymus. 1 For though this philosopher is reckoned 
with the Stoic school, 2 his views approximate so 

Didymus this does not justify 
us in distinguishing with Heine 
(Jalirl. f. Class. Phil. 1869, 
613) the friend of Augustus 
from Arius Didymus the Stoic. 
It is rather an instance of that 
which Diels, Doxogr. 86, asserts, 
and of which he adduces many 
examples in this period, that the 
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 
together: e.g. the well-known 
Ehodian rhetorician Apollonius 
is sometimes called 'A-TroAAdmos 
<5 MoAwj/os, sometimes 'ATTOAA.CC$- 
VLOS 6 Wi6\caj/ and even by Ms 
disciple Cicero, Apollonius (Cic. 
ad Att. ii. 1 ; Brut. 89, 307 ; 91, 
316) ; Molo (De Or at. i. 17, 75 ; 
28, 126 ; De. Invent, i. 56) ; and 
the Stoic Musonius Rufus is 
called by Epictetus, Rufus only, 
and by others, as a rule, Mu- 
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 
"Ape LOS or Ai8v[j,os was the 
original name of this philo- 
sopher ; but Diels, 1. c. 3 seems 
to show that the latter is the 
more probable. 

2 The Epit. Diog. (vide PMl. 
d. 6V, III. i. 33, 2) mentions 
Arius between Antipater (the 
Tyrian, concerning whom vide 

1 He is no doubt the same 
"ApeTos of Alexandria who is 
known to us (from Plut. 
Anton. 80 sq. ; Reg. Apoplith. 
Aug. 3, 5, p. 207; Prcec. 
Ger. Reip. 18, 3, p. 814 ; 
Sen. Consol. ad M&rc. 4 sq. ; 
Sueton. Octav. 89 ; Dio Oass. 
Ii. 16, lii. 36 ; ^Elian. V. 3. xii. 
25; M. AureljViii. 31 ; Themist. 
Or. 2. 130, &, Pet. ; Julian, 23j>. 
51, p. 96, Heyl. ; cf. Or. viii. 
265, C ; Strabo, xiv. 5, 4, p. 
670) as a teacher of philosophy, 
a confidant of Augustus and 
friend of Maecenas. He was 
so highly esteemed by Augustus 
that, as we read in Plutarch, 
Dio, and Julian, he declared 
to the people of Alexandria, 
after the capture of that place, 
that he pardoned them for the 
sake of their founder Alexander, 
their beautiful city, and their 
fellow citizen Arius. From a 
consolatory epistle of Arius to 
Li via, after the death of Drusus 
(9 B.C.), whom Arius must 
have survived, Seneca, I. <?., 
quotes a considerable fragment. 
It is true that in none of these 
passages is Arius called Didy- 
mus, while on the other hand 
none of the authors who have 
transmitted to us fragments 
from AiSv/Aos or "Apsios AiSvpos, 
describe him as an Alexandrian 
or a friend of Augustus. But 
as none of these authors had 
any occasion to enter into the 
personal circumstances of Arius 



closely to those of Antiochus that we should be CHAP. 
tempted to consider him his disciple, 1 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 ; 2 but among these there is 

sujyra, p. 71, n.) and Comutns, 
the contemporary of Xero. 

1 I myself shared this opinion 
(supported by the Mpit. ZHoff.) 
in the second edition of the 
present volume: and in con- 
nection with it the supposition 
that in the notice of Suidas, 
AiSujuos 'Ai-fjios (^ "ATTZOS) XP 7 !" 
jjiaricras <piX6aro<pos 'A/caS^/taZkbs, 
the word 'A-rtji'os had been sub- 
stituted for v Apios. I must 
now abandon that theory. The 
Atejus Didynms who wrote two 

books iriQavSiv KO! <ro<f>iaij.dTcev 

more probably be the double of 
the Alexandrine grammarian 
AiSvfjLos veos, afterwards quoted, 
'to whom also viBava are 
ascribed ; but this too is quite 

- A number of fragments 
from this work are quoted 
under its name and that of its 
.author. Such are the follow- 
ing : (1) An exposition of the 
Stoic theories of God and the 
world, cbrb TT)S emrofiris 'Apeiov 
Afitfjiov (ap Eus. Pr. Er. xv. 
15). (2) The Stoic psychology', 
from the sTri.rojj.fy 'Aptou AiStiftou, 
Hid. c. 20, chap, xviii. $q., 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 

which is quoted anonymously 

row TlXdrcavi (rvvrera.'yfLfV^v^) bv 
Eusebius, I. c. xi. 23, 2 sg. ; and by 
Stobseus, Eel. i. 330. Likewise 
(4) the remarks on two maxims 
of the seven sages quoted by 
Clemens, Strom, i. 800, B, from 
Bidymus ; and (5) a statement 
respecting Theano, I. c. 309, C, 
from Aidvfios eV r<p irepl TlvBayo- 
pLK?is <ptXo<ro<j)las. Lastly (6) a 
passage is quoted in Btob.Moril. 
103,28 (e/cT^? AiStfiov eViTOft^s), 
concerning the Peripatetic doc- 
trine of evdaifjLovta this passage, 
however, is found, as Meineke 
discovered (MiitzelTs Zeitsokr. 
fur cL 6ri(inasialm.lS5y, p. 563 
sgd-J in the exposition of the 
Peripatetic ethics, ap Stob. Eel. 
ii. 274 ,s-#. ; 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 
Arras. From the same source 
Stobseus 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. 
The proved or supposed frag- 




a review of the Peripatetic ethics, which approaches 
so nearly to the ethics of the Stoics, and so entirely 
agrees with the opinions of Antiochns as represented 
by Cicero, that it is scarcely possible to mistake its 
ultimate source ; l and though the work is ostensibly 

ments of this treatise relating 
to physics have bean, collected 
by Diels, Doxogr. ^45-472, with 
some limitations of Meineke's 
conjectures. The same writer 
treats of Arms and his works, 
1. c. p. 69-88. 

1 As Antioclms, in his ac- 
count of the Peripatetic ethics 
(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, and of combining it with 
the Stoic doctrine (vide supra, 
p. 95 sg$.), so do we find with 
Arius. Like Antiochus, he takes 
as his basis the commonly re- 
cognised demand of life accord- 
ing to nature, and this in its 
Stoic acceptation. The ^VO-LK^ 
oLKetaxris is the point of view 
according to which it is decided 
what is a good, a Si' atirb atperbv 
(of the atperbv itself a definition 
is given, p. 272, corresponding 
with the Stoic definition quoted 
Phil, d. Gr. III. i. 223, 4). The 
instinct of self-preservation is 
acknowledged as the funda- 
mental impulse : ty-bcrei yap 
qucei&ffdaL irpbs savrbv (Stob. 246 
sq. ; 252, 258 ; cf . what is quoted, 
Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 209, 1, about 
the Stoics, and, supra>, p. 95 
sqq., about Antiochus); the KaOrj- 
Kovra (this conception also is 
Stoic) are reduced' to the K\oyt) 
r&v Kara Qvcrtv and the airenXoy^ 
Tiav irapa <pv<nv (p. 250 ; cf . Phil. 

d. Gr. HI. i. 258, 3). Like Antio- 
chus, he then seeks to show that 
from this point of view belong- 
ings,f riends ,countrymen,human 
society generally, are to be de- 
sired for themselves ; also praise 
and glory, health, strength, 
beauty, corporeal advantages of 
all kinds : only the goods of 
the soul are incomparably more 
valuable than all others (p. 246- 
264). His 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 
Antiochus (vide sitflra, p. 97, 
1), he classes the iroXiriKal Kal. 
KOWcaviKal and the 6api]TiKal 
irpd^is together as equally origi- 
nal problems (p. 264 sg.) ; like 
him, he distinguishes two kinds 
of goods those which are to be 
considered as constituents (<ru^c- 
TrXypariKa) of happiness, and 
such as only contribute some- 
thing to happiness (<ru/xj8aA.- 
Xecrdat) ; corporeal goods he will 
not, like Cicero's Antiochsean,, 
reckon under the first, but the 
second class: '6n TJ fj.ev 

eew:r <ru^7T7rX^/3curai (p. 266 S$. ; 
cf . p. 274 for the distinction be- 
tween Ka\a and avcry/ccua, the 
/jLepr] v$aifjiovias and &v OVK tfivev*) j 

he opposes, like Aristotle, the 
theory that the virtuous man is 
happy even in the extremity of 
suffering; also the Stoic pro- 
position concerning the 



and chiefly a mere reproduction of the Peripatetic CHAP. 
doctrine, still it is clear that Anns could not have 
brought that doctrine so near to that of the Stoics,, 
or adopted an older exposition which, did so (that of 
Antiochus), 1 if the distinctive doctrines of the dif- 
ferent schools had had the same importance for him 
as for the ancient Stoic authorities, if he had not 
shared the mode of thought which inspired the 
exposition of Antiochus, and had not been disposed, 
like Antiochus, to disregard the opposition of Stoics, 
Academics, and Peripatetics, as compared "with their 
common conviction. 2 

With Anus and Antiochus we must connect m. p ta- 
Potamo of Alexandria, who, according to Suidas, was mo ' 

neia of virtue, and the impos- 
sibility of losing it; and the 
statement that there is nothing 
intermediate between happi- 
ness and nnhappiness (p. 282 ; 
cf.' p. 314) ; thus showing him- 
self in these particulars less 
.strict than Antiochus (sup. p. 97, 
3). On the other hand (p. 
566), the Stoic doctrine of the 
efaoyos c&yu'y}) (PMLd.Gr. HI. 
I. 305 *0.) is also forced upon 
the Peripatetics 1 For the doc- 
trine of virtue, Arlus makes use 
especially of Theophrastus (jride 
ibid. Il/ii. 860, 1) as well as 
Aristotle; and the disciple of 
Antiochus (Cic. Fin*v. 5) quotes 
only from these two philo- 
sophers (siijjra, 97, 5) ; but in 
expounding the doctrine (p. 314 ) 
he uses the Stoic distinction of 
the KofiiiKQVTCL and KaropBcajmara 
(III. i. 264 <<?#.)> an ^ imports 
into it (p. 280) the Stoic Tpo- 

/CQTTJ]. In Ms (Economics and 
Politics he keeps entirely to 
Aristotle, only that he calls the 
third of the right constitutions 
not Polity, but Democracy, and 
its defective counterpart Ochlo- 
cracy, and introduces, beside the 
right and wrong forms of govern- 
ment (p. 330), the mixed forms 
compounded from the three 
first (those of Dicasarchus, dis- 
cussed in PMl. d. Gr. II. ii. 892). 

1 Their common use of this 
philosopher may perhaps ex- 
plain why Cicero and Arius 
Didymus, in expounding the 
ethics of the Stoics, use the very 
same words (cf. ibid, HI. i. 226, 
6 ; 227, 4; 232, 2). 

- He seems at times entirely 
to forget that he is merely giv- 
ing an account of the doctrines 
of others, for he passes from in- 
direct to direct narration (cf . r ib. 
III. i. pp. 256, 270, 276, 322). 



a contemporary of Arius, 1 while Diogenes Laertius 
speaks as though, lie had lived not long before his- 
own time, therefore towards the end of the second 
Christian century; 2 perhaps, however, he may be 
here merely transcribing the statement of an older 
writer. 3 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 
design ; for he designated his school as eclectic ; 4 
and the little we know of his doctrine certainly 
shows that he had not chosen this name without 
cause; for it apparently combines, regardless of 

Said. #iib. voee : 

Trpb Avyovffrov real fter' avr&v 
(probably /car 1 avr'bv is here to 
be read). 

2 PTOcem. 21: en 8e irpb 
oXtyov Kal tKXGKTLK'f] ri$ a'lpecfts 
eifffixQy fab noTctjU-covos- rov 'AAc- 
avtipews $KX%a(j.4vov TO. apecr/covra 
e| /cacTT7]S T&V atpeffsuv. (The 
same, but with the omission of 
the expression still more un- 
suitable to Mm, Kpb ohiyov, is 
found in Suidas, a'ipecfLS, S. II. 

48 B.). 

3 This theory, advanced by 
Nietzsche (RJiewi. Mus. xxiv. 
205 sg.; JBeitr. &. Qnellmli. (I, 
Diogenes Jj&ertws, 9), and ad- 
vocated among others by Diels 
(Doxogr. 81, 4), ascribes to 
Diogenes great want of thought, 
but not, on the whole, more 
than might be expected in 
him. Concerning the different 
attempts to decide between the 
accounts of Diogenes anciSuidas, 

or to reconcile them, and to 
discover something more about 
the life and circumstances of 
Potamo, cf. Fabric. Bibl. 6V. 
iii. 184 sgi. Harl. ; Brucker, Hist. 
C?-it. PMLii. 193 sqq. ; J. Simon, 
JFIistoire de VJEoole d'Alexan- 
drie, i. 199 sqq. In these tnere 
is also a review of the other 
men of this name known to us 
the rhetorician Potamo, of My- 
tilene, who, according to Suidas,, 
sub. wee (cf. eJ5. r<x5. and 
Atff&dbvaZ, where the rhetorician 
is called <iA(4cro<os), taught 
under Tiberius in Rome; and 
Potarno, the ward of Plotinus 
(Porph. v. Plot. 9), whom, how- 
ever, the new editions call 
Polemo. There is also the 
Potamo from whom some- 
mathematical observations are 
quoted, according to Alexander, 
in Simpl. D& Ccelo, 270, a, 42 ; 
289, a, 23 K ; Sclwl. in AT. 513,. 
i, 8 ; 515, a, 42. 
4 Vide preceding note. 


logical consistency, Platonic ] and Peripatetic ele- CHAP. 
ments with an essentially Stoic foundation. In the _ L_ 
question of the criterion, he allied himself with the 
Stoics, only that, instead of the c intellectual notion,' 
he substituted a vaguer form of expression, the 
'most accurate notion.' In his metaphysics he 
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 
stated. The highest good, he thought, consisted in 
the perfection of the life, the most essential con- 
dition of which lay in virtue, for which, however, in 
agreement with Aristotle and the older Academy, cor- 
poreal and external goods were found indispensable. 2 
Scarcely any original thoughts are to be found in 
this superficial combination and modification of 
older doctrines ; and so the c Eclectic school,' except 
for the one mention of it by Diogenes and his 
Byzantine followers, has left no further trace in 

1 According 1 to Snidas, he fyavracriav. ap^cis re TUSV 
wrote a treatise on the Platonic rfo re %XT]V Kal rb TTOLOVV, iroi6- 
Repnblic. TTJTO -re KO! T6irov e o yap Kal 

2 s Ap<r/cei S' avry (continues &' ov Kal iroiep Kal ev <y. reAos 
Diog". 1. <?.) KaOd (j>i](nv ev a"rot- 5e elvai l^>* ^ irdvra 

, . 

etvai rb fikv &$ v<p ov yiveTai ^ OVK &VGV rcav TOV ar^aros Kal rS>v 
Kpicris, TOUT6CTTI r"b TjyefjiQviKbVy i-b Kr6s. 
Se &s 8? ov, olov r 





D. The. 
tic School 
Its later 



SIMULTANEOUSLY with the tendency which was in- 
troduced into the Academy by Antiochus, the school 
of the Peripatetics also received a new impulse and 
pursued a partially altered course. As Antiochus 
wished to bring back the Academy to the doctrine of 
their founder, so the Peripatetics turned anew to the 
works of Aristotle : it is to the expounding of these 
works to which for whole centuries, down to the 
times of JSTeo-Platonism, their entire strength is 
directed, and in which their principal task consists. 
Here also there is displayed the phenomenon so 
characteristic of this whole period: the more un- 
mistakable 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 
necessity to return to the old masters and to lean 
upon them. No other school, however, has so 
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- 
patetics. 1 

1 Concerning these, 'wide Zumpt (Ucb&r d. 13estand <le<r 


The scientific activity of this school, since the CHAP. 
middle of the third century, had already, so far as ' 

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

J . . . went a tors. 

confined Itself to the propagation, exposition, defence, 
and 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 lost more and more the precise know- 
ledge of the Aristotelian doctrines and writings. 
Cicero l and Strabo 2 expressly tell us so, and the 
assertion is confirmed by the circumstance that, 
excepting the approximation of Diodorus to the 
Epicurean ethics, 3 not a single scientific propo- 
sition has been handed down to us from any of 
the successors of Critolaus, during a period of 

nearly a century. Andronicus of Ehodes first Atidro- 
-, ,1 ./ T.C .c -L- n't cvs of 

gave a new impulse to the scientinc iiie ol nis 

school. This distinguished man was, in the second 
third of the first century before Christ, head of 
the school in Athens. 4 His edition of Aristotle's 

PJiilosopJi. ScJtuL in Athen.) patetics are not here mentioned, 

AbJiandL der JBerL AJtade-mie, it cannot be supposed that the 

1 842 ; Hist. Phil. 2. 93 sq. : great mass of the philosophers 

Brandis, TJeber die Griecli. of the time were unacquainted 

Ausleger des Arixt. Organons, with Aristotle's writings, if they 

ibid. 1833, 273 sq. were not neglected in the Peri- 

1 Top. i. 3. A distinguished patetic school itself. 

rhetorician had declared that - In the passage quoted, Phil. 

the Topica of Aristotle was un- d. &r. II. ii. 139, 2. 

known to him : Quod quidem, 3 Cf . ibid. II. ii. 934, 

minime SUM admiratus, ewm 4 Andronicus was, according 

vhilosqphum rhetori non esse to Plut.^ZZ^,25, a contemporary 

coanitum, qui ab i_psis pMlo- of Tyrannio (vide infra, p. 115, 

sopTtis prater admodum paucos 1); and as Tyrannio appears to 

ignorcLTctur. Though the Peri- have only come to Kome in 66 



CHAP, works, 1 for which. Tyrannio 

B.C., and Andronicus used Ms 

transcripts of Aristotle's writ- 
ings for Ms own edition of them, 
this must certainly be placed 
after 60 B.C. His invariable 
surname 6 e l?6dio$ designates 
Ms birthplace ; Strabo mentions 
him among the celebrated phi- 
losophers of Rhodes (xiv. 2, 13, 
p. 655). That he was head 
of the Peripatetic school (in 
Athens) is asserted "by David, 
Scliol. in Arist. 24, a, 20 ; 25, 5, 
42 ; Ammon. De Interpret. Z. c. 
94, #, 21 ; 97, a, 19. He is here 
called the evfiettaros a.irb rov 
'ApicrroTeXovs ; following the 
Scholium in Waitz, however, 
(Aristot. Org. i. 45), which is 
also ascribed to Ammonius, his 
disciple Boethus was this 
eleventh philosopher. Accord- 
ing as we give the preference 
to the 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 
(Aristotle, Theophrastus, Strato, 
Lyco, Aristo, Critolaus, Dio- 
dorus, Erymneus, Andronicus) 
one, two, or three names. If 
three are found deficient, I 
should be inclined to insert 
them, not with Zumpt (JPML d. 
G-r. II. ii. 927, 1) between Aristo 
and Critolaus, but in the evident 
gap between Erymneus and 
Andronicus. It seems to me 
most probable, however, that 
only two are wanting, and that, 
according as we reckon, An- 
dronicus or Boethus might thus 
be called the eleventh (counted 
not after, but from Aristotle 


1 Porphyry (Plot. 24) says he 

the grammarian furnished' 

himself arranged the writings 
of Plotinus : /J.tfj.r)ffd/j.evos . . . 
'A.v$p6viKov -rbv TrepiTrcmjTi/cbz'j 
who ra 'Apio"rore\ov$ /cal eo- 
<ppdffrov els Trpayfj-areias SieiAe^ 
ras oiKeias vTrodeareis els ravr'bv 
crvvayay&v. This statement, as 
well as that of Plutarch (Sulla, 
26) : -Trap' avrov " 

cravra rSsv a.VTiypd<pGw (supplied 
with transcripts by Tyrannio) 
eis ^ffov Be'ivat, can only be 
understood of an actual edition 
of Aristotle's works, especially 
if we remember that, according 
to Plutarch, the Peripatetics 
before Andronicus had wan- 
dered from the doctrine of their 
founder on account of their 
scanty acquaintance with Ms- 
works. When the same writer 
adds to the words already 
quoted, Kal avaypdi^at rovs vvit- 
(pspofjievovs irivaKas, we must 
understand by these lists of 
writings a supplement to the 
edition which probably did 
not confine itself to a mere- 
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 
Post-'prcecLiGamientaj and the 
book vcepl sp/j,r)Vias (cf . PJtil. d. 
Gr. II. ii, 67, 1 ; 69, 1), and 
the reasons he gives for it. The 
proposition (cf. David, SchoL 
in Arist. 25, 5, 41) that the 
study of philosophy should 
begin with logic may also have 
been brought forward in this 
connection. On the other hand, 
what David says (Z. c. 24, a, 19) 



him -with, the means, 1 did them inestimable service by 
promoting their universal diffusion and more syste- 
matic study. 2 At the same time by his enquiries into 
their authenticity and arrangement. 3 and by his 
commentaries 4 on several of them, he showed the 


on the division of the Aristo- 
telian writings cannot be taken 
from Andronicus because of the 
quotation from the treatise 
Trepl KofffLov ; and the treatise 
of Andronicus De Divisione 
(Boet. De Dims. p. 638) cannot 
have dealt with the division of 
the books of Aristotle. 

1 This great scholar was born 
in Amisus in Pontus. When the 
place was conquered by Lu- 
cullus, he became the slave of 
Miirena, was then set at liberty, 
and taught in Eome (cf. Phil, 
d. Gr. II. ii. 139, 1). Here he 
gained considerable property, 
collected a famous library, and 
died at a great age (Suidas, 
sub voc& ; Plut. Lucull. 19). 
Strabo (xil 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 wifch it. 
He is to be distinguished from 
his namesake and disciple, the 
freedman of Terentia. Cf. 
Suid. Tvpav. vecor. 

Tyrannic had found oppor- 
tunity of making use of Apel- 
lico's library, which Sulla had 
brought to Eome; and many 
besides himself made copies of 
the Aristotelian works therein 
(Strabo, xiii. 2, 54, p. 609). 
Through him Andronicus re- 

ceived his copies (cf. preceding 
note, and Phil. d. ffr. II. ii. 139). 
Whether Andronicus had also 
come to Eome, or had merely 
received copies of Tyrannic "s 
recension, is not stated. 

2 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 (Phil. d. Gr. II ii. 139 &?.) 

3 Vide supra, 114, 1. 

4 Of these his exposition of 
the categories is most fre- 
quently quoted. It is men- 
tioned by Dexipp. in Cat. p. 
25, 25 Speng. (Svhol. in Arist. 
42,^,30): Simpl. in Cat. Sclwl 
40, 5, 23; 61, a, 25 s$$. ; and in 
about thirty other passages. 
At p. 6 e. 7, 5. (Schol. 41, 1 9 25 + 
42, a, 10), Simplicius seems to 
describe the work of Androni- 
cus as a mere paraphrase ('AvSp. 
irapcuppdfav rb r<av KarrjjoptSiy 
&i$\ioy). Meantime we see 
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. 6V.IL ii. 67, 1 ; 
69, 1) and philosophic investiga- 

i 2 




Peripatetic school the way in which from henceforth 
their criticism and exegesis was to proceed. He did 
not confine himself to mere explanation, hut sought 
to maintain as a philosopher the same independence 
with which as a critic he departed from tradition in 
the treatment of weighty questions. This we see 
from various and not altogether unimportant deter- 
minations by which in the doctrine of categories he 
diverged from Aristotle, 1 and still more clearly. 

lion of the contents. 1 Of. Bran- 
dis, I.e. 273 S. That Andronicus 
had also commented on the 
Physics does not certainly fol- 
low from Simpl. Phys. 101, a ; 
103, &; 216, a; although it 
is probable from the first of 
these passages. Simplicius, 
however, does not seem to 
have had this commentary in 
his own hands, or he would 
have quoted from it more fre- 
quently. The observations on 
Arist. De An. i. 4, 408, 5, 32 
$gq., and the Xenocratic defini- 
tion of the soul there discussed, 
which is quoted from Androni- 
cus by Themist. De An. ii. 56, 
li; 59, 6 Speng., point to an 
exposition of the treatise on the 
soul (vide infra, p. 117, 2). The 
definition of ird6o$, ap. Aspas. in 
Hth.N.(infra,p 1 IS, 3) is taken, 
perhaps, from a commentary 
on the Ethics. Of the two 
treatises still in existence, bear- 
ing the name of Andronicus, one, 
the treatise De Animi Affec- 
tionibits, is the work of Andro- 
iiicus Callistus in the fifteenth 
century, the other, the com- 
mentary on the Nicomachsean 
Ethics, is written by Heliodorus, 
of Prusa (1367); cf. Eose, 

Hermes, ii. 212. Andronicus 
cannot possibly have been con- 
cerned with either of them. 

1 According to Simpl. Cat. 15, 
e. (Sclwl. 47, &, 25), he regarded 
with Xenocrates (cf. Phil. d. 
Gr. II. i. 865, 4) this division, 
however, is in the main Platonic 
(cf. I. e. 556, 4) as the funda- 
mental categories, the /ca0' avrb 
and the irp6s TL (the Aristotelian 
definition of which he expounds, 
ap. Simpl. Cat. 51, j8. y. ScJiol. 
66, a, 39 ; Porph. '777. <f. r. 
Karriy. 43, a}. The /m0' aurb 
he must then have divided still 
further, for (according to Simpl. 
p. 67, 7. 69, a ; Scliol. 73, &, 10 ; 
74, , 29) he added to the four 
Aristotelian kinds of quality 
(cf. Phil. d. Gr. II. ii. 269, 2) a 
fifth kiod under which thick- 
ness, heaviness, &c., must fall, 
but which, as he observed, may 
itself be reckoned under the 
iradfiTLKal TtWr^res and it is 
only with reference to the cate- 
gories arising from further 
division that he can have as- 
serted (Simpl. 40 f ; SoJwl 59, 
&, 41; cf. 60, a,, 38) Relation 
to be the ultimate category of 
all. Observations of his are 
also mentioned concerning the 

from Ms view of the soul, which in the spirit of 

Aristoxenus and Dieaearchus, 1 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 

The work of Andronicus was continued by his 
disciple Boethus of Sidon, 3 who is often mentioned 

%ts (Simp!. 55, . ; SchoL 
65, a, 7), TToieiy, and trdtrxetv 
(Simpl. 84, .), and those 
conceptions which he called 
Indefinite magnitudes, and de- 
sired, therefore, to reckon not 
only under Relation, but also 
under Quantity (I. c. 36 5. ; 
Sclwl. 58, a, 37). Lastly, lie 
wished to substitute Time and 
Space for the irov and Tore, and 
to reckon under these categories 
not only TTOV and irore, but all 
other determinations of Place 
and Time. Simpl. 34, ft. 36, ft. 
87, a. 88, a. ft. 91, ft. ; Seliol. 57, 
a, 24: ; 58, a, 16 ; 79, &, 1 ; 30, 
37 ; 80, Z>, 3 ; cf . also Brandis, 
l.o. p. 273 sq. ; Prantl, Ge*c7i. d. 
Log. i. 537 sq. 

2 This is maintained by 
Galen, Qit. Animl MOT. c. 4, 
vol. iv. 782 sq. K. As Androni- 
cus, he says, was wont to speak 
freely and without obscure cir- 
cumlocutions, he plainly de- 
clares the soul to be the Kpaa-is 
(sc. TOV en^uaros) or the <Svvaju.i$ 
Trofj.V7i rfj Kp&ffi. In the same 
sense he explains (according to 
Themistius, De An. ii. 56, 11; 

59, 6 sqq. Sp.) the well-known 
definition of Xenocrates (PJdl. 
d.6fr. II. i. 871). While censuring 
Aristotle because in Ms objec- 
tions to that definition he kept 
exclusively to the expression 
rovvopa rov apiBfiov, he himself 
perceived in it the thought that 
all living natures consist of a 
mixture of the elements formed 
Kara, rivas \oyovs Ktd api6jjLovs ; 
so that it coincides in the main 
with the reduction of the soul 
to the harmony of the body. 
But when he "adds that this 
number is called a self- moving 
number (aurT? yap earn? y ^i>%7? 
Tijs Kpdcrecas TavTys atria Kal rov 
\6yov Kal rrjs fjiil~(0$ reap irp&rtov 
(rroixeiuv), this does not agree 
with Galen's statement, accord- 
ing to which it was in the first 
place a product of the Kpacns j 
and it is questionable whether 
Galen has not missed the mean- 
ing of Andronicus. 

3 Strabo mentions that he was 
a native of Sidon, rvi. 2, 24, 
p. 757; Andronicus names as 
his teacher Ammon. in Categ. 5 
(ap. Zumpt I. c, 94) ; that he 
was also a follower of his seems. 



8idon - 




with. him. He ? too, acquired considerable fame l as 
an expounder of the Aristotelian writings : the best 
known of his works is a commentary on the catego- 
ries : 2 but some traces are found of commentaries on 
the Physics and the Prior Analytics perhaps also 
on the treatise ' De Anima 5 and the Ethics. 3 In his 

to result from the Sclwlion,, 
quoted su_pra, p. 113, 4. But, in 
opposition to this theory, we 
find that in the years 45 and 
44 B.C. Cicero himself (Off.i. 
1,1) and Trebonius (in Cicero's 
Ep. ad Fam. xii. 16) mention 
only Cratippns as teacher of 
the Peripatetic philosophy in 
Athens. Eoethus is not men- 
tioned, whereas this philoso- 
pher, whom Strabo, 1. <?., desig- 
nates ($> <TUl'(f)t\QG'0<pri(ra,ljLV7][Jt,t$ 

TO, 'ApLcrroreXeia) as his own 
teacher, survived this date by 
at least one decade, perhaps 
several. Strabo also would, no 
doubt, have said if he had heard 
him lecture in Athens. Boethus, 
therefore, must have been a 
teacher of philosophy elsewhere. 
Perhaps Strabo may have 
availed himself of his instruc- 
tions in Eome. 

1 Siinplicius (Cut. 1, a. 41 &. ; 
SclioL 40, a, 21 ; 61, a, 14) calls 
him Qavjp.a.G'Los and eXXtyi/nos ; 
and on page 309 j8. ; ScJwl. 92, 
>a, 42, he praises his acuteness. 
Cf. p. 3, 7. ; JSoJwl. 29, 0, 47 ; 
ra TOV Boydov TTO\TJS a.yxtvoia.s 

2 According to Simplicius 
(L a) one of those which fiadv- 
Tepcus vepl avro (the Aristotelian 
book) swoiais GxprjcravTO, but at 
the same time (7, c. 7, 7. ; ScJwl. 
42, a,'S*) a continuous exposition 

Ae^ty, This com- 

mentary is frequently quoted in 
that of Simplicius and also that 
of Dexippus. In it, perhaps, 
was the statement which 
Syrian, in Metaph. Sehol. 893, 
a, 7, contests, that the Platonic 
ideas are the same as class- 
conceptions. A separate trea- 
tise of his on the irpos n is 
mentioned by Simplicius, 42, a, 
Sclwl. 61, b, 9. 

3 That there was a com- 
mentary 011 the Physics is 
shown by the quotations in 
Tliemistius, PJiys. 145, 14 ; 337, 
23; 341, 9 Sp. ; which Sim- 
plicius, no doubt, has borrowed 
from him (PJiys. 46, a ; ISO, a ; 
181, 5), as in the last of these 
three passages he expressly 
quotes the words of Tliemis- 
tius, and only in them those of 
Boethus ; and nowhere adduces 
anything from Boethus' Physics 
except what he finds in his pre- 
decessor. An exposition of the 
First Analytics may be con- 
jectured from the quotations of 
the pseudo-Galen Ela-ay. StaA. 
p. 19, and of Ammon. in Arist. 
Ory. ed. Waitz, i. 45, from the 
doctrine of the syllogism; an 
exposition of the books on the 
soul (though less certainly) 
from what Simplicius (De An. 
69, 1) tells us concerning his 
objections against immortality ; 
an exposition of the Nicoma- 
chsean Ethics from what Alex- 


apprehension of the Peripatetic doctrine he likewise, J;HAP. 
so far as we can judge, shows much independence, Y - 

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 
Aphrodisias. This also appears in the fact that he 
wished the study of philosophy to be commenced not 
with logic but with physics, 1 When, moreover, he 
denied that the universal of nature was prior to the 
particular, 2 and would not allow form to be regarded 
as a substance in the strict sense (737x0 TT; over la), 
but only matter, and in one aspect, that which 
Is compounded of matter 3 and form this presup- 
poses a theory of the value and priority of matter 
In things, which diverges from Aristotle, and rather 
approaches to the materialism of the Stoics. The 
same mode of thought is apparent in his utterances 
. concerning immortality, which place him on the side 
of those who understood the Aristotelian doctrine 

ander (De An. 154, #.) says of entirely waives the enquiry 

Ms observations on self-love concerning VOTJTTI and cr(a/j.a.riK^ 

, and the Trp&rov oltceiov ; and over/a, but only because it 

what Aspas. (ScJtol. ui JStlt. does not belong to the same 

'Classical Journal, xsix. 106) connection. He desired (vide 

&ndRose(Arutot.Pseuflo-I!pi</r. Themist. PJtys. 145, 14 Sp. ; 

109) says of his and Andronicus' PJtys. 46, ci) that mat- 

definition of the irdBos. ter should be called {'AT? only 

1 David, SeJtol. in Ar. 25 &, in relation to the form which 
41. For what follows, Prantl's it has not yet assumed, and 
Gesch. der Loc/ik, i. 540 sqq. has viroKeifievov in relation to the 

. been gratefully made use of. form imparted to it, but this 

2 Dexfpp.inCWfcy. 54:Speng. is merely a matter of verbal 
Sohol. in, Arist. 50, &, 15 sqc[. expression. What Simplicius 

3 Simpl. Categ. 20 ^8 gg. ; quotes from BoSthus (24 f &j. 
.SeJiol. 50, , 2. At the begin- SeJwL 53, a, 38-45) seems to 
oring of this passage, Boethus me of small importance. 





as a simple denial of it ; 1 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 irp&rov ol/csiov) was naturally 
his own self, and everything else must be desired 
only because of its relation to one's self. 2 In other 
instances, Boethus now and then sought to justify 
the Aristotelian determinations, 3 and sometimes de- 
fended them, especially against the Stoics ; 4 but 

1 Simpl. De An. 69, T> : *iva 
? cos 6 Boijdbs olydJa/jLev rfyv T|/U- 

(Jievovcrav rbv ddyarov tiriovra, e|- 

&VTL oLTr6x\vffQoLL. This refers 
to Plato's ontological proof 
of immortality. Boethus con- 
cedes to him that, strictly speak- 
ing, the soul does not die, but 
only the man (because death, 
according to the Phccdo, 64 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 he thinks 
the continuance of the soul 
does not follow from this. Eu- 
sebius (Pr. Efa. xi. 28, 4 ; xiv. 
10, 3) gives extracts from a 
treatise of Porphyry, Trept ^i/%r}s-, 
in which he defended immor- 
tality against Boethus. From 
the former of these passages it 
is clear that Boethus had also 
attacked the proof derived 
from the kinship of the human 
spirit with God (P7i<$do, 78, B 


2 This view is ascribed by 
Alex. De An. 154, a, to Xen- 
archus and Boethus, who appeal 
in support of it to Arist. Etli. 

N. viii. 1, 1155, &, 16 sqq. ; ix* 
8, 1168, a, 35 sqq. Our text 
names the 9th and 10th books, 
evidently by a confusion of 
the alphabetical designations 
of the books (0 1) with the- 
corresponding numerical signs. 

3 To these attempts belong^ 
(1) a remark, ap. Simpl. Cat. 109, , 
IB ; SoJiol. 92, a, 33 ; Categories, 
34, 15, 5, 1 sqq.} on the appli- 
cability of the opposition of 
fyen'ia. and K.ivr\ffi$ to qualitative 
change ; (2) the demonstration 
in which Theophrastus had 
already anticipated him, that 
the syllogisms of the first and- 
second figure are perfect (Am- 
mon. in Analyt. Pr. i. 1, 24, 1), 
18 ; ap Waitz, Arist. Org. i, 45) ; 
(3) the doctrine evolved from 
the hypothetical syllogisms as 
the av(x.Tc6iKTOL and irp&rot &v~ 
airdSetKToi. (Pseudo- Galen. EiVay, 
SiaX. p. 19 j Mm. ap. Prantl, p. 
554) ,* (4) the remarks on the 
question whether time is a 
number or a measure, and 
whether it even existed without 
the soul that reckons it, ap. 
Themist. Ptys. 337, 23; 341, 9 
Sp. ; Simpl. PJiys. 180, a, 181, 
; Simpl. Categ, 88, ; ScJwL 
79, 5, 40. 

4 Thus hedef ends (ap. Simpl. 
43, a, ; Sokol. 62, a, 18, 27)* 



what has come down to us In this connection is of 
little importance as affecting the special character of 
his philosophy. 

A third interpreter of Aristotle's writings, be- 
longing .to the same period, is Aristo, 1 a disciple 
of Antiochus, who afterwards went over from 
the Academy to the Peripatetics. 2 But we know 


the Peripatetic doctrine of tlie 
jrpSs rt against the Stoic doc- 
trine of the irpos n -rrcas %X oy i 
while at the same time he tried 
to apprehend Aristotle's de- 
finition more exactly, in the 
way pointed out by Andronicus 
(Simpl. 51, j8 ; Sehol. 66, a, 34 ; 
cf . Simpl. 41, $4. ; 42, a ; Sclwl. 
61 a, 9, 25 sq#. b, 9). He consi- 
dered the division of Trouiiv and 
iracrxeiz' as two distinct catego- 
ries (Simpl. 77 ; Schol. 77, J, 18 
sqq.\ and also the category of 
Having, which he examined 
particularly (Simpl. 94: e; Schol. 
81, a, 4") as well founded. 

1 He is mentioned by Simpl. 
41, 7. ; ScJwl. 61, a, 25, together 
with Boethus, Eudorus, Andro- 
nicus, and Athenodorus among 
the TraXaiol r&v TS-arriyopiav I^TJ- 
jTjral, and, consequently, no 
doubt the author of a com- 
mentary on this book, and not 
of a mere treatise on the irp6$ 
TI, which Simplicius in his men- 
tion of him in- this place as 
well as at p. 48, a ; 51, ; SeJiol. 
63, &, 10; 66, a, 37 s$g. alone 
allows. In the latter passage 
the definition given also by 
Andronicus and Boethus of the 
TTpos TL v<as GXOV is quoted pri- 
marily from him, with the 
remark that Andronicus has the 
same. He is no doubt that 
Aristo of Alexandria, who, ac- 
cording to Apul. Doffm. Plat. 

iii. p. 277 Hi Id. (where he is 
rightly censured for this) added 
to the Aristotelian syllogistic 
forms (perhaps in a commen- 
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 Frantl, Gesch. der 
Logilii i. 590, 23, restores the 
Arista of the MSS. instead of 
Aristotle), an account of the 
syllogistic figures is ascribed. 
He is likewise the Alexandrian 
Peripatetic Aristo whom Bio- 
genes mentions (vii. 1G4 ; also 
ride siij)7'a, p. 105, 2). 

2 Tnd. Acad. Hercul. col. 35: 
[Antiochiis had for disciples] 

SpeTs Kal KparfTTTTOv TL 
aiv 'Api(TTOov [/lev] Kal 

Cic. (Acad. ii. 4, 12) shows 
him and Dio to us at Alexan- 
dria in the company of An- 
tiochus, with the observation 
qmlus ille (Antiochus) secun- 
dum fratrem ^lurimum tri- 
luebat. If Seneca (Eg. 29, 6) 
resorted to Mm, he must have 
taught in Borne in the latter 
part of Ms life; meanwhile, 
the lepidus philosophic A*risto> 
of whom Seneca here relates 
certain anecdotes, must mean 
another person of the same 
name ; not only because Seneca 




2) us. 

little about him, and that little does not lead 
us to suppose him a great philosopher. Concern- 
ing the philosophy of the other Peripatetics of the 
first century before Christ Staseas, 1 Cratippus, 2 

reckons this man among the 
circulatores giti 2)liilosoj)ltiam 
Jionestius -neglexissent quam von- 
dunt, but also because the 
Julius Gfrsecinus, from whom a 
remark on him is quoted, only 
died under Caligula; whereas 
the disciple of Antiochus, who 
was with Mm about 84 B.C. 
(vide sity. 76, 4), scarcely sur- 
vived the beginning of the 
reign of Augustus, or at any 
rate cannot long have survived 
it. The Aristo of Cos mentioned 
by Strabo, xiv. 2, 19, p. 658, 
must not be taken for our 
Aristo (as Zumpt supposes, 
Alh. d. IJerL Alad. 1842 ; Hist. 
PML Kl. 68), for the former is 
described as the disciple and 
heir of the well-known Peripa- 
tetic, Aristo of Julis (Phil. d. 
Or. II. ii. 925). 

1 Staseas of Naples, the in- 
structor of Piso, who resided 
with him (Cic. De Orat. i. 22, 
104 ; Fin. v. 3, 8, 25, 75 ; rifle 
suj}. p. 100, 1, end) is also called 
by Cicero, noMlis Peripateticiis; 
but is censured by him for 
ascribing too much importance 
to external fortunes and corpo- 
real conditions (Fin. v. 25, 75). 
An unimportant theory of his 
is quoted in Censorinns, Di. 
Nat. 14, 5, 10. As Piso heard 
him lecture about 92 B.C. (I. c. 
De Orat.') he must have been 
at least as old as Andronicus. 

2 This philosopher, born in 
Pergamus, was likewise origi- 
nally a disciple of Antiochus. 

In the years 50-46 B.C. we 
meet with him in Mytilene 
(Cic. De Univ. 1 : Brut. 71. 250 ; 
Plut. Pwip. 75). Soon after 
this he must have settled in 
Athens, where Cicero got for 
him the Eoman citizenship 
from Cffisar, but at the same 
time induced the Areopagus 
to request him to remain 
in Athens (Plut. die. 24). Here 
about this time Cicero's son 
heard him (Cic. Off. i. 1, 1 ; 
iii. 2, 5 ; ad Fam. iii. 16 ; xvi. 
21) and Brutus visited him 
(Plut. Brut. 24). That he was 
the head of the school is not 
expressly stated, but is very 
probable. Cicero, who was a 
great friend of his, speaks with 
the highest appreciation of his 
scientific importance (Bwct. 71, 
250 ; Off. i. 1, 1 ; iii. 2, 5 ; 
Divin. i. 3, 5 ; De Univ. 1), but 
this praise is scarcely altogether 
impartial, As to his views, 
nothing has been transmitted 
to us except what we are told 
by Cicero, JDivin. i. 3, 5 ; 32, 70 
SQ. (cf. Tertullian, De An. 46) : 
that he admitted prophecy in 
dreams, and ecstasy (furor}, and 
that he based this theory upon 
the Peripatetic doctrine of the 
divine origin of spirit, and upon 
the numerous cases of fulfilled 
prophecies. The anthropology 
presupposed by him in this is 
the Aristotelian: animos homi- 
num quadami ex parte extrin- 
secus( 0*Jpa0ej/, from the divine 
spirit) esse tractos et haustos 


Nicolaus of Damascus, 1 and others, our information 
Is too scanty, and too unimportant to detain us with 


- . . earn jjarte?n, qitte sen sum, 
-gu(B mot urn, C[iice adjjetitum ka- 
beat, non. csse ab actione coiyjoris 
sejiigatam ; the sequel, however, 
sounds rather more Pi atonic: 
qiice antem pars animi rationis 
atque iHteUiyentia sit jjartieeys, 
cam turn majciine rigere, cum 
jjlurimton aJjait a cor pore. 

1 Nicolaus (concerning whom 
vide Miiller, Hist. Gr. lii. 343 
<?#.), born in Damascus about 
64 B.C. (therefore called d 
AafjLaa-KTivbs, Athen. iv. 153 f . et 
_pa$s. ; fcstrabo, XT. 1, 72, p. 719), 
and carefully brought up by his 
father Antipater, a prosperous 
and respectable roan , lived many 
years at the court of the Jewish 
King Herod, was one of his 
confidants and came in his 
company and, some years later, 
(8 B.C.) for the second time, 
on Ms affairs, to Rome, where 
he gained the favour of Augus- 
tus. After the death of Herod 
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 life 
in Rome (vide the references in 
Suidas, AvTLTrarpos and Ni/cdA. : 
Nicol. Frag in. 3-6, taken from 
the Escceryta de Yiitutilus', 
.Joseph. Antiquit. xii. 3, 2 ; xvi. 2, 
3; 9,4; 10,8; xvii.5,4; 9,6; 11, 
-3, who also, like Suidas, follows 
Nicolaus' own statements in 
Miiller). The theory that he 
was a Jew, shared also by 
Renan, Tie de Jesus, p. 33, is 
at once refuted by what we 
read (ap Suid. 'Aj/rfrr. ) respect- 
ing an offering to Zeus, and 

concerning the gods. He is. ~ (l f Damtts 
called in Athen. vi. 252 /. : ~ us 
266, e\ x. 415, e\ xii. 543, a>\ * * 
iv. 153 f., an adherent of t-iic 
Peripatetic doctrine (nepxTrcmj- 
TIK^S-) to which he had early 
allied himself (siuid. NZKQA.J 
and to which he devoted a 
portion of his writings. Himpl. 
(JJe C'telo, tit'JwL in Ar. 41)3, a, 
23) mentions his e Kepi 

'ApiCTTOTeAouS <plAO(T0<plQ:S (OUt 

of which may perhaps be taken 
the quotation from hih 6etapia 
r&v 'ApiffroreXovs /xera TO, pv&iKa. 
in the inscription to Theo- 
phrastus' metaphysical frag- 
ment, p. 323, Brand.). A second 
work, Trepl rov Tlavrbs, which 
treated Trep! wdvToiy TWV Iv Ttjp 
Kofffjua /car' (not /cat) eTo-3? ; Id. 
/. c. *40t, a, 6; a third, itepl 
Qe&v, from which statements 
concerning Xenoplianes and 
Diogenes* of Apollonia are re- 
ported, is mentioned by Simpl. 
(Phys. tJ, a, I ; 32, a, 1) ; an 
ethical work Trepl r&v Iv ro7s 

juareia, as mentioned by Simpl. 
In Ejjict. JSncldr. 194, c. ; here 
he may perhaps have said of 
Epicurus, what Diogenes asserts 
(Diog. x. 4). In none of these 
passages, however, is any phi- 
losophical proposition quoted 
from him.; and Xicolaus was 
doubtless far more of a scholar 
than a philosopher. Suidas 
calls him IlepnraTTjTf/c&s T? IIAa- 
reovucbs, which might point to 
his combination of the views of 
Plato and Aristotle, if any de- 
pendence could be placed upon 



CHAP, them. 1 But Xenarehus 2 and his treatise against the- 
Aristotelian theories respecting the aether may here be 



the passage. As an historian lie 
is censured by Joseph as {An- 
tiquit. xvi. 7, 1) on account of 
his partiality for Herod ; and 
his life of Augustus was no 
doubt only a panegyric. For 
the rest yule, concerning' his 
historical works, Miiller ; cf . 
Dindorf. Jalirbueli&r filr Clans. 
Phllol vol. xcix. H, 2, 107 
sqt[ f Meyer's supposition that 
he wrote the treatise irspl <pvrS}v y 
is discussed Phil. d. Gr. II. 
ii. 98, note. 

1 Among them, the owner of 
Theophrastus' library, A p e 1 - 
lico, o Teos {Phil d, G-r. II. 
ii. 139); but though this man 
occasionally occupied himself 
with the Peripatetic philosophy 
{Athou. v. 214, d), and com- 
posed a treatise on Hermlas 
and Aristotle (Aristocl. ap. Eus. 
Pr. Ei\ xv. 2, 9), Strabo (p. 
609), no doubt rightly, calls 
him <iAdj8i/8A.os fj.a\\ov 3) <piX6- 
fro<os. As little does A t h e 11 i o 
or Aristio (cf. PhiL d. G-r. III. 
ii. 934, 3) deserve a place 
among the pliilosphers, even 
supposing he really taught the 
Peripatetic philosophy. Some- 
what later we have Alex- 
ander, the teacher and friend of 
M. Crassus, the Triumvir (Plut. 
Crass. 3); At h emeus, of Se- 
leucia in Oillcia, in the time of 
Ctesar (Strabo, xiv. 5, 4, p. 670) ; 
Demetrius, the friend of 
Oato, who was with him in his 
last days (Plut. Cato Mm. 65, 
67 sq.} ; D i o d o t u s , the brother 
of Boethus of Sidon (Strabo, 
xvi. 2, 24, p. 757). To the 
Peripatetic school belong also, 
n o doubt, At hen odor us, the 

Ithodian, named by Quint illian,, 
Inst. ii. 17, 15, with Critolaus as 
the enemy of rhetoric (cf . Phil. 
d. G-i\ II." ii. 930, 2) ; and per- 
haps the author of the nepiVaroi 
quoted in Diog. iii. 3 ; v. 36 ; 
vi. 81 ; ix. 42. When he lived 
we do not know, but he seems 
to be later than Critolaus, whom 
Quintillian places before Mm. 
In Borne, according to Cicero, 
there must already have been, 
about the beginning of the first 
century, persons acquainted 
with the Aristotelian philo- 
sophy and writings, if M. An- 
tonius and Q. Lutatius 
Catulus really spoke as he 
{Orat. ii. 36, 152 ^#.) repre- 
sents. We have no warrant, 
however, for supposing that 
this representation is histori- 
cally true ; indeed, Cicero him- 
self implies clearly enough 
both here and in c. 14, 59, that 
Antonius was not acquainted, 
so far as he knew, with -Greek 
literature ; and though it may 
certainly have been otherwise 
with Catulus, we are hardly 
justified in ascribing to him an 
accurate knowledge of that 
literature, and particularly of 
the Peripatetic philosophy. The 
only Roman adherent of this 
philosophy of whom we hear 
in the first century B.C. is that 
Pi s o of whom we have spoken, , 
supra, p. 100, 1, end; "but, as 
is there shown, he also attended 
the instruction of Antiochus, 
whose eclectic principles Cicero 
puts into his mouth. 

2 Xenarchus, of Seleucia, in 
Cilicia, passed the greater part 
of his life as a teacher in Alex- 



mentioned ; l for this polemic against so integral a por- 
tion of the Aristotelian physics affords a further proof 
that the Peripatetic school was not so absolutely united 
by the doctrine of its founder as to preclude many 
departures from, that doctrine among its members. 

But there is still stronger evidence of this fact 
in a treatise which perhaps dates from the first cen- 
tury before Christ, and has been transmitted to us 
as the work of Aristotle the book of the Cosmos. 2 
The authenticity of this work was already questioned 

- 1 

in antiquity/ and denied by Melanehthon ; 4 in 


andria, Athens, and Rome. It 
was in the first of these cities 
that Strabo probably heard 
him. Befriended by Arius, and 
patronised by Augustus, he 
died in Piome at a gTeat age 
(cf . Strabo, xiv. 5, 4, p. 670). 

1 Tide concerning this trea- 
tise and the objections de- 
veloped in it against the Aris- 
totelian doctrine : Bamasc. De 
Casio, 8c7wl. in Arist. 456, , 6 ; 
460, 5, 15 ; Simpl. De Ccelo, 
Stihol. 470, , 20 ; 472, a, 22 ; 
472, #, 38 sqq. ; 473, a, 9 ; 43, 7;, 
.24; (9, a, 11; 11, 5,41; 13, &, 
6 ; 36 ; 14, a, 19 ; 21, &, 32 sqq. ; 
25, I, 4 : 27, 5, 20-34, a, IS K) ; 
Julian. Or at. v. 162, A, sq. Sini- 
plicius calls it : a: TT/J^S- rfc 
TrejjLTTTTjv ovcriav aTropfai, TO. irpbs 

T$]V IT. OVCT. 7J7TOp7JjU6I/a 01" *y- 

ypaftjuLzva. In the same treatise 
were perhaps to be found the 
observations against Chrysip- 
pus* doctrine of empty space, 
ap, Simpl. I c. 129, , IS K. 
His opinion concerning the 
"jrp&Tov otKe'tov (sKjjra, 120, 2), 
and Ms (Aristotelian) definition 
of the soul (Stob. Eel. i. 798) 
are also quoted elsewhere. 

l ~ arhlUS 

Tkeofies a 

to it* 

" "Weisse, Aristateles von dtr 
Seele und von der Welt, 1829, 
p. 373 sqq. ; 8tahr, Aristoteles 
bei den Momcrn, 1834, p. 163 
s S$'i Osann, Seitrb'ge cu (frieefi, 
und jRom. ZMeraturgegch. i. 143 
sqq. ; Petersen in the review of 
this treatise, Jahrb. f. icissensefi* 
Erit. 1836, 1, 550, sqq. ; Ideler, 
Arutot. JfeteoroL ii. 286 sq. ; 
F. Gieseler, iib. d. Verf.d. SucJis 
r. (L W. ZtscTir.f. Alterthumsn*. 
1838, Nr. 346 sq.- t ISpengel, De 
A'rist. Libra X. Hist. Anim. 
Heidelb. 1842, p. 9 sqq. ; Hil- 
debrand, Apnlej* Opera , i. 44 
?qq* ; fiose, De Arist. Li'br, 
Or dine et Avct. p. 36, 90 sqq. ; 
Adam, DeAuet&re Lilri Pseudo- 
Anstotelici -*. K. Berl. 1861; 
Barthelemy Saint-Hilaire, Me- 
teorologie d'Aristcte, Par. 1863. 
p. 88 sqq. ; Goldbacher, Ztsclw* 
f. Oesterreicli. Gymn. xxrv. 
(1873), 670 sq. ; Z. Rritil ran 
Apul&jus De MvndOj &c. 

3 Procl. in Tim . 322, B : ; Aptcr- 
TOTeATjs, efwep GKCLVOV rb ire pi 
KOCT/JLOV jSijSAfoz'. 

4 Physica, Q]?]?. ed. Bretsclnu 
xiii. 213 *$. 


CHAP, modern times it has found some advocates, 1 but is 
' nevertheless quite untenable. As little, however., 
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, which did not itself claim to be Aristotelian 
or even the elaboration of such a work. In 
modern times its authorship has been assigned 
sometimes to Chrysippus, 2 sometimes to Posidonius, 3 
sometimes to April eius, 4 but against each of these 
conjectures there are most important objections. In 
regard to Chrysippus it is highly improbable that 
he should have sent forth a work under a borrowed 
name, and quite inconceivable that he should have 
adopted for the purpose that of Aristotle ; but that the 
work claims Aristotle's name for itself is incontestable/ 

1 Its authenticity has been against the supposition that the 
finally maintained most confi- work was designedly foisted 
dently by Weisse. I am the npon Aristotle. Both in manner 
more willing to spare myself a of exposition, he says, and in 
detailed exposure of the weak- substance, its unlikeness to- 
nesses of this attempt, as that Aristotle is so unmistakably evi- 
has already been fully accom- dent, that only a person entirely 
plished by Osann, Stahr, and unacquainted with Aristotle, or 
Adam (p. 14 sgq. &c.), and as a fool, could have indulged the 
the decisive points in the matter fancy that it could possibly be 
will be brought forward in the regarded as the work of that 
following pages. philosopher. But this, the only 

2 Osann, I. <?., seeks to es- argument that he adduces, tries 
tablish this theory at length. to prove too much. How many 

3 Ideler, 1. #., following Alclo- are the forged writings in. 
brandinus, Huetius, and Hem- which we t at the first glance, 
sius. can detect the forgery ? From 

4 Stahr, I. <?., and, in another this it does not follow that 
way, Adam. Barthelemy Saint- they are not forgeries, but that 
Hilaire follows the former, they are not clumsy forgeries, 
without naming him, In the present case, however, the 

5 Osann, indeed, declares forgery was not clumsy enough 
himself, p. 191, very decidedly to prevent numerous persons 


and -when Osann would separate its dedication to CHAP. 
Alexander 1 from the rest of the work, this is an __.H_ 
arbitrary proceeding which is wholly unjustifiable. 2 
Moreover, the exposition of Chrysippus, according 
to the unanimous testimony of antiquity and the 
specimens in our possession, is distinguished as 
much by its learned prolixity, as by its dialectic 
pedantry and contempt of all rhetorical adornment ; 3 
whereas the treatise Trspl KoV/^ou exhibits through- 
out the most opposite qualities, so that even on this 
ground it is quite impossible to attribute it to Chry- 
sippus. No less, however, is such a theory excluded 
by its contents. That it has adopted many Stoic 
doctrines and definitions, and expresses some of 
these in the formulae which, after Chiysipptis, had 
been transplanted into the Stoic school, is indeed 
undeniable; nevertheless, as will immediately be 
shown, this work so entirely contradicts the most 
important distinctive doctrines of the Stoic school 

and even philosophers and with Ms theory of the author 

critics of our own time Welsse, of the book. Apart from this 

for example from being de- there is no trace either in 

ceived. And would a work external evidence or the in- 

that was evidently not written ternal character of the passage 

by Aristotle pass more easily that it was originally absent, 

for his if it were anonymous Even in C. 6, 398, &, 10, the 

than if it went forth under his language is such that the Per- 

name ? sian empire must he supposed 

1 Naturally Alexander the to be still existing, and if the 
G-reat ; for that this Alexander writer, in Ms necessarily nu- 
was another man of the name inerous references to older 
of whom nothing further is philosophers, has carefully 
known, no reader of Osann's avoided every definite allusion 
book (p. 24 6) will easily believe, to what is post-Aristotelian, 

2 Osann (p. 246 sy.} has no we see from this that he wishes 
further proof to give than that his work to pass as Aristotelian, 
the dedication is incompatible 3 Cf . p. 42. 


CHAP, as compared with the Peripatetic, that it might be 
' ascribed to any author rather than to Chrysippus. 
Lastly, though we will not here anticipate the more 
particular demonstration of the date of this book, it 
is sufficient for the refutation of Osann's hypothesis, 
to observe that Chrysippus's work on the Cosmos 
consisted of at least two books, and that quotations 
are made from it which are nowhere to be found in 
the writing we are considering. 1 The same argu- 
ments hold good in great measure against those 
who conjecture Posidonius to have been the author 
of the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise. Its ornate 
language, however, can with far more probability 
be attributed to him than to Chrysippus ; and there 
are many particular details which approximate much 
more to the time of Posidonius than to that of 
Chrysippus : indeed, we shall find that the author 
probably in a considerable part of his work made 
direct use of this philosopher. But that Posidonius 
should have forged a work of Aristotle is as wholly 
unlikely as that Chrysippus should have done so ; and 
though we can certainly remark in him concerning 
special points, a leaning to the Academic and Peri- 
patetic philosophy, this never makes him untrue (like 
the author of irspl Koay^ou) to the fundamental doc- 
trines of his school so as to deny the substantial 
presence of God in the world, the destruction and 
conflagration of the world, or to distinguish aether 

1 Stob. Eel. i. 180 ; Alex. Against Osann, of. Petersen, p. 
ApTir. Anal. Pr. 58, I (supra, 554 sag. ; Gieseler, SpeneeL 
Phil. d. Or. III. i. 158, 1). Adam, I. c. 


.and all elementary bodies whatever. 1 As to Apu- 
leius this objection, It Is true, would not hold good : 
in his treatise on the Cosmos he has 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 Apulelus, In the introduc- 
tion to his Latin recension, speaks as if It were not a 
mere translation, but an independent work on the 
foundations of Aristotle and Theophrastus, 3 there Is 
no proof whatever that he was sufficiently scrupulous 
about 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 is distinguished 4 from Aristotle's. 5 

1 For these reasons the hypo- TheopUrastum auctorem secuti, 
thesis of Posidonius is opposed quantum yossiimus cogitatlom 
by Bake, Position. Rel. 237 sq. ; contingere, dlaemns de omnl Jiae 
Spengel, p. IT ; Adam, p. 32. coekstl ratime^c. The words in 

2 The quotation in Justin, parenthesis are wanting in the 
Cohort ad 0r. c. 5, cannot be best MSS. ; but are neverthe- 
placed earlier than Aptdeius, less to be considered genuine, 
since the authenticity of this Of. Goldbacher, 1. c. p. 690. 
treatise, as has lately been 4 Concerning these, mde Hil- 
shown by Adam (p. 3 *#.) in debrand, A}ml. Opp. I. xlvin. sq. 
opposition to Semisch, has cle- 5 The ancients, as is well 
cisive reasons against it. known, had much less strict 

3 At the end of the dedication ideas than we have on this 
to Fanstinus, which is distin- snbject ; and many others be- 
<ndshed from that of the sides Apuleius behave in such 
pseuclo- Aristotle to Alexander matters with a surprising laxity, 
only by unimportant alterations Eudemus, e.ff., seems nowhere 
and omissions: Quare [-nos to have said that his work 

, vrwleniiwiMtm et on * Physics' was only a new 
pWosojJwrum'] et edition of Aristotle's nor does 


CHAP. Closer investigation leaves no doubt that his Latin 
Yt work on the Cosmos is not (as Stahr and Barthelemy 
Saint-Hilaire assert) the model, but only a revision 
of the Greek work which is to be found in our col- 
lection of Aristotelian writings ; for the latter has 
throughout the conciser, sharper, more original form 
of expression, while the former has the character of a 
paraphrased translation: the flowery language of 
the one too often in the other becomes bombast, 
which is sometimes hardly comprehensible without 
a comparison with the Greek text ; and while there 
is nothing in the Latin which cannot be regarded as a 
paraphrase or translation of the Greek, the Greek, 
on the contrary, has passages which could not possibly 
Lave arisen from the Latin, but must evidently 
have been before the eyes of the Latin writer. 1 But 
to admit this, and to make Apuleius the author of 
the Greek book which he then himself translated 
into Latin, 2 is equally impossible. For in the first 
place we thus abandon the only ground on which 
the hypothesis of his authorship could even plausibly 
be maintained viz., the credibility of his own 

he say so of his Ethics. He named the sources of a treatise 
speaks, even where he adheres which has taken so much from 
quite closely to Aristotle, as an Stoic authors and Stoic doc- 
independent author in his own trine ? 

name ; and so does the writer l Some of the most striking 

of the Magna, Moralia. Cicero, are these : vepl K6<r/u.ov 392, a, 

too, notoriously translated, or, 5 j 325, #, 7 : 398, b, 23 ; 400, #, 

at any rate, transcribed exten- 6 ; #, 23 ; compared with the 

sive portions in Ms writings corresponding Apul. De Mundo, 

from the Greeks, without men- c. 1, 12, 27, 33, 35, p. 291, 317, 

tioning the sources from which 362, 368 Oud. For the rest I 

they came. And would Apu- must refer to Adam, p. 38 sg%. ; 

leius, in his Arlstoteles et Theo- Gfoldbacher, 671 sq. 

phrastus auctor, have really 2 Adam, I. <?., 41 sgq. 


assertions; we regard it as impossible that he CHAP. 
should have represented his writing as an indepen- ^* 
dent work if it were merely the revision of the 
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 him- 
self far better, more simply and to the point, in 
the Greek language than in his own ; and that, in 
spite of his being himself the author, he had not 
unfrequently in the Latin version confused and 
obscured, nay, completely misunderstood that which 
in the Greek is perfectly clear. 3 Finally, passing 
over other difficulties, from the evidence furnished 
by his other writings of his philosophical capacity, 
we can scarcely ascribe to Apuleius so important a 

1 That the anthor of the would be nullified by each 
Greek treatise asserts it to be other. 

Aristotelian has been already 3 A number of the most 

shown, p. 127, 2. Apuleius also striking proofs, not only of the 

designates it as such in the dependence of Apuleius on one 

passage quoted supra, p. 129, 3, Greek text, but also of the 

from the Prooemium, and c. 6, misunderstandings which beset 

p. 300 Oud., where he says, in him in the reproduction of it, 

reference to irepl K6fffj.ov, 3, 393, some of which arise from false 

a, 27: \_Mare'} Afrimim, quoil readings, are given by Gold- 

giiMem Aristoteles Sardinimse bacher, p. 679 sgq. The same 

maliAt dlcere. writer shows, p. 674 s$., how 

2 Nor would his forgery have untrue is the statement of 
answered his purpose ; for if he Adam, that Apuleius, according 
declared the Greek version of to Ms own assertion, was in the 
his book to be the work of habit of composing the same 
Aristotle, and the Latin to treatise in Latin and Greek, 
be his own, these statements 


CHAP, work as the treatise on ^ the Cosmos undoubtedly is ; 
v * and we must necessarily have expected to find in this 
writing, if it had emanated from him, much more 
distinct traces of those Platonising metaphysics and 
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 

Its stand- That this author reckoned himself among the 
point and . 

character. Peripatetics seems probable irom the name of 
Aristotle, which the work bears ; for by that name 
it claims to be considered one of the genuine 
records of the doctrines of the school. The same 
is confirmed, however, by its contents. Though 
the 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 
it as the philosophy of Antiochus, for example, 
approximates to the Platonic philosophy. 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 allies himself 
with Aristotle. He does so when he asserts the 
distance of our world from the higher world, its 
changefulness and imperfection in contrast with 


the purity and invariability of the heavenly spheres, 1 CHAP. 
and when he makes the perfection of Being gradu- _._ Y< 
ally diminish with the distance from the supreme 
heaven ; 2 and when he expressly maintains the dis- 
tinction between the aether, of which the heavenly 
bodies consist, and the four elements, in unmistak- 
able contradiction to the Stoic doctrines. 3 Further, 
while the divine essence, according to the Stoic 
doctrine, permeates the whole world even to the 
smallest and ugliest things, our author finds this 
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, effects the movement of the whole, 

1 C. 6, 897, 5, 30 *#. ; 400, a, the theory of the treatise v*pl 

5, 8%. 21 sqq. K6<riJLQv concerning the asther 

3 C. 6, 397, 1), 27 s$%. is Aristotelian ; it is, therefore, 

3 C. 2, 392, , 5, 29 sq. ; c. 3, 392, all the more astonishing that he 

5, 35 ; cf. Phil, d. ffr. II, ii, 434, s$. can believe Chrysippus to have 

How closely this work adheres also advanced the same theory ; 

to Aristotle's expositions has for our treatise declares itself 

heen already observed, /, c. p. expressly against the Stoic iden- 

437, 6. That it should speak tification of sether with fire 

(392, 5, 35 a, 8) of five <rro#e*a, (I. c. in. i. 185, 2, 3) ; and, as we 

sether, fire, &c., is unimportant, see from Cic. (Aead. i 11, 39), 

Aristotle himself had called the this was one of the most 

asther irpfoTov <rroixetoy (cf . PJtil. notorious points of contest 

d. fc>.H.ii.437,7),andif he de- between Stoics and Peripa- 

scribed it as erepov crto/na /col 0J- tetics. The question is not 

repo? rcev /caXov/ieVwv crror^e W unimportant, for on the discri- 

(Gm. An. ii. 3,736, &, 29) the trea- mination of the aether from the 

tise means the same in 392, a, 8, four elements Aristotle bases 

as (rroix&ov erepo*' rav rerrdpoty^ the antithesis of the world 

atcfipardy re Kal Qelov. Osann, p. below and the world above. 
168,203 sc[., moreover allows that 




However manifold the forms it may assume in the 
world. 1 Still less, of course, can he admit the 
identification of Grod and the world : a Stoic defini- 
tion which expresses this he only adopts after 
having altered its pantheistic language. 2 Finally, 
the author shows himself to be a Peripatetic by 
expressly defending 3 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 any leader of the Stoic 
school, such as Posidonius or Chrysippus, yet in 
it the endeavour is very perceptible to unite the 

1 TMs occupies the whole of 
the sixth chapter. Here again 
the polemic against Stoicism is 
unmistakable (cf. p. 397 ,5, 16 
sqgi. ; 398, a, 1 sg. 5, 4-22 ; 400, 
5, 6 *.) and the theory (Osann, 
207) that the divergence from 
it is only a concession to the 
popular religion is quite in- 
admissible; the popular re- 
ligion is not at all in question 
here, but the Aristotelian theo- 
logy; if Chrysippus, however, 
wished to support the popular 
religion, he was quite able to 
do this, as we have seen, without 
contradicting the fundamental 
principles of his system. We 
may quote as a special indica- 
tion of the Peripatetic origin 
of our treatise that the passage 
398, &, 16 sqq. seems to have 
reference to I)e Motu Anim. 7, 
701, , 1 sqg. 

2 The treatise wepl K6cr/j.ov, 
begins, after the introduction, 
c. 1, with definitions of the 

K6fffjt.o$, in which it shows re- 
semblance not only to the Stoics 
in general, but more particu- 
larly to that exposition of their 
doctrines from which Stob. JEel. 
i. 444 (PULd. 6-V. III. i.!47,l)has 
given us extracts. The altera- 
tions which are found necessary 
in the treatise are all the more 
worthy of note : K.6fffj.ov <5', we 
read in Stob., elvai tyyviv 6 Xpv- 
ffunros ffvarryiLia e ovpavov Kal 
yrjs Kal rfav eV rovTOis ^(reajv, $) 
rb e/e Qe&v Kal avdp&ircav (TiKTryfjia 
Kal e/c T&V eVe/ca ro^rcov 7670^- 
rcav. XeyeraL 5' erepajy K^CT/JLOS 6 

Kal r\iovrat. Our treatise 
takes the first of these defini- 
tions literally, and passes over 
the second; for the third it 
substitutes these words : Aeysrat 

rdts re Kal dia.K6crfj.7ja' is, v^rb 0ea>y 
re Kal Sia Qefov ^vXaTro/xe^. 

3 0. 4, end ; c. 5, beginning ; 
I. c. 397, <, 14 s$. 5, 5. 


Stoic doctrine with the Aristotelian, and partially CHAP. 
to admit even those determinations to which an ^' 
unqualified recognition is denied. TVith the Stoic 
writings which the author has employed, and even 
transcribed, 1 he has also appiopriated Stoic doc- 
trines to a considerable extent; and this may be 
said not merely of the eosmological, astronomical, 
and meteorological details which Osann brings for- 
ward, 2 but also of definitions deeply affecting the 
whole system. Quite at the beginning of the 
cosmological exposition, 3 we encounter a Chrysippean 
definition of the Kocr/ios. Further on it is de- 
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, 
sympathy : 5 and that his harmony with the Stoics 
shall not escape us, the author does not hesitate to 
quote, expressly as a witness in his own behalf, 6 
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 cold the fundamental quality of air. 7 He 
-adopts the Stoic doctrine of the Trvsvpa, with which 

1 This will be proved later 7 C. 2, 392, b, 5 : d % . . . 
on. (o(j>('8T]$ &>v teal irayer&STis T^V 

2 Page 208 *##. <pv<nv. Likewise, as is shown p. 

3 C. 2, beginning; vide my. 183, 2, the Stoics, against whom 
p. 134 2. Aristotle (cf. Phil d. Or. H. ii. 

4 C. 5. 444) maintains cold to be the 

5 C.4, endjolrwywaflwy 6poi6- fundamental determination of 
nrres. water, and moisture that of 

6 C. 5, 396, &, 13 ; cf . c. 6, end. air. 


CHAP, there are points of contact even in the Peripatetic 
v * doctrine. 1 But his approach to Stoicism is most 
striking in regard to theology. While repudiating 
the Stoic Pantheism as such, the diffusion of the- 
divine substance through the world, the author quite 
approves of its propositions as soon as they are 
applied, not to the divine essence, but the divine 
force ; 2 and he accordingly teaches that the active 
influence 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 Grod is, , 
therefore, the law of the whole ; 4 from Him proceeds 
the order of the world by means of which it is 
classified into the various species of existences, 
through their individual seminification ; 5 and be- 
cause of this, his all-governing influence, Grod 
bears the manifold names, the enumeration and 
explanation of which in the treatise irspl KScrj&ov 
are stamped with the most genuine Stoicism. The 
name, the predicates, and the origin of Zeus are- 
here explained quite in the Stoic sense; 

1 0. 4, 394, 5, 9 : \cyertu 5e 3 0. 6, 398, 5, 6 sg$. 20 sq. ; 
Kal erepcos Trvet/jaa tf re ev fywrols cf. 396, #, 24 $q. 

Kal c*>oi$ teal Siot, iravrvv Si^Kovcra 4 C. 6, 400, #, 8 : v6/j,os y&p > 

fy-fyvxts T K<d ytvLfj.os ovcria. Of. fytuV IffOKXiv^s 6 Beds. The con- 

the quotations, PJdl.d. 6rr. III. i. ception of v6p.os for the order 

p. 138, 1 ; 191, 1; 331, 3. of the universe Is, as is well 

2 0. 6, 397, &, 16 : Sib Kal r$>v known, pre-eminently Stoic. 
TraAcucDj/ eiTreTy rives 7rpo^%077<ray Cf . Phil. d. 6fr. III. i. p. 140, 
#Ti Trdyra ravrd ecrr* dewy ?rAea 222 sg. 303 sq. 

ra Kal <5i' o<t>6a\fj,wv lva\\6/ 5 C. 6, 400, 5, 31 sg. This 

fjjULtv /cai 5*' aKorjs Kal irda"r)s alff- exposition likewise reminds us 

077<re<w, rfj jjikv Oslo. Swapst Trpe- of the Stoics, in the doctrine 

TTQj/Ta /cara/SaXAoVevoi Xoyov ov of the \6yoi or7Tpfj.arLKot. 
pfyv TTJ y ovcrta. 


Nemesis, Adrasteia, the CHAP. 
Moirse, are referred to him by means of Stoic etym- 
ologies ; and for the confirmation of philosophic 
doctrines, the sayings of the poets are interspersed , 
after the manner of Chrysippus. 1 It is clear that 
the author wishes indeed to maintain the Peripatetic 
doctrine, but also to combine with it as much 
Stoicism as was possible without absolute incon- 
sistency. 2 That Plato likewise agrees with his 
proposition is indicated at the close of the work, 
by the approving citation of a passage from the 
c Laws' (IV., 715, E.), and we are again reminded 
of Plato, when Grod is extolled not merely as the 
Almighty and Eternal, but also as the prototype 
of beauty. 3 But this, like all eclecticism, was 
naturally only possible by the relaxation of the 
strictly philosophic interest and philosophic de- 
finiteness; and thus we see in the writing rrspl 
Kocr/^ou, side by side with the cheap erudition dis- 
played especially in Chapters II. to IY., the popular 
theological element decidedly preponderating over 
the purely philosophical element. In the discus- 
sions on the transcendental character of the divine 
essence this religiosity even assumes a mystic 
tinge when the dignity of (rod and His exalta- 

1 C. 7 ; cf. Osaxm. p. 219 sqg. trines of the school to which 

2 That he, therefore, ceased he belonged and desired to 
to be a Peripatetic and conse- belong. 

quently * Zellems ipse suwni 3 C. 6, 399, &, 19 : ravra xpfy 

sententiami egregie refellere KO! irepl Qeov Siavoiar8cu SwcC/iei 

vide&ur* (Adam. p. 34) is a sin- p.ev faros IcrxvporaTov, ^ /caAAet 

gnlar assertion. As if no 5e eunr/jewetrrarau, Cj? 5e a0co/a- 

philosopher had ever mingled TOU, apery 5e Kparlcrrov, &c. 
foreign elements with the doc- 




date of 

tion above all contact with the world is made the 
chief argument against the immanence of the 
divine essence in the universe. We see here how 
eclecticism accomplished the transition from pure 
philosophy to the religious speculation of the neo- 
Platonists and their predecessors. The road of 
strict enquiry being abandoned, and those results of 
speculation alone maintained which commended 
themselves to the universal consciousness as true 
and expedient, metaphysics must necessarily be 
replaced by theology, in which the majority of man- 
kind satisfy their theoretical wants ; and if, at the 
same time this theology were based on the Aristotelian 
doctrine of the transcendency of (rod, and the Stoic 
idea of his omnipresent influence on the world, 
there resulted at once a theory of the universe in 
which the Peripatetic dualism and the substantial 
Pantheism of the Stoic school were reconciled in a 
system of dynamic Pantheism. 1 

To what period the attempt at such a reconcilia- 
tion contained in the book we have been consider- 
ing, may be assigned, is not certain, but it *may be 
approximately determined. The revision of the 
treatise by Apuleius shows that it was in circulation 
as an Aristotelian work about the middle of the 
second century after Christ. The only question is, 

1 The view above developed, 
of the character of the treatise 
jrepl Ktar/jLov, has also in the 
main been advanced by Peter- 
sen (I. G. p. 557 &?#.) As it 
had already been the result of 
my own investigation, in the 

first preparation of this work, 
independently of Petersen, to 
whose book my attention was 
first drawn by Adam, this will 
be in favour of its correct- 


therefore, how long before this date it was com- CHAP. 
posed ? That we cannot place it earlier than the first ' 
-century before Christ, is probable from the evidence 
of external testimony. If the first trace of its exis- 
tence is met with in Apuleius ; if a Cicero and an 
Antiochus to whom, by its intermediate position be- 
tween the Peripatetic and Stoic doctrine, its distinct 
arrangement, general comprehensibility, and rhetori- 
cal language, it would so greatly have commended 
itself never betray by any indication that it was 
known to them, we can scarcely suppose that it was 
written earlier than the beginning of the first cen- 
tury before Christ. But its whole character would 
lead us still more definitely to assign it to this cen- 
tury or the century immediately following. For 
before the attempt could have been made to put 
into the mouth of the founder of the Peripatetic 
.school, such important concessions to the Stoics, 
the individuality of both schools must already, in 
great measure, have disappeared, and the knowledge 
of them become obscured ; in a word, philosophic 
eclecticism must have attained a development, 
which, according to all other traces, it did not attain 
before the time of Antiochus, the Academician. 
When, therefore, Eose 1 would place the date of 
this work before the middle of the third century 
before Christ, the proof for this assertion must be 
very strong to counterbalance the opposite pro- 
bability. But this is so little the case 2 that we are 

1 De ATist.lilr. Ord. etAuct. 2 Eose's arguments are the 
-36, 97 s##. following : (1) The passage 




rather constrained by decisive facts to suppose that 
the work Trspl KOCT/AOV must be later than Posidonius,, 
one or more of whose writings the author employs,, 

irepl ~K.6criJ.ov c. 6, 399, &, 33 to 
400, #, 3, was already tran- 
scribed in the pseudo-Aristo- 
telian treatise Trepl Gavfj-acricav 
aKovcrpdrav (c. 155, p. 846), 
which cannot be more recent 
than Antigomis of Carystus, 
who died about 220 B.C. But 
which of the two works 
has borrowed from the other 
cannot be discovered from a 
comparison of the passages; 
moreover the passage in the 
treatise Trepl 6av/jia(riuv CLKOVCT- 
fjidrav, which Bose believes to 
be copied in irepl KScrpov, belongs 
to a section which he himself 
considers to be a later addition 
(cf . PMl. d. Gr. II. ii. 109, 1). On 
this argument, therefore, no- 
thing can be based. (2) Eose ob- 
serves that in irepl Kutr^ov (c. 3, 
393, &, 18) the breadth of the 
habitable plain of the earth, 
$s tpaffiv oi ei> yccypa(f>'f)<ravT$, 
is given as nearly 40,000 stadia, 
and its length about 70,000 
stadia; and this proves that 
the work was written not only 
before Hipparchus, but also 
before Eratosthenes; for Era- 
tosthenes reckoned its length 
at 77,800, and its breadth at 
38,000 stadia ; and Hipparchus, 
whom the later writers mostly 
followed, counted 70,000 for 
its length and 30,000 for its 
breadth (Strabo, i, 4, 2, p. 62 
sqq. ; ii. 5, 7, p. il3 $##.) But 
how do we know that our 
author must have kept pre- 
cisely to these predecessors if 
he were later than they ? Bose 

himself says that others even 
after Hipparchus set up other 
computations : Artemidorus, for 
example, in agreement with the 
trepl K&r/xou, gives the length of 
the terrestrial plain as more 
than 68,000 stadia, and its 
breadth more than 39,000 (Plin. 
Sfat. Nat. ii. 108, 242 sq. Of 
Posidonius we know only that 
he reckoned the length at 
70,000 (Strabo, ii. 3, 6, p. 102); 
what he said of the breadth 
tradition does' not inform us. 
How anything concerning the 
date of the treatise, therefore, 
is to be deduced from its di- 
vergence from Eratosthenes 
and Hipparchus, it is hard to 
see, (3) According to c. 3, 
393 5, 23, as Bose asserts,, 
between the Caspian and Black 
Seas there is crrev^raros IffOpbs ; 
and this could not be main- 
tained after Eratosthenes had 
placed the breadth of this 
isthmus at 1,000 (?) stadia, and 
Posidonius at 1,500 (Strabo xi. 
1, 5, p. 491). Our author,, 
however, does not maintain 
this ; he says, the boundaries 
of Europe are yuv^ol H6vrov> 

els rbv H6vrov 

5r#/ce*, i.e. the Caspian Sea at 
the place where the isthmus 
between it and the Pontus 
(which was also designated as 
the boundary between Europe 
and Asia, according to Dionys. 
Perieg. Orl). Desor. v. 20) is 
narrowest. The further ob- 
servations of Bose I venture to* 



and from whom lie has, perhaps, borrowed the greater 
part of the natural science he imparts to us. 1 The 


pass over, as, even supposing 
they are correct, they would 
only prove the possibility and 
not tlie 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. 
Thus we find in it. K. c. 4< 
895, a t 32, the definition : ?/ns 

Kal KoiXcg KOU (Twe^e! irpbs fyav~ 
Tacriav ws iv K.a.TO'RTpq} $eo)povjj.4vri 
KaTa KVKXOV Trpi<f>ptav. This 
singular definition is quoted by 
Diogenes, vii. 152, with the 
same words and with only 
slight and unimportant differ- 
ences from Posidonius, Merew- 
poXoyLK*]. In c. 4, 394, b, 21 
sqq. our treatise maintains that, 
of the east winds, /ecu/das is the 
wind that blows from the place 
of the sun's rising in summer, 
uirriXLtJOT-ns that which comes 
from the Iffyuepwal, zvpos from 
the xifjLpival avaToXal of the 
west winds, apyecrrys blows 
from the Qepivfy Svo-is, fe<pvpos 
from the itrnficpudj, Aty from the 
XGifAeptvT] Svcris. These very de- 
finitions are quoted by Strabo, 
i. 2, 21, p. 29, from. Posidonius. 
In c. 4, 395, &, 33, we read: 
Earthquakes are occasioned by 
winds being pent up in the 
cavities of the earth and seek- 
ing to escape : T&V 5e O'SIG'IJ.&V 
ot JAW els 7r\dyia creiovres rar' 
o|efa<r yawlas eTriKXipTat. KO.XOVV- 
Taty ol 5e &vca finrrcvvres KOU /carw 

y&vias jSpacrrai, ol 5e 

Ttt KQXa. 

a; avoi- 

ot Se 

yovres Kal yijv av 
ffiKTai. KaXovj/rat. Cf. Biog. vii. 
154 : TOVS (TL{r]J.ovs 5e yivea-Qai 
irvevf^aros els ra KoiX&fiaTa TTJS 
yrjs evfivovTQS ^ [/cai] /caSefp%0eV- 

TOS, KaBd (pTjffl JlOffl$d0VlOS Iv T7J 

oyfioT}' eivai 5' avr&v TOVS juev 
(Teicrfj-artaSf TOVS 5e %a<r/iarias, 
TOVS Se KXiftaTias, TOVS 5e fipacr- 
ftarias, albO Sen. Nat. Qu. vi. 
21, 2. In c. -i we read that 
there are two kinds of vapours, 
dry and moist ; from the latter 
arise fog, dew, hoar-frost, 
clouds, rain, &c. ; from the 
former, winds, thunder, light- 
ning, &c. Compare with this, 
Seneca, ~Kat. Qu. ii. 54 : J\ T une 
ad opini&nem Pasidonii rever- 
tor : e terra terrenisque on- 
m'bits j?ars Jiumida t\$latui\par& 
mcca etfmnida: Itrec fulminibus 
alwientwm est, ilia, i-mbribus 
(which Posidonius himself 
must naturally have given 
much more at length). If dry 
vapours are shut up in the 
clouds, they break through 
them, and this causes thunder. 
With this explanation of thun- 
der our treatise also agrees (c. 
4, 395, a, 11) : tXr)6ev Se 7n/eu/ia 
ev V<f>Gi Tra^e? re Kal voTepip Kal 
Si* avTov fitaicas fayvvov 
iX^]p,ara TOV V<J>QVS, 
&p6fj.ov Kal Ttarayov peyav aireip- 
yacraro, ^povT^vXy6fievov. With 
the explanation of snow quoted 
by Diogenes (vii. 153), and no 
doubt abbreviated from Posi- 
donius, the somewhat more 
detailed account in ire 




work cannot, according to this, have been written 
before the middle of the first century before Christ ; 

harmonises (c. 4, 394, 0,32). The 
definition of the creXas (ap. 
Diog. I. #.) which is most 
probably taken, like most of 
the meteorological portions of 
his expositions of Stoicism, 
from Posidonius, we again find 
in irepl K6a-fjLOv (4, 395, I, 2). 
Also what is there said (c. 2, 
391, &, 16 ; 392, a, 5) on the 
stars and the ether, reminds 
us of the description of the 
forpov, which Stobasus quotes 
(jEfcZ.i. 518) from Posidonius. 
That the agreement of our 
treatise with Posidonins in 
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 Posidonius 
in these matters enjoys great 
reputation, and we cannot 
ascribe such dependence to 
him ; and in the second, it 
would be inexplicable that he 
and not his predecessor should 
always be named as the au- 
thority, whom he must have 
followed very closely if he 
copied him word for word. 
Still more untenable is Eose's 
theory (I. c. p. 96) that Posi- 
donius borrowed from the trea- 
tise the passages in which he 
resembles it. We know that 
Posidonius wrote comprehen- 
sive works on meteorology, 
geography, and astronomy, the 
result of his own investigations, 
the contents of which went far 

beyond those of the treatise irepl 
Kocrpov ; whereas the latter book 
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 Posido- 
nius should have taken his 
opinions from this compendium 
than that the author of the 
compendium should have bor- 
rowed his from the work of 
Posidonius? And if this had 
ever occurred, how is it ex- 
plicable that later writers 
should have referred them all 
to Posidonius, without a syl- 
lable of allusion to their 
ancient and well-known source, 
attested by the name of Aristo- 
tle ? But even if we disre- 
gard all this, the theory will 
not suffice to save the origi- 
nality and higher authority 
of our treatise unless, with 
Hose, we assume that the 
exposition of the Stoic cos- 
mology (ap. Stob. JEcl. i. 444) 
was likewise taken from it. 
That this exposition, however, 
altogether contradicts such a 
theory will be shown imme- 
diately. Who can believe that 
instead of the Stoic doctrines 
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 difficulty. The passages 
quoted above place it beyond 



probably it is rather later ; but we cannot assign it 
to a later date than the first century after the com- 


a doubt that the author of 
the treatise has made abundant 
use of Posidonius, and even 
copied from him. If this is 
certain, 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 
sea especially points ; Posido- 
nius had written a separate 
work on the sea, and therein 
had asserted, what our treatise 
(c. 3, 392, &, 20) also strongly 
enforces, that the whole of the 
inhabited earth is surrounded 
by the sea (Strabo, ii. 2, 1, 5, p. 
94, 100 ; i 1, 9, 3, 12, p. 6, 55). 
There is another portion of the 
treatise which I should sup- 
pose, from its contents, to be 
borrowed from Posidonius. 
Osann (p. 211 $#.) has already 
shown that the section from 
the beginning of c. 2 to c. 3, 
392, 5, 34, is almost point for 
point the same as the expo- 
sition quoted ap. Stob. i. 144 
$g. (which Stobseus no doubt 
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 
original is evident from what 
is quoted p. 134, 2. For as the 
excerpt in Stobseus names 
Chrysippus as the source for 
the two first of its three defini- 
tions of the jc4<r/xo?, this quota- 
tion cannot have been taken 

from our treatise : in it there is 
also wanting the second of these 
definitions, and the third (as is 
shown I. c.} is conceived in a 
manner which can only be es- 
plained by the design of the 
Peripatetic to bring the defini- 
tions ready to hand in the 
Stoic authority into harmony 
with his own standpoint. Now 
the passage of Stobaaus 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's irepl 
K6ff]j.ov y as Osann supposes, 
seems to me more than doubt- 
ful. Stobseus himself ascribes 
the two first definitions of the 
K<j<r/*os to Chrysippus. But 
this statement he may also 
owe 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 Stobasus, set up, 
are quoted in Biog. vii. 138, 
from the perecapohoyiK)] ffroi- 
XeiacrLs of Posidonius ; Posido- 
nius must, therefore, have re- 
peated them here; he would 
no doubt have mentioned Chry- 
sippus as their author. Thus 
the section of our treatise 
which coincides with the pas- 
sage of Stobseus is so closely 
connected with the following, 
in which the employment of 



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 l 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. 

Posidonius can be proved, that 
no break is perceptible between 
what is borrowed from Posido- 
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 ; irepl KJo-^ov, 
c. 3, 392, 5, 20 $##.) seems to 
suit Posidonius (as we have 
already observed) exactly. It 
seems, therefore, probable that 
it is the same work of Posido- 
nius, Ms /jLtrGcapoXoyLKTi o"roi%e- 
rwcris, from the first section of 
which Stobseus (i.e. Arms Didy- 
mus) gives an excerpt, and 
which the author of the -n-epl 
K6<r{j.ov has used in its whole 
extent, in which case not much 
of the knowledge which he 
parades (c. 2-4) can be placed 
to his own account. 

1 As G-oldbacher shows (p. 
681 $#) from JLpul. Procem. p. 
288, c. 7, p. 302 Oud.). In the 
first of these passages Apuleius' 
unnatural translation is ex- 
plained by the supposition that 
in IT. K. 1, 391, 0, 22 he may 
have read with some of our 
MSS. uepovs ovf oliertffftev ; in 
the second, the otherwise in- 

comprehensible transformation 
of the predicate Ao|-J? into the 
name of an island, Oxe or 
Loxe, is accounted for by the 
still existing variant, Ao|^ 
KaXovfjievri, instead of Ao^ irpbs 
r)]i'oiKOV}jLev'nv('ir.K.3,S9$ ) 1>, 15). 
2 To fix the date of its com- 
position more exactly would 
hardly be possible. That the 
author wrote before Strabo 
would seem probable, because 
his description of the sea (c. 
3, 393, a, 26) is less precise 
than Strabo's (ii. 5, 19 s$. p. 
122 &?.). Meantime this infer- 
ence is the more unsafe if the 
author in the geographical part 
of his work has simply followed 
Posidonius. The $p6vr\(ri$ is 
apportioned to the 
to the 6v/j.ot^$ the 
and avbpeia, to the &T 
the ffuxppQcrvv'n and 
to the whole soul the Sucaiocrvvr], 
GXsvdepLdrifis, ju-eyaXotyvxta and 
likewise the opposite failings. 
Of these duties and faults 
somewhat superficial definitions 
are given; lastly, it is shown 
by what conduct they are 
manifested; and many other 
sub-kinds of virtues and faults 
are brought forward. 



Another remnant of that eclecticism we probably CHAP 
possess in the short treatise on virtues and vices, also V". 
to be found in our Aristotelian collection. The doe- ~ 
trine of virtue is here based on the Platonic discrimi- an virtues 
nation of the three faculties of the soul, and the four and rles * 
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- 
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- 
phrastus. With Stoicism there are scarcely even 
external points of harmony. 1 But this short treatise 
is not of sufficient importance to detain us longer. 2 

1 IFor Instance, perhaps, the 
remark that the whole treatise 
from beginning to end is de- 
voted to the opposition of the 
ejrcuyeTck and ^e/CTa. 

2 Even its 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 
the Peripatetic school, and not 
from the Academy ; and if its 
date cannot be precisely fixed, 
we may assign it, generally 
speaMng, to the period of 
Eclecticism. An earlier Peripa- 

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, , 30 : 

fj.4w)s K.O.TO. HXarcava^ &c. There 
is also an indication of a later 
period in the mention of dae- 
mons between the gods and 
parents in c. 4, 1250, &, 20; 
c. 7, 1251, a, 31, tinder the 
head of piety and godlessness ; 
perhaps after the precedent of 
the Pythagorean Golden Poem 
(v. ft). 






cism of tJie 


Its practi- 
cal cha- 
fied in 


FROM the preceding chapters it will be seen how, 
in the first century before Christ, the three scienti- 
fically most important schools of philosophy had 
coincided in a more or less strongly developed 
eclecticism. This mode of thought must have com- 
mended itself the more readily to those who, from 
the outset, had concerned themselves rather with the 
practically applicable fruits of philosophic studies than 
with strict science. Such was the case with Cicero. 1 
Cicero's youth falls in a period in which not only 
the influence of Greek philosophy on Eoman 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 
the writings of their founders and representatives and 

1 Concerning Cicero as a 
philosopher, cf ., besides Ritter 
(iv. 106-176), Herbart, Werke, 
xii. 167 *#.; Kuhner, M. T. 
Ciceronis in PMlo&opMcwn 
Merita, Hamb. 1825 (this is 
only to be regarded as a labor- 
ious collection of materials); 
concerning his philosophical 
works, cf. Hand in Ersch. uncl 

Gruler's Allg. Mncycl. sect. i. 
17, 226 s$q. ; Bernhardy, Rom. 
Litt. 769 sqg. ; and the treatises 
named in the passages quoted 
infra, pp. 148,5; 149, 1. 

2 Cicero, as is well known, 
was born on the 3rd January, 
648 A.U.C. (i.e. 106 B.c,), and 
therefore some years after the 
death of Panaetius. 


partly from Ms teachers. In Ms earliest youth, CHAP. 
the Epicurean doctrine had commended itself to him _.. 
through the teaching of Phasdrus ; l after this 
PMlo of Larissa introduced Mm to the new Academy 5 2 
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 
commencement of Ms public career 4 he visited 
Greece, attended the instructions of Ms old teacher 
Phaedrus and those of Zeno, the Epicurean/ "but 
with special eagerness those of Antiochus, 6 the cMef 
founder of Academic eclecticism, and he entered into 
a connection with Posidonius, wMch 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 Mm the praise of wide reading, though 
at the same time Ms knowledge of that literattire is 
neither independent nor thorough enough to warrant 
his being called a man of great erudition. 8 He him- 
self based Ms fame not so much on his own enquiries 

1 Up. ad Fam. sili. 1 : A s The writers on philosophy 
PJifsdro, q\ii nobis y cum, piieri to whom he most commonly 
essemtts, antequam Philonem refers and most frequently 
coanovimus, valde i(t gMlosophus quotes are Plato, Xenophon, 

. . probabatur. Aristotle (of whom, however, 

2 Vide siipra, p. 76, 2, 3. he seems only to have known 

3 Vide mpra, p. 70, 3. some popular and rhetorical 

4 In 78 and 77 B.C. ; there- works), then Theophrastus and 
fore in his 29th and 30th year ; Dicsearchus, with their political 
Pint. Cic. 3 sa. writings, Crantor, Panastras, 

5 Phil. d. Gr. HI. i. 373, 2; Hecato, Posidonius, Clitoma- 
374 \ chns, Philo, Antiochus, PMlo- 

6 ' Supra, p. 87, 1. demus (or Zeno). 

7 Sitpra, p. 58, 4. 



CHAP, into philosophy as on the art with which he had- 
YI - clothed Greek philosophy in a Koman dress, and 
made it accessible to his countrymen. 1 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- 
pressed into the space of a few years. 3 But our 
astonishment at the rapidity of his work will be 
considerably lessened when we look more closely at 
his mode of procedure in the compilation of his 
philosophical works. In one portion of these he 
does not directly express his own views, but allows 
each of the most important philosophic schools to 
explain theirs through one of their adherents, 4 
and for this purpose he seems almost throughout 
to have made free use of the several expositions 
which lay ready to hand, and to :have confined 
himself mainly to the comparison, representa- 
tion, and elucidation of their contents. 5 And even 

1 Of the merit which he ber 3rd, 43 B.C., his activity as 

claims for himself in this re- a philosophical writer occupies 

spect Cicero often speaks while only abont three years, 

defending Ms philosophical 4 As in the Academica, De 

works against censure, e.g. Finibus, De Natiwa Deo<rwni y 

Fin. i. 2, 4 s$t[. ; Acad. 1 3, 10 ; De Divinatione. 

Tmc. i. 1 sgq. ; N. D. i. 4 ; Off. i. 5 'A^-ypaQa sunt, confesses 

1^ l s%. Cicero himself in a ranch-quoted 

' 2 Acad. 1. G. ; Tuse. i. 1, 1; 4, passage O# Att. xii. 52), minors 

7 ; N. D.I. c. labor e fiunt : rerl)d tantuni 

3 The earliest of these (irre- affero, f[niJ>m abwndo ; and that 

spective of his two political this, in spite of Fin. i. 2, 4 (Non 

works), the Consolatio, the intcrpretwn fwigimw mwiere, 

ffbrtensius, and the first version &c.), is no exaggerated modesty, 

of the Academic, fall in the is sufficiently proved by the 

year 709 A.U.C., i.e. 45 B.C. As recent investigations into the 

Cicero was murdered on Decem- sources of his expositions. In 



where lie speaks in his own name, he frequently 
allies himself so closely to older writings that his 
own works are scarcely more than reproductions 
of these. 1 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 

His standpoint may be 


ths Academica he had borrowed 
from Antioclms that which, in 
the first version, he placed in 
the mouth of Lucullus, and 
afterwards in the month of Varro 
(vide supra, p. 86, 3) ; the scep- 
tical dissertations he had pro- 
bably taken from PMLo as well 
as from Clitomachus (ride Phil, 
d. Gr. III. 1 501, 3). The sonrce 
of the fifth book in De Finibits 
is to be found in Antiochus 
(ride supra, p. 86, 3), and that 
the rest originated in the same 
way, admits of no doubt. For 
the first book on the gods two 
Epicurean treatises (concerning 
which cf. Phil d. Gr. III. i. 
573, 2 ; 374, 1) are employed ; 
for the second, probably one 
of Posidonius and one of Panse- 
tius (cf . supra, p. 41, 3) ; for 
the third, and for the second 
half of the first, Clitomachus 
(PJiil. d. Gr. IK. i. 505, 3). De 
Dwinatione is worked out from 
Posidonius, Pansetius, and Cli- 
tomachus (vide ibid. III. i. p. 
337, 1 ; and supra, 41, 3). 

1 For Ms Ifortensiiis, Aris- 
totle's nporpeTpriKbs probably 

generally described as an His scepti- 

served Mm as a model (vide PJdl. 
d. Gr. II. ii. 63); for the Conso- 
latio, Grantor's ?repl nevQavs 
(ibid. H. L 899, 3). The prin- 
cipal source of the first book 
of the TusGidante seems to 
have been the writings of 
Posidonius and Grantor ; of the 
second, Panastius (ride supra, 
p. 41, 3 ; Heine, Font. Tusc. Ms- 
put. 11 sf[.}-, of the fourth, 
Posidonius (as Heine, I. c. p. 
13 sq., supposes), or Antiochus 
(videPkil. d. Gr. HI. i. 517, 1). In 
the treatise De Fato he appears 
to repeat the inferences of 
Clitomachus. The books De 
Ojfieiu keep in substance to 
Pansetius' work of the same 
name (vide supra, p. 41, 3) ; 
the substance of the Topica, has 
probably been furnished by 
Antiochus (ride 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 same extent. 


CHAP, eclecticism 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 Socratic conversations, from which 
Cicero himself derives it ; l 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- 
in every given system. Cicero, however, expressly 
avows himself as belonging to the new Academy/ 
and brings forward in his own name the argu- 
ments with which it had denied the possibility of 
knowledge. 4 For himself, one of the great reasons, 
if not the greatest, for his doubt, seems to lie in the 
disagreement of the philosophers concerning the 
most important questions ; at any rate, he not only 
pursues this subject with predilection, 5 but ex- 
pressly remarks that he attaches much greater 
value to it than to all that has been said by the 
Academy on the deception of the senses and the 
impossibility of any fixed definition of ideas. 6 

1 Tuse. i. 4, 8 ; v. 4, 11 ; N. D. 4 Acad. il 20 sq$. I think it 
i- 5, 11. unnecessary to specify these 

2 Of. TUSG. v. 4, 11: Quern arguments further in this place, 
morem cum Carneades acittis- as they are not to be considered. 
sime oopiasissMiiegite temtisset, original, and have been quoted, 
fecvmis et alias scope et mtper PJiil. d. 6fr. III. i. 500 sqq. 

in Tusonlano, iut ad earn con- 5 LOG. Git. 33, 107 ; c. 36 sq. ; 

suetiidinem dtsjputwr&wus. J\ r . D. i. 1, 1; 6, 13 ; iii. 15, 39. 

3 Acad. ii. 20 ; 22, 69 ; i. 4, 8 Acad. ii. 48, 147 : PostJiao 
13 ; 12, 43, 46 ; N. D. i. 5, 12 ; tamen, ciim luce Qitaremusr 
Qffic. iii. 4, 20. yatAm de dissenswnibm tantis 


Scepticism -with Mm, therefore, is not so much the CHAP. 
fruit of an independent enquiry as the consequence VL 
of the uncertainty in which the strife of philosophic 
theories has placed him ; it is only the reverse side 
of his eclecticism, only a sign of the same indepen- 
dence of his Greek predecessors which that eclecti- 
cism expresses : so far as the philosophers are to be 
reconciled, the common elements from, their sys- 
tems are co-ordinated ; so far as they are at strife, 
knowledge respecting the debated points is de- 
spaired of, because the authorities neutralise one 

Thus it is that doubt in Cicero cannot have by 
any means the importance or significance that it 
had had in the new Academy ; and we therefore 
see him, in fact, limiting his scepticism in two re- 
spects : for he attributes greater worth to the 
knowledge derived from probability than the 
Academy, and he makes hardly any use of certain 
parts of the philosophy derived from his sceptical 
principle. If he is within the principles of the 
Academy in replying, like Carneades, to the objec- 
tion that scepticism makes all action impossible 
that for action fall certainty is not necessary, 
but only greater probability ; * we cannot consider 
him so in the explanation he gives concerning 

summorum mrorum disserawius, disciplines, giiam/i de oeulorum 
d& obscwritate natures deqiie sensuumque <reliqiwru?n men- 
error e tot jjliilosopkorum, qui de daciis et de sorite avt p$&iido-~ 
fionis contrariisqiie rebus tant- mew, guas plagas ipn cmtra* ae 
ojpere discrepant, ut cum plus Stoici teseuemnt. 
uno rerum esse twn pos&it, * Acad. II. 31 ; c. 33, 105. 
jacere necesse sit tot ta-ni nobiles 108 ; IV. D. i. 5, 12. 


CHAP, the aim of his method of disputation. This method 
VI> was to enable him, by testing the various theories., 
to find out the theory which had the most in its 
favour. 1 Doubt is, therefore, only the preparation 
for a positive conviction ; and even if this conviction 
does not reach the full certainty of knowledge but 
only an approximate certainty, it suffices, as we 
already know, for practical life, the end and aim of 
the Ciceronian philosophy. There is no mistaking 
the fact : 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- 
ferent relation from that which they occupy with 
Carneades ; for him, doubt itself, the suspension of 
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 
Cicero the discovery of the probable appears as the 
original problem of philosophy, and doubt has value 
only as a means and a condition of the solution of 
this problem. 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 
claim so much in respect to knowledge, he is funda- 

1 TUSG. 1, 4, 7 : Ponere jiibe- disserendi. Nam ita faeillime 

bam de quo quis audire vellet: quid veri simillimum esset inve- 

ad id aut sedens aut ambulans niri posse Socrates arliitrabatur. 

disgutabam . . . fieb&t autem Similarly (v. 4, 11) this proce- 

ita, ut cum is qui audire vellet dure claims the advantage, ut 

dixisset quid sibi vAderebwr, tuwi nostram ipsi sententia/ni tegere- 

$go contra dicereon. Hce.c est mus, error e alias levaremust et 

nim, ut sdis, vdtus et Socratica in omni disputatione quid esset 

ratio contra alterius opinionem simillimum veri queerer emus. 


mentally agreed* 1 But even this modified scepticism CHAP. 
receives still further limitations. Though our philo- ___!_ 
sopher expresses himself hesitatingly on the subject, 
yet, all things considered, it is only as to purely 
theoretical enquiries that he is in harmony with the 
new Academy : practical principles on the contrary 
and the philosophic and religious convictions directly 
connected with them, he does not wish to question 
in the same way. He objects to dialectic that it 
guarantees not real knowledge but only formal 
rules on the construction of propositions and infer- 
ences ; 2 his judgment on physics, exclusive of 
theology, is that it is far easier for physics to say 
what things are not, 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 
proper. In ethics, on the contrary, though he finds 
considerable discord among the philosophers on 
the most important questions ; 6 and he himself, 

1 Fin. v. 26, 76. ista omula^ JJuculle, crassis 

2 Aca-d. ii. 28, 91; cf. Phil, occultata et circumfmatenelwis, 
d. Grr. III. i. 503, 5. ut nulla a&ies Jtuniant ing&mi 

3 N. D. i. 21, 60: Omnibus tanta sit, qiic? pen&trare in 
fere in rebus et mascime i*i ecelum, terram intrare jpossit. 
yJiysfasiSy Quid noti sit dtius, Corpora* nostra no-n not'imm, &c. 
quam qitiil sit dixerim, 124 : Satisne tandem ea noia> 

4 Acad. ii. 36, 116: JSstne mntnoffistftv^nervorwmnatura 
quisqua/ni tanto inftatm errore, sit, gute rencvrum ? Ten&nmme 
flit S'iM se ilia stire jpersiiaserit ? q\ti& animus sit ? &c. 

3 Acad. ii. 39, 122 : Latent 6 Acad. ii. 42 ; c. 48, 147. 


CHAP, as we shall presently discover, cannot avoid fluctua- 
' tion in replying to them; yet we soon perceive 
that here he is far from admitting the same justifica- 
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, 1 he seems 
to have made a general rule in his moral philosophy; 
for in 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 
itself, the highest good and duties 2 are treated of 
in the moral discussions in a wholly dogmatic tone, 
though at the same time without any fixed plan* 
In connection therewith we also find our philo- 
sopher bringing forward opinions about (rod and the 
human soul, which are manifestly for him some- 
thing more than uncertain conjectures, though even 
here he despairs of absolute certainty of know- 
ledge. He constantly says that he is merely fol- 
lowing probability and expressing his own per- 
sonal opinion. 3 But that he was really a consistent 

1 Legg. i. 13, 39 : Perturba- maxime reri simile est et qiio 
tricem autem harivni omniwn mimes duce natura venimits, 
rentm Aeademiam Jiano ab Deos esse ; and at the conclu- 
Areesila et Carneade recentem, sion of the treatise, iii. 40, 95 : 
exoremus tit sileat. Nam si Ita discessimw, ut Vellejo Cottcs 
invaserit in JICBG . . . nimias dispirt&tio verior, miJii Balbi ad 
ed&t ruinas. Quam guidem ego writatis similitudinem mdere- 
ylacare cwpw t submovere non tur esse prop ensior. Tuso. iv. 4, 
audeo. 7: Sed defendat qmd qiiisqiie 

2 Proof of this will presently sentit ; sunt enwijudicia liftera : 
be given. nos . . . quid sit in quaq^ie re 

8 So .ZV. D. i. 1, 2 : Quod maxime proftabile semper re- 


adherent of Carneades l conld only be inferred from CHAP. 


such utterances if his whole procedure corresponded ' 

with them. This, however, is not the case. His 
convictions are not so fixed and decided that he 
trusts unconditionally to them, and he is never so 
sure of them that he does not keep before him the 
probability of having, at another time, another 
opinion about the same subjects; indeed, he is 
superficial enough to pride himself on Ms fickle- 
ness. 2 But even his doubt is too shallow to deter 
him from statements which a member of the new 
Academy would not have ventured to advance so 
explicitly. Though he calls the existence of the 
gods merely probable, he immediately adds that 
were the belief in providence abolished, all piety, 
and fear of Crod, all human community and justice, 
would be destroyed ; 3 which he could not possibly 
have said if that belief had had for him merely the 
value of even a probable conjecture. Moreover, when 
he founds an argument for the truth of a belief in 
gods on its universality, he does so without any 
limitation, in his own name. 4 This is also the case, 
as we shall find, with his development of the teleo- 
logical argument, his utterances concerning the unity 
of Grod and the divine government of the universe, 
on the dignity of man, and the immortality of the 
soul. A logical scepticism is here not in question : 

quiremug. V. 29, 82 8%. ; Acad. aeademiker. Oldenb. 1860 

ii. 20, 66: Ego vero ipse et {G-yuiin. progr^ 

magnus qmdeni sum opinator, 2 Tusc. v. 11, 33 ; vide infra, 

non enim &iwi sapiens, c. Vide p. 157, 1. 

infra, p. 157, 1. 3 N. D. i. 2, 3 8%. 

1 Burmeister, Cic. als Neu- 4 Vide infra,, p. 161, 1, 167. 


CHAP, 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 necessity 
demands a more fixed conviction. 
Practical This more confident treatment of practical ques- 
tions has, however, with Cicero so much the more 
significance, 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 
expressly includes physics in this admission, 2 yet 
not knowledge itself, but its effects on life appear 
to him the ultimate aim of philosophic enquiry. 
Knowledge completes itself only in action ; action 
has, therefore, a higher value than knowledge ; 3 the 
enquiry concerning the highest good is the most 
important of all enquiries, and determines the whole of 
philosophy : 4 the best philosophy is that of Socrates, 
which does not trouble itself with things which lie 
beyond our sphere of vision, and, being convinced 
of the uncertainty of human knowledge, applies 
itself entirely to moral problems. 5 The proper aim 

1 Fin. i. 7, 25 ; Tusc. v. 24 $g. ; c. 21, 71. 

JV. D, ii, 1, 3 ; of. the following 4 Fin. v. 6, 15 : JECoc (sumtno 

note. 'bono} enim constitute in pliilo- 

2 Acad. ii. 41, 127 ; Tusc. v. sopMa constituta sunt omnia, 
3, 9; 24, 69; Fm. iv. 5, 32; &c. 

Fragm. from Hortensius, ap. 5 Acad. i. 4, 15 ; of. Fin,, ii. 
Augustin. De Trin. xiv. 9. 1,1; Tusc. v. 4, 10. 

3 Off. i. 43, 153 ; cf. c. 9, 28 ; 


of philosophy, therefore, may be attained In spite of CHAP. 
the restriction of our knowledge : we know nothing TL 
with absolute certainty ; but we know that which is 
most important with as much certainty as we require 
to know it; scepticism is here merely the under- 
lying base of a mode of thought, which is founded 
upon the practically useful; and because this 
tendency towards the practical best harmonised 
with the disposition of the Eoman and the states- 
man, Cicero was more susceptible to the doctrine of 
Cameades 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 consequences of his own sceptical 

If we ask, then, from whence we are to derive His eclec- 
our positive convictions, we have already been told ticim " 
that the probable is best discovered by the com- 
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 be- 

1 It will liere suffice to recall 33 : Tit giMem tabellis obsig- 

tlie characteristic observations natis agis me&um et testificarls 

in Off. iii- 4, 20 : JVWs autem, Quid dixerim aliquanda aut 

nostra Academia mat/nam licen- s&ripserim. Cum aliis isto modo, 

tiam dat, lit quodcunque, maxime qui legibus impositis dispictant ; 

probabile occurred id nostrojvre nositidiem virimus ; guodevn- 

liceat defendere. Tusc. v. 11, que nostros 


CHAP, tween opposite opinions, we must have the standard 
T[ - of decision in our hands, and as philosophic enquiry 
consists in this very proving of different views, such a 
standard must be already given before every scientific 
investigation. Two things seem then to be directly 
present : the evidence of the senses and the evidence 
of consciousness. Even the first, in spite of his 
many complaints of the deception of the senses, is 
not despised by Cicero ; he says that it would be 
contrary to nature, and must make all life and 
action impossible, if we admitted no conviction 
(probare, not assentiri) and that among those con- 
victions which force themselves upon us with the 
greatest probability, the assurance of the senses 
occupies one of the foremost places ; l for this reason 
he employs sensible evidence as an example of the 
highest certainty ; 2 and he himself in all his writ- 
ings appeals generally to experience and historical 
matters of fact. In accordance with his whole 
tendency, however, he is forced to lay the chief 
stress on the other side, on the witness internal to 
us ; for his interest belongs not to the external but 
to the moral world, and even in his ethical doctrine 

vercumt, id dicimus; ttaqiie ut sit viswn illud pro'babile 
] liberi. neque iilla re impeditum - 

1 Acad. ii. 31, 99 : Tale risum cnraa-Tov, cf. Part III. i. 515 s#.) 

nullwm, me, ut pevceptio con- moreMtur. Non enim est e saoso 

semieretiir, ut awtem probatlo, sculptus aut e robore dolatus. 

multa. Utenim contra natiuram Habet corpus, liabet animum : 

esset, si probaMte niUl esset, et movetur mente, movetur senw- 

sequitur oninis vita . . . eversio. Ms: -ut eimultamravidecmtwr, 

Itaque fft senzibus probanda &c. Neque iws contra sensus 

mutta, sunt, &c. Quacunque res aliter didmus, ae Stoici, &c. 

eimi [sa/pientewi] sie attinget, - LOG. cit. c. 37, 119. 


lie throughout allies himself with those philosophers CHAP. 
who have made independence of the external and VI * 
dominion over sensuality their watchword. All our 
conviction, therefore, according to Cicero, depends 
in the last resort upon direct internal certainty, upon 
the natural feeling for truth, or innate knowledge ; Doctrine 
and this theory which gained so important an in- f f i 
fluence in the later, especially the Christian philo- 
sophy, he was the first to enunciate definitely; l for 
though Plato and Aristotle, Zeno and Epicurus had 
preceded him with similar doctrines, yet our previous 
enquiries have shown that none of these taught 
innate knowledge in the strict sense : the reminis- 
cence of ideas, according to Plato, must be awakened 
by methodical study, and their content fixed ; we 
attain to the principles that are beyond proof, 
according to Aristotle, by the scientific road of in- 
duction ; the TTpokrj^r^s of Epicurus and the xowal 
svvoiai of the Stoics are only abstracted from ex- 
perience. Here on the contrary there is an asser- 
tion of a knowledge antecedent to all experience 
and science, and concerning the most important 
truths. The germs of morality are inborn in us, 
if they could develop themselves undisturbed, 
science would be unnecessary; only through the 
perversion of our natural disposition arises the need 
of a technical training to virtue. 2 The conscious- 

1 It Is possible, indeed, that ingeniis nostris seniina innata, 
he may herein have followed mrtutum; qucB si adokscere 
Antiochns ; but how far this is Iiceret,ip8& nos ad beatam vitam- 
the case cannot now be ascer- natura $&rduceret ; only the 
tained. obscuring of natural conscious- 

2 Tusc. iii. 1, 2: Sunt enim ness through evil habits and 


GHAP. ness of right is implanted in man by nature ; 
YI - subsequently a tendency to evil is formed which 
obscures it. 1 Nature has endowed our spirit not 
only with a moral disposition, but also with the 
fundamental 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 
The essence 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 
of ideas ; the nearer the individual still stands to 
nature, the more keenly will this be reflected in 
him : we learn from children what is according to 
nature. 4 Belief in the Deity rests upon the same 

false opinions makes a doctrine cJioavit, nihil amplius. Itaque 

and science necessary. nostrum est (quod nostrum, dico 3 

1 Legg. i. 13, 33 : Atque Tioc artis esf), ad ea principia quat 
in omni hoc disputatwne sic accepimus consequentia exqui- 
intelligi volo, jus quod dicam rere, quod sit id quoad volumus 
naturam esse, tantam autem esse effectum. 

corruptelammalteconsuetudinis, 3 Fin. ii. 14,46: Eademque 

ut ab ea tanquam igniculi esc- ratio fecit Tiominem Jwniimim 

stinguantiiT a natura dati apjyetentem, &c. . . . eadeni 

exorianturgue et cmfirment-ur natura cupiditatem ingemiit 

vitia contraria, homini veri inveniendi, &c. 

2 Fin. v. 21, 59 : (Natura Jio- Further evidence for these pre- 
mini) dedit talem mentem> cpice positions is easily to be found. 
omnem virtutem acclpere posset, 4 LOG. cit. 14, 45 : [Honestum~] 
ingenuitqiie sine doctrina quale sit non tarn definitions 
notitiasparvas re rum qua sum usiis intelligi pot est 
maxim arum et quasi instituit . . . quawi communi omnium, 
docere et indusrit in ea giue judieio atque optimi cujusque 
inerant 'tanquawi elementa vir- studiis atque faotis. On the 
ttctis. Sed virtutem ipsam in- same subject, vide v. 22, 61 : 


basis : by virtue of the human spirit's affinity with CHAP. 
God, the consciousness of Grod is immediately given ^ 
with self-consciousness : man has only to remember 
his own origin in order to be led to his Creator. 1 
Nature, therefore, herself instructs us concerning 
the existence of God, 2 and the strongest argument 
for this truth is its universal recognition ; for that 
in which all agree without previous persuasion, 
must always be regarded as an utterance of nature. 3 
The immortality of the soul must likewise belong to 
these innate truths, of which we are convinced 
through universal consent ; 4 and in the same way 
Cicero seems to presuppose the freedom of the will 

Indicant pueri in quibus lit in id enhn vltioso more Jieri solet 

speculis natura cernitur. (observe here the distinction 

1 Legg. i. 8, 24 : Animum . . . between mos and natura,) : 
esse ingeneratum a Deo ; esc quo omnes tamen esse Tim et natu- 
rere rel agnatio nolis cum ram divinam arUtrantur. Nee 
ceelestibus rel genus rel stirps rero id collocutio Jut-mimim aut 
appellari potest. Itaque ex tot consensus effeeit : non imtitutis 
generibus nullum est animal opinwestconjirmata.nonlegi'bus. 
prceter kominem quod kabeat Omni autem hi re eomenslo 
notitiainaliquam Dei. Ijtsisgue (minium gentium lex nature 
inliominibusnulla gens est neque putanda est (cf. 35; omnium 
tavnim'niansuetanequetam.fera, consensus natures <rox est}. "Vide 
quas n&n s etiamsi- ignoret qualevi also s?^.note 1. If Cicero else- 
liabere Dewai deceat, tarn^n where makes his Academic 
Jiabendum, stiat. Ex quo effi- philosopher claim this proof 
cltur illud, ut is agnoscat Deum, (3". D. i. 23, 62 ; iii. 4, 1 1) from 
gui unde ortus sit quasi recsor- the consensus gentium which is 
detur ac ?wscat. put in the month of the Bpi- 

2 TUSG. i. 16, 36: Deos esse cnrean as well as the Stoic 
natura- opinainur. Cf. N. D. i. {N. D. i. 16, 43 sq. ; ii. 2, 5) 
1, 2. he implies here (i, 23, 62 ; iii. 

3 TUSG. i. 13, 30 : Flmum- 40, 95) what is placed beyond 
mum hoc aff&wi ridetur, cur a doubt by passages from his 
Deos esse credawms, quod nulla other works, that Gotta did not 
gens tarn fera, nemo omnium express Ms opinion on the sub- 
tern sit immanis, eujus mentein ject. 

non inibuerit Deorum opinio. 4 Fuse. i. 12 sq. ; 15, 35 sq. 
Hiilti dc DUs pra/ca sentiwnt; 




ence of 
ethics in 
Ms philo- 

simply as an internal matter of fact. 1 In a word y 
philosophy, as well as morality, is here founded on 
direct conscionsness : this is the fixed point from 
which the testing of philosophic opinions sets out, and 
to which it returns. 

The material results of Cicero's philosophy have 
nothing distinctive, and can therefore be only 
shortly discussed in this place. As to the chief 
philosophic sciences, dialectic is regarded merely in 
the sceptical manner already mentioned. In the 
domain of physics, theological and psychological 
enquiries alone have any value for Cicero ; questions 
of other kinds for instance, concerning the number 
of the elements, whether there are four or five ; con- 
cerning the material and efficient principle and the like 
are only touched upon in cursory historical notices^ 
or in a sceptical comparison of different doctrines. In 
the estimation of this philosopher, the chief thing is 
ethics. With ethics, therefore, I commence. 

Cicero develops his ethical principles, as, indeed^ 
his whole philosophic doctrine, in the criticism of 
the four 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 
natural necessities of man, 2 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 

De Fato, c. 

Fin. i. 7, 23, s$, ; ii. 14, &c. 


Finibus, and elsewhere generally speaking, ratter 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- 
ehus in regard to the Academy and the Peripatetics 
viz. that these two schools, as they agree generally, 
especially coincide in their ethics, and that the 
feebler morality of Theophrastus and of later Peri- 
patetics is not further removed from the moral 
doctrine of the Academy than from the original 
doctrines of Aristotle ! yet he is uncertain whether 
he shall explain the difference between the Stoics 
and these two schools as essential, or unessential, 
as a divergence in fact or in words. While, on the one 
hand, he repeatedly maintains distinctly and in his 
own name, that Zeno is really at one with his pre- 
decessors, and only changes their expressions ; 2 on 
the other, he gives a tolerably long list of the points 
in which the Stoic morality differs from that of the 
Academy and Peripatetics, 3 and he speaks of the 
opposition, as we shall presently find, with a full 
acknowledgment of its importance. Cicero cer- 
tainly makes use of a very poor expedient to justify 
this contradiction, when he says that, as a member 
of the Academy, he has a right to follow the pro- 

1 Acad. i. 6, 22 ; Fin. v. 3, 7 26 ; v. 8, 22 ; 25, 7i ; 29, 88 
sq. ; 5, 12 ; cf . 25, 75 ; Tuse. Iv. Off. i. 2, 6 ; Tuse. v. 11, 3i. 

3, 6 ; v. 30, 85 ; Off. lit 4, 20. 3 Acad. i. 10. 

2 JFin. ill. 3, 10 ##. ; iv. 20- 


CHAP, bability of that time without regard to conse- 
YI qnences. 1 But even for himself he seems unable 
in this discussion to find any fixed standpoint. So 
far, indeed, as the statements of both sides agree 
in the universal principles of life according to 
nature, and in the unconditional appreciation of 
virtue, he is quite sure of himself; 2 but as soon as 
the roads diverge he knows no longer which he shall 
follow. The grandeur, consistency, and severity of 
the Stoic ethics excite his admiration ; it appears 
to him nobler to regard virtue as sufficient for 
happiness and not to distinguish between the good 
and the useful, than to assent to the opposite view 
of the Peripatetics; 3 he finds the Stoics' admis- 
sion of the affections weak, and their moral prin- 
ciples hazardous, since that which is faulty in its 
nature, like the affections, should not merely be 
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 all circumstances, even in the bull of 

1 Tuso. v. 11, 33 ; sru/pra, p. Bitter, iv. 134 sgg., 157 sq$. 
157, 1. * Tusc. iv. 18 8#$. ; Off. i. 25, 

2 Acad. i. 6, 22 ; Fin. iv. 10, &c. 88 ; cf , Acad. i. 10, 35, 38. 

3 Tuso. v. 1, 1 ; 25, 71 ; Off. 5 Fin t v. 27 *q. ; Two. v. 8- 
iii. 4, 20 ,* cf. with the following, 12, 15 SQ. 


Phalaris ; l he desires to adopt, at any rate tenta- CHAP. 
tively, the famous Stoic Paradoxes. 2 If, however, ' 

we enquire more closely into this Stoicism, it is 
clear that our 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 much too 
exalted for men as they are, that the Stoic wise man 
is 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 
happy, and alTthe unwise absolutely wretched, and 
that there is no difference in value between the most 
hardened wickedness and the most trivial offence. 5 
But he believes he can show that the severity of the 
Stoics is not scientifically justifiable, and, moreover, 
that it contradicted their own presuppositions ; for 
if the first principle is life according to nature, 
among the things according to human nature are 
also to be counted sensible well-being, health, free- 
dom from pain, and an untroubled mind even 
pleasure is not to be wholly despised. To live 
according to nature is not to separate oneself from 
nature, but rather to encourage and sustain it. G 
These arguments draw our eclectic philosopher so 
strongly to the side of the Peripatetics, that he 
declares himself to be of their number. 7 The truth, 

1 Tusc. v. 26. 8 Fin. Iv. 11-15 ; Cato, 14, 

2 Paradoxa. 46 ; Tusc. II. 13, 30, 

3 Lai. 5, 18 ; cf. Off. iii. 4, 16. 7 In the fourth book of De 

4 Fin. Iv. 9, 21. Finibus, It Is Cicero himself 

5 Fin. Iv. 9, 21 ; 19, 55 ; 28, who brings forward the Peri- 
77 *#. Cf. Off. I. 8. 27. patetic view. 


CHAP, however, is only finally expressed in his confession 
^' that sometimes the consideration of his own weak- 
nesses, and of human weaknesses generally, in- 
clines him to the laxer doctrine, and, at other times, 
the thought of the majesty of virtue inclines him to 
the stricter ; l he comforts himself therefore for his 
vacillation, by the conviction that it can exercise no 
essential influence on practical conduct, since even 
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- 
sitions any new principle, and in the Ciceronian 
ethics generally any other characteristic than that 
of an eclectic and popular philosopher ; for even the 
trait on which Eitter lays stress, 3 viz. that with 
Cicero, the honourable Qionestum) takes the place of 
the beautiful (/eaXoz/) 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 
moral principle ; and partly it is a concession to the 
Eoman spirit, which, being devoid of any scientific 
foundation, can only be regarded as a further proof 
of the uncertainty of Cicero's manner of philosophis- 
ing. All the less reason is there to enter further 
into the details of Cicero's ethical and political prin- 
ciples than has already been done. 4 Striking as 
many of his remarks on these subjects may be, they 
show too little connection with definite philosophic 

1 Tuso. v. 1, 3. 3 TV. 162 sqg. 

2 Off. iii. 3, 11. 4 PHI. d. 0r. III. i. p. 276 *. 


principles to allow us to attribute to them any CHAP. 
importance in the history of philosophy. His _____ 
theories concerning the Deity and the essential 
nature of the soul must, however, be shortly men- 

The belief in a Deity, as already observed, ap- ffi* 
pears to our philosopher to be required, not ieo w * 
merely by immediate consciousness, but also by 
moral and political interest. Without religion, he 
"thinks, truth and justice, and all human social 
life would be at an end. 1 But the other argu- 
ments for the existence of God are not entirely 
repudiated by him, and he brings forward the 
teleological argument especially, in spite of the 
criticism of the Academy which meets it in its 
Stoic form, 2 with fall conviction. 3 In regard to 
the nature of God, Cicero is, no doubt, in earnest 
in the remark which he places in the mouth of 
his Academic philosopher, viz. that nothing can 
be asserted with perfect certainty, about it ; 4 but, 
so far as the probable may be determined, he 
thinks he may venture to presuppose not only the 
unity of God 5 but also His spirituality ; 6 this, how- 

1 N. D. i. 2, 4; cf. ii.61, 153. 7, 22 ; Samn. Seip. (Rep. vi. 17) 

Hence (N. D. iii. 2, 5; Legg. 3, B et pass. 

ii. 7, 15) the observations on 6 Tuse. I. 27, 66: Nee vero 

the political necessity of relig- Deifs ipse qui intelligitur a 

ion. nobis olio modo iaitelllgi patest, 

~ N. D. iii. 10, 24 ; 11,37. nisi mens solirta queedam et 

3 Dirin. ii. 72, 1487 Tusc. i. libera, segregate, ab omni con- 
28 sg. eretione mortaM, (mmia sentiens 

4 ^ D. i. 21, 60 s#. ; cf . iii. et men-ens ipsague pradita, vtwtu 
40, 95. sempiterno. Jfap. vi, 17, 8 ; 

5 TitSG. i. 23 ; 27 ; Legg. i. Legg. ii. 4, 10, &c. 


CHAP, ever, he does not apprehend in a very strict sense,. 
' for he admits the possibility 1 that the Divine Spirit 
may be conceived, according to the Stoic view, as 
air or fire ; or with Aristotle, so far as Cicero under- 
stood him, 2 as sethereal essence: in the dream of 
Scipio, the supreme heaven, in agreement with this 
misconception of Aristotle is declared to be itself 
the 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 of far greater importance, though he allows even 
this to be doubted by his Academic philosopher. 4 . 
Since he chiefly regards religion from the practical 
point of view, the whole significance of it is in his 
opinion comprehended in a belief in a divine govern- 
ment of the world : 5 the law of justice and morals 
is for him the type of the divine world-ruling wisdom. 8 ' 
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 ; when, therefore, Cicero desires- 
that the existing religion and even the existing 

1 Tusc. I. 26, 65 ; cf. c. 29. for we are not justified, in the 

3 T-usG. i. 10, 22 ; N. D. 1 13, face of so many contradictory 

33 ; Acad. i. 7, 22. explanations (vide JV. D. iii. 40),. 

3 Hep. vi. 17, 4. in identifying Cicero's own 

4 N. D. iii. 10 ; 25-39. Hitter opinion with that here brought 
(iv. 147, 150) deduces from forward. 

these passages that Cicero dis- 5 Many passages in which 

believed in Providence, and Cicero treats of Providence are 

opposed the Natural to the quoted by Eoihner, L c. p. 199. 

Divine, setting on the one side I merely refer in this place to 

God without Nature, and, on T-usc.i. 49, 118; N. 2). i. 2, 3; 

the other, Nature without God; Legg. i. 7 : iii. 1, 3. 

but I cannot agree with this, * Legg. ii. 4, 8. 


superstitions shall be maintained in the State, he is 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 shows by many utterances, and, 
above all, by the sharp criticism to which he subjects 
the popular belief in gods in his third book De 
Natura Deorum; and soothsaying in his second 
book De Divinaiione, how far he himself stands 
from the national religion. Eeverenee for the Deity, 
which is consistent with a true view of nature, and 
coincides with true morality, is to be required ; the 
existing religion is to be maintained for the good 
of the commonwealth; superstition, on the other 
hand, is to be torn up by the roots 2 such, in a 
word, is Cicero's theological confession of faith. 

With the belief in God, according to Cicero's 
view, as we have already seen, the conviction of 
the dignity of human nature is intimately con- 
nected. This conviction also depends far more 
with him upon inner experience and moral self- 
consciousness than on any philosophic theory con- 
cerning the essential nature of the soul. If we 
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 

1 JV: D. iiL 2, 5 ; Legg. ii. 7 s$. ; it 28, 71 (Phil. d. 6h-. III. i. p. 
13, 32 ; DM*, ii. 12, 28 ; 33, 70 ; 311, 1). 

72, 148. 3 1*00. I. 7 *$., 22 sq. ; Rep. 

2 Dimn, ii. 72, 148 Sf[. ; N. D. vt 17, 8. 


CHAP. Cicero, in agreement with the Stoic and Platonic 
doctrine, regards the soul as an emanation of the 
Deity, an essence of supernatural origin ; l without 
troubling himself to develop this notion more par- 
ticularly, or to define the relation 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- 
tatingly about that of the soul, and though his 
inclination unmistakably tends to explain it as an 
immaterial substance, or, at any rate, as a substance 
differing from terrestrial matter, 2 he will not alto- 
gether exclude the possibility that it consists of air 
or fire; it is only the coarser materiality of the 
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- 
ness and universal agreement, 4 and partly by the 
Platonic arguments ; 5 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 man who would 

1 Fuse. i. 27 : AnimowmmtUa 2 Two* i. 27; 29, 70. 
in terris origo inveniri %>otest, s Tuso. i. 25, 60 : Non est 

&c. LOG. cit. 25, 60; Legg. i, certeneceordisnec sangidnis nee 

8, 24 : JZxstitisse yuandavi ma- cerelri nee atomorwn. Anima, 

turitatem serendi generis Iwt- sit animus ignisveneseio; nee rne 

mani, qiiod sparswn. in terras pvdet^ tft istos, fateri me nescire 

atqiie satum divino aiictum sit guodnesciam; l.c.2Q,65; 29,70. 
animorum mnnere. Cunigue 4 Tuse. i. 12 sgg. ; L<%1. c. 4 ; 

alia giiibiis co)K&rent homines e Cato, c. 21 sqq. 
mortali genere smipserint, giice 5 Tusc. i. 22 sqq. ; JS^A vi. 

f rag ilia essent et cadiica,, a)ii~ 17, 8 ; Cato, 21, 78. ^ 

mum, tamen esse 'ingen&ratum, a 6 Tuse. i. 34 5^. ; J$p. act 

Deo. Of. Goto, 21, 77. Famil. v. 16. 

VARRO. 171 

make the moral effect of Ms discourses as far as CHAP. 
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 sttbject, 1 and which has been 
transmitted to us fall of lacunse, 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 5 '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 Among the Roman adherents of this mode 
of thought, M. Terentius Yarro, 3 the learned friend of 
Cicero was, after Cicero himself, the most important. V0rro 9 
His principal achievements lie indeed in another 
sphere ; 4 as a philosopher he did not exercise any- 

thing like the widespread influence of Cicero, friend of 
though his historical knowledge of Greek philo- 

sophy was perhaps more thorough and complete. 

1 De Fato. The principal ties there quoted, Kritsche, 
propositions of this treatise (c. Cfott. Stud. 1845, ii. 172 *#. ; 
11) are taken from Carneades. Bitschl, *J>/ Schriftstellerei ties. 

2 Suj)ra, p. 99. M. Ter. Tarro,' jRkein. Mm. 

3 The life of Yarro falls JV T . F. vi. 481-560; Mommsen, 
between 116 and 27 B.C. For BSm.GescJi. in. 602 sqg., 624*0. 
the rest, ride concerning Mm 4 As Cicero (Aead. i. 2, 4 *00.) 
the histories of Eoman litera- represents him as saying of 
ture Bahr, in Pauly's Meal- himself, though he has pre- 
encyc. d. Slass. Alterth. vi. vionsly praised his knowledge 
1688 *#., and the authori- of philosophy. 





Yet the philosophical direction taken by so famous- 
a scholar l and so well known an author must neces- 
sarily have been influential. This direction was, 
Cicero assures us, 2 that of Antiochus, whose lec- 
tures Varro had attended in Athens ; 3 and Varro 
in his treatise on philosophy, so far as we can 
gather from Augustine, 4 expressed himself quite 
in the sense of Antiochus. 5 The sole aim of 
philosophy, he here tells us, is the happiness of 
man ; consequently those distinctions of doctrine 
among the schools of philosophy are alone to be 
considered important which relate to the definition 
of the highest good. 6 Great, therefore, as is the 

1 Doctissimifs Romanorum, he 
is called in Sen. Ad Jffelv. 8, 1 ; 
and again very justly, mr Ho- 
manorum eruditissimus (Quintal, 
x. 1, 95. Cicero (Acad. Fr. 36). 
says of him (ap. Augustine, Civ. 
D. vi. 2), Homine omnium facile 
acutissivno et sine ulla duMta- 
tione dofftissimoi and Augustine 
(Z. #.) says he is doetrina atque 
sententiis ita refertus that in 
respect to matters of fact he 
has achieved as much as Cicero 
did as a stylist. 

2 Ad Att. xiii. 12 : Mrgo illam 
cLKaSyfiLKfyv . . . ad Varrmern 
transferamus. JEtenim mnt \ 

i QUGB is 

I e. 19; 1. c. 25. In Varro's 
mouth is placed, as we know, 
the doctrine of Antiochus, in 
the second edition of the Aca- 
demica (Acad. i. 4; s^.). Vide 
what is quoted from Antiochus, 
sup. p. 94, with which Acad. i. 
2, 6, agrees : Nostra, tu physica, 
nosti: qiiat cum eontineantur 
ex effectimie et ex materia, ea, 
gritamfingit et format effeetio, &c. 

3 Cic. Acad. i. 3, 12 ; 1, 1, 3 ,- 
Ad Famil. ix. 8 j August. Civ. 
JD. xix. 3, 2 : Varro asserit, auc* 
tore Antiocho, magistro Oiceronis 
et suo. 

4 Civ. D. xix. 1-3. 

5 Gf . with what follows, the 
account of Antiochus siifpra^ 
p. 94. In regard to this it is 
to be observed that Varro's 
book, according to Cic. Acad. 
i. 2, 4 sc[C[.-) is later than the 
expositions of Cicero there 
made use of, only one of which 
is put into the mouth of Varro. 

6 LOG cit. 1, 3 : Negate enim 
existimat ullam pJiilosopMce sec- 
tarn esse dicendarn, git>ce non eo* 
distet a ceteris, quod diver 'sos 
habeat fines bonorum et malo- 
rum. Quandoquidem nulla est 


nisi ut "beatus sit : gi.iod autem 
leatum facit, ipse est finis T)oni: 
nulla est igitur causa %>Jviloso- 
pfiandi, nisi finis boni : quam- 
o~brem qiice nulluin fioni fiviem, 
seetatur, nulla $>Jiilosoj)7iia>. secta 


number of possible sects Yarro, sometimes indeed CHAP. 
adopting very superficial grounds of distinction, ' 

enumerates no fewer than 288 ! they may all 
be reduced to a few chief classes, if putting aside 
all that does not relate to the conception of the 
highest good we confine ourselves to the main ques- 
tion. 2 But this concerns the relation of virtue to the 
first 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 thing according to nature to be desired for 
the sake of virtue, or virtue for the sake of the sis 
thing according to nature, or both for their own etjiwi * 
sakes? This, according to Yarro, is the iunda- 

1 In their derivation, Yarro 
(Z. c. 1, 2) proceeds thus : There 
are, he says, four natural objects 
of desire : sensual pleasure, ab- 
sence of pain, the combina- 
tion of these two, and, as 
a fourth, the yrvma nature, 
which beside these include all 
other natural advantages of 
soul and body. Each of the 
four can be desired for the sake 
of virtue (the excellence super- 
added to nature by the instru- 
mentality of teaching) or virtue 
may be desired for its own 
sake, or both may be desired 
independently. Thus we obtain 
four possible divisions. These 
become twenty-four, so far as 
a iTa.Ti desires each of them 
merely for his own welfare or 
for that of others. The twenty- 
four are again divided into 
forty-eight, of which the one 
half pursue their end as true, 

like all other dogmatic philoso- 
phers; the other as merely 
probable, like the new Academy. 
Since, moreover, each of them 
can adopt the ordinary, or the 
Cynic, manner of life (k-aMtus 
et consuetudo} there result 
ninety-sis divisions instead of 
forty-eight. Lastly, because in 
each of these sections, regard 
may be had to the theoretical 
(otlosus), the practical (negotlo- 
m$\ or to a life compounded of 
both, we must treble this num- 
ber, and thus we arrive at 

2 That this is the case with 
the majority of the divisions 
named by Mm, Yarro himself 
shows, 1. c. L 3, c. 2, begin- 

3 The jynma TiMturce, ]m,mi- 
ffenia -nature = ra irfwra Kara, 
Q&ffiv (of. Phil, d. Gr. HI. i. p. 
309,1; 257,2; 253, 1). 


CHAP, mental question of all philosophy. 1 For a reply to 
VL It, he goes back to the conception of man, as it 
is only on this basis we can decide what is the 
highest good for man. But man is neither body 
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 
according to nature and virtue. 2 But the highest 
of these goods is virtue, the ait of life acquired by 
instruction. 3 As it includes in itself that which is 
according to nature, which also was present before 
the existence of virtue virtue now desires all for 
its own sake, and in considering itself as the princi- 
pal good, it enjoys also all other goods, and ascribes 
to each the value belonging to it according to its 
relation to the others ; but equally does not hesitate, 
on this account, to sacrifice the lesser, if so it must 
be, to the greater. "When virtue is wanting, no 
matter how many other kinds of goods there may 
be, they do not profit their possessor, they are 
not his goods, because he makes a bad use of them. 
In the possession of virtue and of the bodily and 
mental advantages conditioning it, lies happiness ; 
this increases when other goods with which virtue 
in itself could dispense, are added ; it is perfected 

1 Loc. tit. c. 2. is an inaccuracy which we 

2 C. 3, 1. That the gri^a, must ascribe to Yarro himself, 
natura in which Varro has and not merely to Augustine, 
previously included natural 3 Virtutem, guam doctrina 
advantages and dispositions of inserit velut arteim vivendi 
mind, is here identified with virtus, i. e. ars agendce 

the totality of corporeal goods, I. c. 


when all goods of soul and body are found together CHAP. 
and complete. 1 But to this happiness also belongs yi ' 
sociability, and to virtue the disposition which 
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 
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- 
able. This is the doctrine of the old Academy 
which Yarro, like his master Antiochus, professes. 3 
In this discussion we find no remarkable philosophic 
peculiarity : it contains no new thoughts, and what 
belongs to Yarro himself in the views of Antiochus 
transmitted by him is characterised neither by 
acuteness of judgment nor by vivacity of style. 
But we can at least see that Yarro had arrived at 
these views by his awn reflection, and that the 

1 Hcee ergo vita hominis, qiice sima (c. 3, 1, L c. further on). 

virtute et aliis animi et corj)0- 2 Varro is therefore quite at 

ris banis, sine quibus virtus esse one with the Stoic cosmopolitan- 

nmyotest (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 didtur : si vero et allis, exile, he says, (ap. Sen. Ad 

sine qmtnis esse virtus yotest, Helv. 8, 1) is not in itself an 

rel ullis vel pluribus, leatior : evil, %uod qiiooumgue wnimm 

si autem gworsus omnibus, -ut eadewi rerum natitra, utendum 

nullnm owmino fto-iium desit est. 

rel animi vel coryoris, beatis- 3 Aug. L tf. 3 2. 


CHAP, whole tendency of Antiochus corresponded to his 
- i way of thinking: that which must have recom- 
mended it to him and to his countrymen, was 
chiefly no doubt the practical aim of this philosophy, 
and that regard to the necessities of life which is 
prominent in its theories concerning the various 
constituents of the highest good, and the relative 
value of them. 

But the greater the influence allowed by Antio- 
Chus t0 the Stoic doctrine > 1 the less can we wonder 
if Varro approached it in regard to some other ques- 
tion still more closely than in his ethics. 2 If he 
explained the soul to be air which is breathed in 
through the mouth and warmed in the breast, in 
order to spread itself thence through the body, 3 
by reducing it to the Pneuma he allied himself with 
the Stoic materialism, to which Antiochus also is 
no stranger. 4 He further discriminated with the 
Stoics the well-known three gradations and forms 
of soul-life. 5 But his connection with the Stoic 
theology is of especial importance. In agreement 
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 

\ Cf. sup. p 92. m( ,ne, temperate in corde, dif- 

- He himself, according to fusus in corpus. Ci Varro L 

Lat " v - 59 : 

i - ' * 

2, 8) had the disciple of Panse- animalism semen ignis is auk 

tins, Jj. JElius Stilo (si(jp. p. anima ac mens 

11, 4), for his instructor. 

m * Lactant. O^f.D.17: Varro 

'ita dejinit : anima est aer con- 

ceptm ore, defervefactiis inpul- 

, . 

11, 4), for his instructor. * Vide mv. p. 95 saa 

* Lactant. O^f.D.17: Varro * Augustinef Civ. D. vii 2 

dejinit : anima est aer con- see following note * 



different parts of the world, are they who are wor- 
shipped in the gods of polytheism, down to the 
genii and heroes. 1 But, like Panaatius and Scsevola, 
he drew a marked distinction between natural and 
philosophical, mythical and civil theology, 2 and if 


1 Augustin. Civ. D. iv. 31 : 
Varro says : Quod hi soli el mde- 
antur animadvertisse quid esset 
Deus, git I credlderunt eum esse 
animam motu ac rat tone mit/i- 
dum gubernantem. LOG. cit. 
vii. 6 (c. 9 repeatedly) : Dicit 
ergo idem Varro . . . Deinn se 
arbitrari e$$e animam mundi 
. . . et Jiwic ipsum mundum 
esse Deum : sect sic tit liomimm 
sap lent em, eum sit ex corpora et 
animo, tamen ab animo did 
sapientem ; ita, mundum Deum 
did ab animo, cum Kit ex animo 
et corpore. Loc. eit. vii. 23 : 
(Yarro in the book concerning 
the Dii sttlecti] tres esse affirmat 
animce gradus i* o-mni unieer- 
saque not lira, those discussed in 
Phil d. 6-V. III. i. 192 : Nature, 
the irrational soul, and reason. 
Hand gartem anivifB untndi 
(their rational part, their -rjye- 
fj.oj/LKbv) diclt Deujn, in noUs 
autem genium vocari. JSsse ait- 
tem in mundo lapides act err am 
. . . tit ossa, itt iingites Dei. 
Solem vero, lunam, stellas, qitfs 
sentimiis qiiibusyue ipse sent it, 
sensus essa ejus. JEtliera parro 
animwm esse ejus : ex eujusvi 
qitce pervenit in astro, ipsam 
qiioq'ue facere Deos (it makes 
into Gods) ; et per eat qiwd in 
terrain permeat, Deam Tel- 
lurem, quod antem inde per- 
meat in mare atque oceamtm^ 
Deiim, esse Neptunim.. Simi- 
larly in c. 6, the world is divided 

into heaven and earth, the 
heavens into sether and air, the 
earth into water and earth: 
quam \_quas~\ omnts quatuor 
Cartes aninturum esse ph'tms^ i n, 
ftJiere et acre imma-rfali u?n, in 
aqua, at terra niortaliiini ; from 
the outermost circle of heaven, 
as far as to the sphere of the 
moon, extend the heavenly 
gods; between this and the 
region of clouds aereas ess& 
atiimas . . . et rocari Jteroas et 
lares et genios. Also in Z. c. 
c. 9, he (for only Yarro can "be 
intended) calls Jupiter, Deus 
Tiabens potextatem causa/rum, 
qitibus allqitid Jft in mwndo ; 
in c. 11, and c. 13, he appro- 
priates to himself (for Augus- 
tine must have taken this from 
him) the verses of Soranus 
(sup. p. 74, n. end), in which 
Jupiter is called progenitor 
genltrixque Defim ; 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 
as prototypes. That all these 
propositions are either directly 
Stoic, or allied with Stoicism, 
is evident from the proofs ad- 
duced in Phil. d. Gr. IH. i. p. 138 
sqq. ; 146, 6 ; 315 sqq. 325. 

2 Aug. Z. c. vi. 5 : Tria genera 
dicit esse (in the last books of 
the Antiquities, cf. <x 3) . . . 





lie censured the mythology of the poets for relating 
the most absurd and unworthy things about the 
gods, 1 he did not conceal that he had also much to 
blame in the public religion : for example, he de- 
clared that the worship of images was a defilement 
of the true worship of (rod ; 2 that, for his part, the 
philosophic doctrine of the Deity would suffice, 3 and 
that he regarded the religion of the State merely 
as a civil institution, which, in the interest of the 
commonwealth, must make the most important con- 
cessions to the weakness of the masses. 4 In all this 
there is nothing which goes beyond the Stoic doc- 
trine as taught by Pansetius, but nothing on the 

eorumque unum mythicon ap- 
pellari, alterum, pliysicon, ter- 
tiwn civile. The first includes 
the poets, the second the philo- 
sophers, the third states (po- 
puli}. In the first there is 
much that is opposed (vide 
following note) to the nature 
and dignity of the Deity ; to the 
second belong 2Hi qui sint, 
ubi, quod genus, quale, a qiio- 
nam tern/pore an a sempiterno 
fuerint ; an ex igne sint 
ut credit Heraclitus, an ess 
nitmeris ut Pythagoras, an ex 
atomis ut ait Epicurus. Sic 
alias, QUGB facilius intra pa- 
rietes in scJiola, quam extra in 
foro ferre possunt aures. 

1 Loc. cit. (vide the previous 
note) with the addition : In hoc 
enim, est t ut Deus alius ex ca- 
pite alius exfemore sit alius ex 
guttis sanguinis natus ; in hoc, 
ut Mifurati sint, ut adultera- 
verint, ut servierint homini : 
denique in hoc omnia Diis at- 

tribuuntur, qua: non modo in 
Jwmin&m sed etiam in contemp- 
tissimum hominem cadere pos- 

2 LOG. cit. iv. 31. 'The an- 
cient Komans,' says Varro, wor- 
shipped the gods for 170 years, 
without images: Quod, si ad- 
hue inqitit, mansisset, castius 
Dii o"bservarentur "(vi. 7). Fa- 
tetur sicut forma humana Deos 
fecerunt, ita eos delectari hu* 
manis voluptatibus credidisse. 

3 LOG. cit. iv. 31. Varro him- 
self confesses that if he had to 
found a State anew, ex natures 
potius formula Deos nominaque 
eorwn sefuisse dedieaturutn. 

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 
Deorum, 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 



other hand that is incompatible with the Stoicising 
eclecticism of an Antiochus. 1 


follows the contrary order. 
For sieut -prior est, inqult, 
plctor quam tabula picta^ prior 
falter quam cedificium, it a prio- 
res su?it civ it at es quam ea, qu& 
a cii'itatihus sunt institute. 
How little the real philoso- 
phical doctrine of the gods 
was worth as a public religion, 
we have already seen {sup. 
p. 177, 2). A public religion 
must include in it much that 
is mythological. Ait emm, ea> 
qiifB scribunt po'&tcs minus esse 
quam ut populi segiii debeant ; 
qiuz autem pTi ilosopM plus quam 
ut ea vulgiis sorutari expediat. 
QILCB SIG abhorrent^ inquit, ut 

tamen ex utroque geiiere ad 
civiles rationes assumpta i/it 
iwn pauea-. The philosophers, 
indeed, desire to teach, by their 
enquiries, and so far (7. c.) it 
may be said, phyticos utllitatis 
causa scrij)$isse t poet as delect a- 
tionis. But this teaching is 
only for those who understand 
it, not for the masses. 

1 As Krische (I. c. 172 gq.) 
rightly maintains, against 0. 
Muller's assertion (Varro, L. 
Lat. s. v.) that Cicero incor- 
rectly makes Varro a follower 
of Antiochus, whereas he went 
over to the Sroics, 





CHAP. THE school of the Sestii occupies a peculiar position 

among the Eoman philosophers. But even this school 

F. School was not so independent of the contemporary Greek 

f ^f. philosophy, nor were its achievements so important, 

as to obtain for it any extensive influence or long 

History of duration. Its founder, Quintus Sextius, was a Eoman, 

tUe school. Q g 00( ^ f am -Qy ? a somewhat later contemporary of 

Augustus, 1 who had rejected a political career in 

order to devote himself wholly to philosophy. 2 After 

1 Sen. JSjy. 98, 13 : Honores 
rejpj)ulit pater Sextius , qm it a 
natuSy tit remp / ul)Uca<ni deberet 
capessere, latwti ctawni divo 
Julio dante non recepit. As 
tMs must have occurred at 
latest in 43 B.C., and Sextius 
must have been at least 25-27 
years old (cf. Ott, Character 
imd Urspr. der SprucJie des 
Sextius^. 1), his birth must be 
placed in 70 B.C. or even some- 
what earlier. When Eusebius, 
Chron. zu 01. 195, 1 (1 A.D.), 
dates the prime 'of Sextus 
the Pythagorean philosopher ' 
at that period, he is too late 
if our Sextius be meant. That 
Seneca was personally ac- 
quainted with the older Sextius 
js not probable ; the passages 

quoted by Ott, p. 2, 10, rather 
indicate the contrary. Jfy). 59, 
7 ; 64, 2 sift. ; De Ira, ii. 36, 1, 
refer only to his treatise. De 
Ira, iii. 36, 1, may either have 
been taken from a written work 
or from oral tradition. JSp. 73, 
12, may have been taken from. 
such a tradition. In Ej). 108, 
17, Seneca gives an account of 
the doctrines of Sextius, after 
Sotion, as he himself says. 

2 Vide the preceding note, 
and Plut. Prof, in Virt. 5, p. 
77: Ka6dirp <j>a.crl ^Qnov rbv 
ras kv rfj TrJ- 

, o\.lyov 
e/c rivos 


his death Ms son appears to have undertaken the 
guidance of the school. 1 Among its adherents we 
find mention of Sotion of Alexandria, whose enthusi- 
astic disciple Seneca had been in his early youth ; 2 
Cornelius Celsus, a prolific writer ; 3 Lucius Crassitius 
of Tarentum, 4 and Fabianus Papirius* 5 It became, 

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 
PeripatetiCj was the author of 
the treatise vcpl OPJTJS, Diels, 
Doxogr. 255 s$., rightly appeals 
to the similarity between a 
fragment from Sotion's vepi 
OPJTJS (ap. Stob. Flor'tl. 20, 53) 
and Seneca, De Ira, ii. 10, 5. 
Also the repeated quotation of 
utterances of Seslius, De Ira f 
ii. 36, 1, points to this source. 

3 QuintiL s. 1, 124 : Scrips/it 
nan par-urn multa, Cornelius 
CeUus, Sextws secutus, non sine 
cultU' dc jiitore. For further 
details concerning this phy- 
sician and polyhistor, vide Bern- 
hardy, jBoi/a. Litt. 848. 

4 A grammarian, who had 
already won for himself con- 
siderable fame as a teacher,, 
especially in Smyrna, when he 
dimissa, repente scJwla 
ad Quinti Septimii [1. Sextii'] 
jsMlvsopM sectam. Sueton. De 
Jllustr. Gr&mm. 18. 

5 This philosopher (of whom 
Seneca, Hrevit. 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 to 
these passages, a man of excel-. 



This transition from 
practical activity to philosophy 
seems to be referred to in Piin. 
Hist. J\ T at. xviii. 28, 274. Pliny 
here relates how Democritns 
had enriched himself with his 
traffic (this is also related of 
Thales) in oil (ride Phil. d. Gr. 
I. 766) but had returned his 
gains to those who had shared 
in it j and he adds : Hoc postea 
Sextius & JRomams sapientiee ad- 
sectatori'bus Atkenis fecit eadem 
rations ; which does not mean 
that he carried on the same 
traffic, but merely that he si- 
lenced those who blamed him 
for devoting himself to philo- 
sophy, in a similar manner, and 
for his part renounced all 

1 There is no express tradi- 
tion of this j but as the school 
is 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. Jp. 
98, 13 ; 64, 2), it is extremely 

2 Sen. Mp. 108, 17 sqg_. ; 49, 2. 
The age at which he heard 
Sotion, Seneca designated by 
the word juvente, in Mp. 108 ; 
in JEp. 49, by jpuer. It may, 
therefore, have occurred in 18- 
20 A.D. This date is also in- 
dicated by JSp. 108, 22; cf. 




however, extinct with these men : lively as was the 
applause which at first greeted it, in Seneca's later 
years it had already long since died out. 1 The 
writings of this school, too, have all been lost, with 
the exception of some scattered utterances of the 
elder Sextius, of Sotion, and Fabianus. 2 

lent character, non ex Ms catlie- 
drariis philosopMs, sed ex veris 
et antigids (JSremt. Vit. 10). His 
lectures and expositions are also 
greatly praised by Seneca (JEp. 
40* 12; 58, 6; 100); and in 
Ep. 100, 9, he is described as 
an author to whom, in regard 
to style, only Cicero, Pollio, and 
Livius 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 he 
mentions besides (I. e. 1) his 
IA~bri Artiiim Civilmm. The 
ectnres to the people which 
are alluded to in JBj?. 52, 11, 
seem to have been of a philo- 
sophical character. The older 
Seneca, Cantrovers. ii. Prcef.> 
says that he was a disciple of 
Sextius (the elder) by whom he 
was persuaded to devote him- 
self to philosophy instead of 
rhetoric. To Ms manner of 
writing, Seneca is less partial. 
Some utterances of his are 
to be found ap. Sen. Con.s. ad 
Marc. 23, 5 ; JSrwit. Vit. 10, 1 ; 
13, 9 ; Nat. Qu. iii. 27, 3. 

1 Sen. Nat. Qu. vii. 32, 2 : 
Sextwrum, nova et Homcml 
roloris secta inter initia sua, 
cum vtiagno wipetu ccepisset, esc- 
stinota est. 

2 Of these three philosophers 
something has been preserved 

by Seneca, and of Sotion also, 
by Stobseus in the Florilegiim. 
Moreover, a collection of maxims 
exists in the Latin translation 
of Kufinus, which was first 
quoted by Orig. e. Cels. xiii. 30, 
with the designation 2e|Tou 
yv&, is often used by Por 
phyry, Ad Mareellam, without 
mention of the writer, and of 
which there is a Syrian edition, 
ap. Lagarde,.4w#fe0fe& Syr. Lpz. 
1858. (On the two Latin re- 
censions of this and the later 
editions, cf. Gilclemeister in 
the preface to his edition from 
which I now cite ; Sessti 
Sententiarum recensiones Lati- 
nami Grr&Gam Syriaeas c&Yijunc- 
tim esoJi. Bonn. 1873). This col- 
lection, sometimes called jv^ai 
or sententicv, sometimes enchi- 
ridion, and, since the time of 
Kufinus, also annuliis, was 
much in use among the Chris- 
tians. Its author is sometimes 
named Sextus, sometimes Sixtus, 
or Xystus; and while most 
writers describe him as a Pytha- 
gorean philosopher, others see 
in him the Eoman bishop Sixtus 
(or Xystus, about 120 A.D). Of 
more recent writers, many (#.#. 
Lasteyrie, Sentences de Sextvus* 
Par. 1842 ; and Mullach, Fraym. 
PUlos. ii. 31 sg.) regarded the 
maxims as the work of a 
heathen philosopher, and more 
especially of one of the two 


Whatever can be deduced from these utter- 
ances respecting the doctrine of the school, serves 


Sextii. (How Ott, 1. c. i. 10, 
discovers this opinion in my 
first edition, I do not under- 
stand.) On the other hand, 
Bitter (IF. 178) believes them 
to be the Christian rehabilita- 
tion of a work belonging to a 
Sextos, arid 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 (G6U. Aug. 1859, 1, 261 
sqq. ; Gesok. 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 
cannot sufficiently exalt, and 
the authorship of which he 
ascribes to the Eoman Sixtus. 
Meinrad Ott, lastly, in three 
discourses {Gharakter imd >- 
sprung der SprucJw des Pldlo- 
sopJten Sextius, Eottweil, 1861 ; 
Die Stjrische * Auserte&enen 
SprmlieJ &c., ibid. 1862 ; Die 
Syrische ' Auscrlesenen SprucJie? 
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 
partly by Pythagorean, partly 
and especially by Jewish in- 
fluences and 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 Eufinus, is watered down, 
and its original character obli- 

terated, his own hypothesis is * . 5, \ 
nevertheless untenable. In the accer ana> 

first place the presupposition 
that one of the two Sextii was 
the author of the collected sen- 
tences, would be most uncertain 
if this work itself claimed such 
authorship, for it only 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 Ruiinus, as we have 
seen, also Sixtus, or Xystus, but 
never Sextius (of. Gildemeister, 
I.e. lii.g.) ; so likewise Latin 
iISS, (1. c. 33v. &?.) and the 
Syrian revisers (I. c. xxx. ^.), 
who both say Xystas. We can, 
therefore, only suppose that 
the author called himself Sex- 
tus, and not Sextius. Ott's 
theory would oblige us to sup- 
pose a radical difference to 
have existed between the doc- 
trine of the elder Sextius (who, 
to quote only this one passage, 
was so opposed to the strict 
monotheism of the sentences, 
infra, p. 186, 4, that he calls 
the highest god Jupiter) and 
that of Ms 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 rind in the Nora Se%- 
twnim Sehola the school of the 
younger Sextius as distinct 




to confirm the judgment of Seneca that it possessed 
Indeed great ethical importance and the vigour 


from that of his father, espe- 
cially as the predicate Romani 
roloris entirely harmonises 
with what Seneca elsewhere 
says of the elder Sextius (fp. 
59, 7) : Sextium . . . viriwi 
acrem, Grtecis verbis, Momanis 
moribus pJiilosoflkantem), and 
would, on the contrary, he 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 
origin to have been either 
purely Roman, or Judaic and 
Roman. For though many 
echoes of Christian expression 
and modes of thought (as Gil- 
demeister shows, p. xlii.) are 
merely apparent, or intro- 
duced by Christian translators 
and revisers, yet in the case 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, 
usque q\w estigat ab els etiam 
novisftinmm guadrantem. This 
can only be explained as a 
reminiscence of Matt. v. 26; 
p. 20 refers to Matt. xxii. 21 ; 
p. 110 to Matt. xv. 11 ; 16 sqq. ; 
p. 193 to Matt. xix. 23 ; p. 242 
to Matt. x. 8 ; p. 336 to Matt. xx. 
28, where the Sia.KovriBriva.i cor- 
responds to the ministrari ab 

aliis; p. 60 (cf. p. 58) to John, 
i. 12. Less certain, but never- 
theless probable, is the connec- 
tion between pp. 233 and Matt. 
v. 28 ; pp. 13, 273, andCMatt. v. 29 
s%. ; xviii. 8 s%. ; p. 30 and 1 John, 
i. 5. Also the homo Dei, p. 2, 
133 (Rufinus' translation first 
introduces him at p. 3) belongs 
to the Christian nomenclature 
(vide 1 Tim. vi. 11 ; 2 Tim. iii. 
17) ; likewise films Dei (pp. 58, 
60, 135, 221, 439); verbum, Dei 
(pp.264, 277, 396, 1$); juMciim 
(pp. 14, 347); sceculiim (pp. 15, 19, 
20) ; electi (p. 1) ; salvandi (p. 
143). Note further, the angels 
(p. 32) ; the prophet of truth 
(p. 441) ; the strong emphasising 
of faith (p. 196 et pass.}. In 
many passages (cf . Gildemeis- 
ter, I. c.) the Christian revisers 
have substituted jtes andfid'etts 
for other expressions. At pages 
200, 349 sq. t 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 
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 
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; 



of ancient Kome, but that it contained nothing 
different from the doctrines of Stoicism. 1 The only 
thing that distinguishes the Sextians from the Stoics 
is the exelusiveness with which they confined them- 
selves to ethics ; but even in this they agree with 
the later Stoicism and with the Cynics of Imperial 
times. Though they do not seem to have absolutely 
condemned physical enquiry, 2 they sought and found 
their strength elsewhere. A Sextius, a Sotion, a 
Fabianus, were men who exercised a wide moral 
influence by their personality; 3 and to their per- 



did not intend his work only for 
Christians, but for non-Chris- 
tians as well, and wishes by 
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 Ms sentences from 
philosophers; but as he never 
tells us whence he derived any 
of them, Ms collection, as Bitter 
rightly decides, is wholly use- 
less as an authority for the 
history of philosophy. The 
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 

more ingenuity than is the case 
with the attempt of J. R. Tobler 
(Annulm Rujini, i. ; Sent. Sext. 
Tub. 1878). 

1 2fat. Qit. vol. 32; Ep. 59, 
7 (vide p. 677, 4 ; 679) ; Ej). 
64, 2 : Liber Qu. Sextii jsatns, 
magni, si quid miki credis, tin, 
et, licet neget, Stmci. 

2 In regard to Fabianus at 
any rate, we see from Sen. Nat. 
Qu. iii. 27, 3, that his opinion 
about the diluvium (PMl.d. Gr f 
III. ii. 156 #f.) was somewhat 
different from, that of Seneca. 
He must, therefore, have held 
the general Stoic theory on the 

3 Cf. concerning Sextius, be- 
sides the quotation supra, p. 1 82, 
1 (Sen. JBjp. 64, 3) : Quantum in 
illo, Dl tioni, t-iffor est, quantum 
animi ! Other philosophers in- 
stituiint, disputant, cai'illantuT^ 
non fadunt aniwum, quid non, 
"habent : eum, legeris Seoctium, 
dices ; vivit^iget, U6eregt,*upr& 
homimm est, dimittit me plenum, 
ingentis Jiducits ; concerning 
Fabianus sup. 181, 5 ; concern- 
ing Sotion, Sen. J8p. 108, 17. 


CHAP, sonal influence they attached much greater value 
VIL than to scientific enquiry : we must fight against 
the emotions, says Fabianus, not with subtleties 
but with enthusiasm ; l and concerning learned 
labours which have no moral purpose in view, his 
judgment is that it would perhaps be better to 
pursue no science, than sciences of such a kind. 2 
The life of man, is, as Sextius argues, 3 a constant 
battle with folly; only he who perpetually stands 
in readiness to strike can successfully encounter 
the enemies who press round him on all sides. If 
this reminds us of Stoicism and especially of the 
Stoicism of the Eoman period, the resemblance is 
still more striking in the proposition of Sextius 
that Jupiter could achieve nothing more than a 
virtuous man. 4 With this Stoical character, two 
other traits, which Sextius seems to have borrowed 
from the Pythagorean school, are quite in harmony : 
viz., the principle of rendering account to oneself 
at the end of every day of the moral profit 5 and 
results of it ; and the renunciation of animal food. 
Sotion, however, was the first who based the latter 
precept upon the transmigration of souls : Sextius 
inculcated it only on the ground that by the 

1 Sen. Vit. 10, 1 : Sole- 4 Sen. Eg. 73, 12 : Solebat 
bat dieere Fabiamis . . . non- Sewtius dicere, Jovem plus 
tra adfeotus impetu non sub- won posse, quwm 'bomim virwn, 
tilitate pugnandmi, 'necminutis which Seneca carries further in 
volneribus, sed incursu aver- the sense discussed, PMl. d. Gr. 
tendam atiem non yrobam : III. i. p. 252, 1, 2. 
cavillationes emm contundi de- 5 Vide Sen. De fra, iii. 36, 1, 
lere, non vellicari. with which cf . the Pythagorean 

2 Ibid. 13, 9. Golden Poem, v. 40 sgg. 
, ^ Ap. Sen. Ep. 59, 7. 



slaughter of animals ve accustom ourselves to 

cruelty, and by devouring their flesh to enjoyments 
that are superfluous and incompatible with health. 1 
Nothing else that has been handed down respect- 
ing the ethics of Sextius displays any important 
individuality. 2 It vas a more remarkable devia- 
tion from Stoicism if the Sextii, as has been 
stated, 3 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, 



1 Sen. Up. 108, 17 sqq. The 
discussions of Sotion, by which. 
Seneca for a time was per- 
suaded to abstain, from eating 
meat, are here expotmded more 
at length. Of Sextius it is 
said : Hie Jiomini satis alimtn- 
tonim citra sanguinem esse 
credebat et crudelitatis coti' 
metudinem fieri, iifii in rolup- 
tatem esset addncta laceratio, 
Adidebcct) contrakendam ma- 
teriam esse lutmtrits. Colligeljat, 
~bonce valitudini contraria esse 
alimenta varia et nostris aliena 
corjwribus. With this the pas- 
sage in the sayings of Sextus, 
p. 109, agrees (ap. Oiig. c. 
Cels. viil 30) : ^v-^u 

2 Vide the utterances of So- 
tion in the Florilegium of 
Stobseus, which no doubt be- 
long to our Sotion ; the recom- 
mendation of brotherly love 
(84, 6-8; 17, 18); the say- 
ings against flattery (M, 10), 
anger (20, 53 $#.) about grief 
(108, 59), and on consolatory 
exhortations (113, 15). None 

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. 

3 Claudian. "SLaLmext. De Statu 
Animee, ii. 8 : Incorporalis, iti- 
qiiiunt (the two Sextii), omnis 
est anuna ef illocalls clique in- 
depreltmsa ru qucedam ; qit^ 
sine spatio capax corjnis Jiaurit 
et Gontinef. The last clause 
reminds us of the Stoic doc- 
trine, that the soul holds the 
body together. Mamertus is 
not, indeed, an altogether trust- 
worthy witness; he also tries 
to prove Q. c.} that Chrysippus 
regarded the soul as immortal, 
because he required the con- 
quest of sensuality by reason. 
But his utterances about the 
Sextii are so definite that 
we must necessarily refer them 
to tradition rather than to any 
inference of this kind. 


CHAP, definitions from the Platonic-Aristotelian doctrine. 

' We therefore find nothing in their school that is 

new and scientifically noticeable ; it is a "branch of 
Stoicism, which doubtless is indebted merely to the 
personality of its founder that it had an indepen- 
dent existence for a time ; but we can see in its 
points of contact with Pythagoreanism and Plato- 
nism how easily in that period systems which started 
from entirely different speculative presuppositions, 
could coalesce on the basis of morality, when once 
men had begun to consider distinctive theoretical 
doctrines of less consequence than similar prac- 
tical aims ; and that there was inherent in the 
ethical dualism of the Stoa a natural tendency to 
the views which were most strongly opposed to the 
materialistic monism of their metaphysics, and to 
their anthropology. 




TEE mode of thought which tad become pre- CHAP. 
dominant during the first centnrj before Christ in 

the Grreco-Eoman philosophy, maintained itself Section II. 

likewise in the succeeding centuries. By far the cu 

greater part of its representatives, indeed, were ad- & 

& ^ r * * nes after 

herents of one or other of the four great schools 

into which the domain of Greek science was divided A. The 

after the third centurv. The separation of these _ " , 
* r G-entral 

schools had, indeed, been confirmed afresh by two 
circumstances : on the one hand by the learned 
study of the writings of their founders, to which the im 
Peripatetics especially had devoted themselves with 
such zeal since the time of Andronicus ; on the Zeal for 
other, by the institution of public chairs for the four O ftkean- 

cbief sects which took place in the second century Oe 

* ___ , , . 

after the beginning of our era. 1 This learned 

activity must have tended to make the special cha- 
racteristics of the different systems more distinctly 

. 1 Cf. 0. Muller, Quam citmm AJiad. 1842 ; JERg6.-PML 1. 

resp. ap. Grtec. et Rom. liter-Is Sckr. 4.4: sgg. ; Weber, De Aea- 

. . . impenderit (Gott. Mint- demia IMeraria, Atheniendum 

ladungsschrift, 1837), p. ~L$qq.; semdo securido^. CJir. comtituta, 

Zurnpt, Ueb.&.Bestandd.pTiilos. (Marb. 1858), and the quota- 

Atlien* A~bh* d. Berl. tions at p. I. 



ment of 
chairs of 


perceived, and to refute the idea upon which the 
eclecticism of an Antiochus and Cicero had fallen 
back, viz : that the divergences between them were 
founded rather upon differences of words, than mat- 
ters of fact ; and it might form a counterpoise to the 
eclectic tendencies of the time the more easily, since 
it was directed as much to the defence, as to the 
explanation, of the heads of the ancient schools and 
of their doctrines. In Borne, where in the first cen- 
tury not only Stoicism, but philosophy in general, 
was regarded in many quarters with political mis- 
trust, and had had to suffer repeated persecution, 1 
public teachers of philosophy were first established 

1 The banishment of Attalus 
the Stoic from Borne under 
Tiberius (Sen. Suaso?: 2), and 
that of Seneca under Claudius, 
were not the result of a dislike 
upon principle to 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 Psetus, Seneca, 
Lucanus, and Rubellius Plautus 
were put to death ; Musonius, 
Cornutus, Helvidius Priscus 
were banished (further details 
later on); and though these 
persecutions may have had in 
the first instance political or 
personal reasons, a general dis- 
trust had already manifested 
itself against the Stoic philo- 
sophy especially, which Stoi- 
comm, adrogantia sectaqite qnoe 
turftidos et negotwrum adjveten- 
tes faciat (as Tigellinus, ap. 
Tac, Ann. xiv. 57, whispers to 

Nero)\ and Seneca (^?. 5, 1 
sqq. ; 14, 15 ; 103, 5) finds it 
necessary fco warn the disciple 
of philosophy against coming- 
forward in any manner at all 
conspicuous or calculated to 
cause offence ; and so much 
the more as this had been 
prejudicial to many, and philo- 
sophy was regarded with mis- 
trust. The political dissatis- 
faction displayed by the Stoic 
and Cynic philosophers after 
the execution of Helvidius 
Priscus occasioned Vespasian to 
banish from Borne all teachers 
of philosophy, with the excep- 
tion of Musonius ; two of them 
he even caused to be trans- 
ported (Dio Cass. Ixiv. 13) ; 
and this precedent was after- 
wards followed by Domitian. 
Being irritated by the pane- 
gyrics of Junius Rusticus on 
Tbrasea and Helvidius, he not 
only caused Busticus and the 
son of Helvidius to be executed, 


as it seems "by Hadrian ; ! and in. the provinces, "by 
Antoninus Pius : 2 rhetoric had already teen simi- 
larly provided for by some of their predecessors/ 
and the ancient institution of the Alexandrian Mu- 
seum,, and its maintenances designed for the support 
of learned men of the most various sorts, had also 
continued to exist in the Eoman period. 4 Public 


but ordered all philosophers 
out of Rome (Gell. N.A. xv. 11, 
3; Sueton. D&ndt. 10; Plin. 
JEp. 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. Spartfan. Hadr. 16: 
Doctor es, qiii profestdoni STUB 
itiJiaMles vldebantur^ ditatos 
honoratosqiie a-professione dimi- 
$it, which would only have 
been possible if they had before 
possessed them. Still less is 
proved by the previous con- 
text : Omnes professor esetJwno- 
yamt etdivites fecit. That these 
statements relate not merely 
to grammarians, rhetoricians, 
&c., but also to philosophers, 
is shown by the connection. 

2 Capitolin. Ant. P. 11: JRhe- 
torilnis et philosopMs per (mines 
prorindas et honores et solaria 
detulit. Moreover, teachers of 
sciences and physicians were 
exempted from taxation. This 
favour, however, in a rescript 
of Antoninus to the Commune 
Asics (quoted from Modest-in. 
Exous. it ,* Digest, xxvii 1, 
6, 2) was restricted in regard 
to the physicians to a certain 
number according to the size 
of the city; but in regard to 
the philosophers it was to hold 

good absolutely $ia T& <nraviovs 
elVcu TQUS $tXo(ro(j>vyTa$ 1 

3 Thus we hear of Vespasian, 
especially (Sueton. Vtsp. IS), 
that he jwimus e fisco laftnis 
grcechqite rhetoribus (perhaps 
in the first place only to one 
rhetorician for each speech) 
anmta centena (100,000 sestert.) 
conxtitmt. The first Latin rhe- 
torician so endowed, in the 
year 69, was, according to 
Hieron, Eus. Ckron. 89 A.D., 
Quintiiian; a second under 
Hadrian, Castricius (Gell, .V. A. 
xiii. 22). 

4 Of. Zumpt, I. c. ; Farther, 
Das Alexandria. Museum (Berl. 
1838), p. 91 gqq.; O. Mnller.Z./?. 
p. 29 gq. From the statement 
(Bio Cass. Ixxvii. 7) that Cara- 
calla took from the Peripatetics 
of Alexandria (out of hatred to 
Aristotle, on account of the 
supposed poisoning of Alexan- 
der) their Syssiria 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 
belonging to the museum had 
been divided into schools. A 
similar institution to the mu- 
seum, the Athenasum, was 
founded in Rome by Hadrian 
(Aurel. Victor. Cces. U ; cf . Dio 





teachers from the four most important Schools of 
philosophy 1 were settled by Marcns Aurelius 

Cass. Ixxiii. 17 ; Capitolin. Per- 
tin. 11 ; @ord. 3 ; Lamprid. 
Sever. 35), That maintenance 
for the learned man admitted 
was also attached to it, is not 
expressly stated ; whether the 
words of Tertullian {Apologet. 
46), statuis et salaribus remu- 
nerantur (the philosophers), 
relate to Rome or to the pro- 
vinces, we do not know, but 
they probably refer to the 
western countries. 

1 That Marcus Aurelius ap- 
pointed alike for thef our schools 
the Stoic,Platonic,Peripatetic, 
and Epicurean teachers with a 
salary of 10,000 drachmas each, 
is plain from Philostr. v. SopTi, ii. 
2 ; Lucian, SunuoJi. 3 : accord- 
ing to Dio Cass. Ixxi. 3, it was 
while he was in Athens, after 
the suppression of the insurrec- 
tion of Avidius Cassius (176 
AJD.) that Marcus 'gave all 
mankind in Athens instructors, 
whom he endowed with a yearly 
stipend. 7 At this time, or soon 
after, Tatian may have written 
the x6jos irpbs "EXK-nvas in which 
(p. 19) he mentions philosophers 
who receive from the Emperor 
an annual salary of 600 XP UO "<- 
According to Lucian, I. c., each 
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 
Peripatetics,' two candidates 
disputed before the electing as- 
sembly for the vacant place 
with its 10,000 drachmas. 
Zumpt (1. c. p. 50) offers the 
suggestion that only four im- 
perial salaries had been given ; 


but that if the existing schol- 
arch 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 
simultaneously one chosen by 
the school, and one nominated 
by the Emperor. The passage 
in Lucian, however, is not 
favourable to this view. As 
the philosophers whom the 
Emperor endowed with the 
salary of 10,000 drachmas are 
first spoken of, and we are then 
told KO.I Tii/a <pa<fi.v avrcav ewy- 
%os aTTodaveiV, rS>v Tlspnrar'fiTiK&v 
ol/jLai rbv erepoz/, 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- 
sophers, Marcus Aurelius, ac- 
cording to Philostr., I.e., gave 
over to Herodes Atticus ; accord- 
ing to Lucian, Ewi. c. 2 &/., 
the candidates brought forward 
their claims before the &PKTTOL 
Kal Trpecrfivrarot K&l ffotpcararot 
r&v eV rfj 7r6\i (by which we 
may understand either the 
Areopagus, the /8ouA^, or a 
separate elective council, per- 
haps with the participation of 
the schools concerned, and 
under the presidency of an im- 
perial official) ; but if an agree- 
ment could not be arrived at, 
the affair was sent to Rome to 
be decided. The imperial ra- 
tification was, doubtless, neces- 
sary in all cases ; and in par- 


Athens, 1 which was thus declared anew the chief CHAP. 

seat of philosophic studies ; and thus the division A^Ll., 

of these schools was not merely acknowledged as an 
existing fact, but a support was given to it for the 
future which in the then condition of things was no 
slight advantage. In the appointment of the office 
of teacher, the express avowal of the system for 
which he desired to be employed was required from 
the candidate. 2 Externally, therefore, the schools 
remained sharply separated in this period as hereto- 

As this separation, however, had previously done continued 
little to hinder the rise of eclectic tendencies, so was 
it little in the way of their continuance. The dif- 
ferent schools, in spite of all divisions and feuds, 
approximated internally to each other. They did 
not actually abandon their distinctive doctrines, but 
they propagated many of them, and these the most 
striking, merely historically as a learned tradition, 
without concerning themselves more deeply with 
them ; or they postponed them to the essentially 

ticnlar instances the teacher of the second century, cf. also 
was probably directly named Philostr. V. Soph. iL 1, 6, who 
by the Emperor ; the words of in the time of Herodes Atticus 
Alexander of Aphrodisias may speaks of the paKia xtd Hoy- 
be taken in either sense, "when, ruck fieipdKia /ca| &AAJ> e0vv 
in the dedication of his treatise &ap0dpcovvveppv7iK6ra t whomt'he 
Trepl etpappewis, he thanks Sep- Athenians received for money, 
timius Sever as and Ms son, 2 Cf. Lucian, Z. c. 4 : ret. per 
Caracalla. M> TTJS vperepas flap- o$v rSsv Xoycav Trpoyy&viffro aitroTs 
rvptas 5t<5a<77caAos avrys (the Kal TTJV efiireipiav eKarepos Tttiv 
Aristotelian philosophy) KC/CT?- ^oyfidrasy eTreSefteiKTO Kcd Sn rov 
pvy/uevos. > Apta"TaT\ovs KaL r&v 

1 On the repute and popn- $QKovyT&v 
larity of Athens in the middle 





School of 
tlu Stoics 
from tlie 

practical aims 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, were, strictly speaking, not altogether 
compatible with that character. The Epicurean 
School alone persistently held aloof from this move- 
ment ; but it also refrained from all scientific activity 
worthy of mention. 1 Among the three remaining 
schools, on the contrary, there is none in which this 
tendency of the time did not manifest itself in some 
form or other. "With the 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 
Stoics, it is the restriction to a morality in which 
the asperities of the original system are for the most 
part set aside and the former severity gradually 
gives place to a gentler and milder spirit : in the 
Academy, it is the adoption of Stoic and Peripatetic 
elements, with which is combined an increasing inr 
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. 

If we begin with the Stoics we find that from the 
beginning of the first, till towards the middle of the 
1 Cf. PMl. d. Gr. III. i. p. 378, andswp. p. 24 $##. 



1 Of the Stoics that are known 
to us, Heracleitus mnst 
first be mentioned in connec- 
tion with those named supra, 
p. 71. This learned man (con- 
cerning whose Homeric allego- 
ries cf . PMl. d. Gr. III. i. 322 
s a c l-} seems to have lived at the 
time of Augnstiis, as the latest 
of the many authors whom he 


lirst to tfitt 
third cen- 

tMrd century, we are acquainted with a considerable 
number of men belonging to tills school. 1 The 

deeply than Seneca into the 
superstition and .soorhsaving 1 of 
the school. On the instigation ^ A " D " 
of Sejanns, he was forced to 
leave Home (Sen. Jftket. Suaswr. 
2). Somewhat later is C h ae T e- 
m o n, the teacher of S ero (Snld. 
'AAc'f. Alj,), subsequently (as 
we must suppose) head "of * a 
school in Alexandria (M/L 
mentions is Alexander of Awi'ucr, 3 AAe|.) and an Egyptian 
Ephesus (Alleg. Horn. c. 12, p. priest of the order of the ipo- 
26) who is reckoned by Strabo ypafifMrets. That he was so, 
(xiv. 1, 25, p. 642) among the and that the Stoic Chseremon, 
yedSrepoi, is apparently alluded to mentioned by Snidas, Origen 
by Cicero, Ad Att. ii. 22, and (c. Cels. i. 51), Porphyry (JJe 
quoted by Aurel. Victor, De Abstinen. iv. 6, 8) and *Apol- 
Orig. Gent. Mom. 9, 1, as author lordus in Bekker's Aneed(tfa t 

is not distinct from the lepo- 

of a history of the Marsian 
War (91 $qq. B.C.) and must 
have flourished in the first half 
or about the middle of the first 
century before Christ. Under 
Tiberius. At talus taught in 
Rome ; he is mentioned by 
Seneca (Ep. 108, 3, 13 sq. 9 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 
character. With this moral 
doctrine we shall also find his 
declamations as to the faults 
and follies of men and the ills 
oElife (1. G. 108, 13) reproduced icoi HAc^s vavrt 
in Ms disciple Seneca ; what in his 
Seneca, however (Nat. Qu. ii. 
48 ; 2, 50, 1) imports to us 
from his enquiries concerning 

mentioned by Por- 
phyry, ap. Ens. Pr. JSV.'v. 10; 
iii.* 4^; and Tzetz. Hut. v. 403 ; 
in Iliad, p. 123, Herm., as JIiU- 
ler maiEtains (Hi*t. {?r. iii. 
495), but that taey are one and 
the same person as Bernays 
considers (Theopltr. von der 
Frommiglteit* 21, 150), 1 have 
explained in the Sermes, 3d. 
403 sq. In his Egyptian history 
(fragments of which are given 
by MuUer, I. c.} he explains, 
according to Fr. 2 (ap. Ens. 
Pr. J5V. iii. 4), the Egyptian 
gods and their mythical histo- 
ries in a Stoic manner with 
reference to the sun, moon, and 
stars, the sky, and the Mle, 
s Qva'tKa ; and 
Si5c&7/iOTa; ?>*> fep&v ypajj,- 
arav (ap. Snid. Xaip. c IejooyAv^>- 
a) he declares, in agreement 
with this, that the hieroglyphics 

the portents of lightning, shows were symbols in which the an- 
that he plunged much more cients laid down the - 1 v ~ 



CHAP, most important of them, and those who represent 
to us most clearly the character of this later Stoicism 

Xoyos TTpl 6&v (Tzetz. in H. p. 
123 ; of. 1. G. 146 ; Hist. v. 403). 
He is also in harmony with the 
Stoic theology when in a trea- 
tise on comets (according to 
Origen, 1. <:*.) he explained how 
it came about that these phe- 
nomena sometimes foretell 
happy events. Porphyry, in 
De Abst. iv. 8, end, calls him ei/ 

s. He was succeeded 
in Alexandria by his disciple 
Dionysius, who is called by 
Suidas Aiovvcr. 'AA. 7pa y u j aari/cbs, 
and was probably, therefore, 
more of a learned man than a 
philosopher. Seneca will be 
fully treated of later on. Other 
members of the Stoic school 
were the following: Clara- 
nus (Sen. Ep. 66, 1, 5; he has 
been conjectured, though pro- 
bably erroneously, to be identi- 
cal with the Greek philo- 
sopher Goer an us, Tac. Ann. 
xiv. 59 ; the latter was also a 
Stoic), most likely Seneca's re- 
lativeAnngeus Serenus(Sen. 
Ep. 63, 14 ; De Const, i. 1 ; De 
Trangu. An. 1 De Otio}, his 
friend Crispus Passienus 
(Nat. Qu. iv. ; Prcsf. 6 ; Bmef. 
i. 15, 5 ; cf . Epigr. Sap. Exil. 6), 
and his adherent Metronax 
in Naples (Ep. 76, 1-4). He 
tries to include Lucilius also 
among the Stoics, in the letters 
dedicated to him. Contempo- 
rary with Mm is Serapio, from 
the Syrian Hierapolis (Sen. Up. 
40, 2; Steph. Byz. De Url). 
'lepa-Tr.); and Lucius An- 
nseus Cornutus of Leptis 
(Said. Kopv.) or the neigh- 

bouring Thestis (Steph. Byz. 
eVTis) in Africa, who was 
banished (according to the in- 
correct statement of Suidas, 
put to death) by Nero, on 
account of an objection he made 
to the poetical projects of the 
Emperor, in 68 A.D. , according 
to Hieron. in Clwon. (Cf ., how- 
ever, Reimarus on the passage 
in Dio j he conjectures 66 A.D.) 
In the epitome of Diogenes 
(Part III. i. 33, 2) Cornutus 
closes the series of the Stoics 
mentioned by this writer. Of 
the theoretical and philosoph- 
ical works attributed to him 
by Suidas, one on the gods has 
been preserved (sup. Part III. 
i. 301 &?.); this is doubtless 
his own treatise and not a 
mere abstract of it. He is 
described in the Vita Perm 
Sueton. as tragicus^ to which 
Osann (on Corn. De Nat. Deor. 
xxv.) rightly objects. Further 
details concerning him and his 
works will be found in Martini 
(DeL. Ann. Cornuto, Lugd. Bat. 
1825, a work with which I am 
only acquainted at third hand), 
Yilloison, and Osann, I. G. ; 
Praf. xvii. sqq.-, 0. Jahn on 
Persius, Prolegg. viii. sqq. 
Among the disciples of Cornutus 
were (vide Vita Perm) Clau- 
dius Agathinus of Sparta 
(Osann, I. c. xviii., differing from 
Jahn, p. xxvii., writes the name 
thus, following Galen, Definit. 
14, vol. xix. 353 K), a celebrated 
physician, and Petronius 
Aristocrates of Magnesia, 
'duo doctissimi et sanetisswii 
viri,' and the two Roman poets 



are Seneca, Musonius, Epictetus, and Marcus 

Aurelius. Heracleltns, on tlie other hand. Is rather a 

without some reason, by order 
of Vespasian. Enbellius 
Plantus also (Tac. Ann. xiv. 
22, 57-59) who was also put to 
death by Nero, Is described as 
a Stoic. Lastly, under Xero 
and his successor?, there lived 
Musonius Eufus and Ms 
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 
Ms character, was a contempo- 
rary of Epictetus and lived 
first in Syria and afterwards in 
Rome (Plin. JSp. i. 10 ; Euseb. 
c. Hierocl. c. 33). He is the 
same person whom Philostratus, 
in the life of Apollonius of 
Tyana, and the author of the 
letters of Apollonius, repre- 
sents as the chief opponent of 
this miracle- worker. "Epictetus 
quotes an expression of his 
(Diss. iv. 8, 17*^.) and praises 
his discourses (I. c. iii. 15, 8; 
Enchir. 29, 4). Marcus Aure- 
lius (x. 31) also mentions him. 
His passionate hostility to Apoi- 
lonius is alluded to by PMlostr. 
F Soph. i. 7, 2. The same" 
writer calls him here and I. 0. 
i. 25, 5, a Tynan, whereas, ac- 
cording to Steph. Byz. De Urb. 
3 Ewi(j)d,v., he was a Syrian of 
Epiphania, and according to 
Eunap. F. PMlos. p. 6, an 
Egyptian. Having fallen sick 
in his old age, he took poison 
118 A.D. (Dio Cass. Isis. 8). 


A, Persius Flaccus (bom 
in 34, died in 62 A.D., vide 
Vita Pergii, and Jahn, 1. c. iii. 
sqq.'} and 3Iarcus Annseus 
Lucanns the nephew of 
Seneca, bom 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 
Sat. v., regarded his master 
with the highest veneration. 
To the Stoic school belonged 
further, besides the contemp- 
tible P. E gnat ins Celer 
(Tac. Ann. xvt 32; Hist. iv. 
10, 40; Dio Cass. ML 26; 
Juvenal, iii. 114 $#.), the 
two magnanimous Republicans 
Thrasea Paetus (Tac. Ann. 
xvi. 21 sgg. ; cf . siii. 49 ; xiv. 
48 sq. f 9 xv. 23; Dio Cass. bd. 
15, 20; Ixii. 26; Ixvi. 12; 
Sueton. Nero, 37 : Domit. 10 ; 
Plin. JEp. viii. 22, 3 ; vt 29, 1 : 
vii. 19, 3; Pint. Pr&e. Ger. 
Help. 14, 10, p. 810; Catolfm. 
25, 37; Juvenal, v. 36; Epict. 
Diss. L 1, 26 et pass.; Jahn, 
1. c. xxxviii. *#.) and his 
son-in-law Helvidius Pris- 
cus (Tac. Ann. xvi. 28-25; 
Hist, iv, 5 sq. 9, 53 ; Dial, de 
Or at. 5 ; Sueton. Tesp. 15 ; 
Dio Cass. Ixvi. 12 ; Ixv. 7), of 
whom the first was executed 
by Nero's order, and the second 
who had been already banished 
by Nero, was put to death, not 





collector and arranger of traditional material, and 
the same holds good of Cleomedes. Concerning 

One of Ms pupils was Ti mo- 
crates of Heraclea in Pontus 
(Philostr. F. Soph. i. 25, 5) ac- 
cording to Lucian (Demon. 3, 
Alex. 57, De Saltat. 69), who 
speaks with great respect of 
iim ; and was himself a teacher 
of Demonax the cynic, and an 
opponent of the famous con' 
}uror, Alexander of Abonutei- 
chos. A disciple of Demonax, 
Lesbonax, is mentioned by 
Mm (J)e Salt. 69). Under 
Domitian and Trajan we find 
the following names given by 
Plutarch (Qu. Com-, i. 9, 1 ; vii. 
7, 1): Themistocles, Phi- 
lippus, and Diogenianus, 
to whom we may add the two 
philosophers called C r i n i s 
(Epict. Diss. iit 2, 15; Diog. 
L. vii. 62, 68,76). Also Junius 
Rusticus, executed by Do- 
mitian (Tacit. Agric. 2 ; Sueton. 
Domit, 10 ; Dio Cass. Ixvii. 13 ; 
Plin. Z. 0.; Plut. Ciwiosit. 15, 
p. 522), whose trial gave oc- 
casion to the persecution of 
the philosophers, was doubtless 
a ( Stoic. The two Plinys, on 
tne 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 
Philopator probably lived 
(Pkil d. GT. III. i. 166, 1), whose 
disciple was G-alen's teacher 
(G-alen, Cogn. an Mori, 8, vol. v, 
41 K) ; in the same reign, or that 
of Antoninus Pius, Hierocles 
may have taught in Athens 
(Gell. N. A. ix. 5, 8), and Cleo- 
medes may have written his 

KVK\LK^J Qstapia fj.T&p<av ; for in 
this treatise he mentions several 
earlier astronomers, but not 
Ptolemy; he follows in it chiefly, 
as he says at the conclusion, 
Posidonius. Within the same 
period fall the Stoic instruc- 
tors of Marcus Aurelius : Apol- 
lonius (M. Aurel. i. 8, 17; 
Dio Ca?s. Ixxi. 35; Capitolin. 
Ant. Philos. 2, 3 ; Ant. PL 10 ; 
Eutrop. viii. 12 ; Lucian. Demon. 
31 ; Hieron. Chron. zn 01. 232 ; 
Syncell. p. 351. Whether he 
came from Chalcis or Chalcedon 
or Nicomedia we need not here 
enquire). Junius Busticus, 
to whom Ms imperial pupil 
always gave his confidence ,(M. 
Aur. i. 7. 17; Dio, I. c ; Capitol. 
Ant.PJiil.fy; Claudius Max- 
imus (M. Aur. i. 15, 17 ; viii. 
25; Capitol. 1. c.) ; Cinna 
Catulus (M. Aur. i. 13 ; Capi- 
tol. I. c.) ; among them was 
probably also Diognetus (ac- 
cording to Capitol, c. 4, where 
the same man is most likely 
meant, his teacher in painting ; 
but according to M. Aur, i. 6, 
the first who gave him an in- 
clination to philosophy) ; B a s i- 
1 i d e s of Scythopolis (described 
by Hieron. Cliron. on Ol. 232, 
and Sync. p. 351, as a teacher of 
Marcus Aurelius and probably 
the same who is quoted by Sext. 
Math. via. 25S,vide PMl. d. Gr. 
III. 1 87, 1 ; but not the person 
mentioned mp. p. 54), and some 
others (Bacchius, Tandasis, 
Marcianus ; M. Aurelius 
heard them, as he says, i, 6, at 
the instance of Diognetus) 
must be added. To these Mar- 


Cornutus also, we know that his activity was CHAP. 
chiefly devoted to grammatical and historical l '_ 

cus Aurellns Antoninus 
subsequently allied himself 
(vide infra). Under Ms reign 
Lucius, the disciple of Mu- 
sonius the Tynan, is said to 
have lived, whom Philostratus, 
V. Soph, ii. 1, 8 $c[.> describes as 
the Mend of Herodes Atticus, 
and represents as meeting with 
Marcus Aurelius in Home when 
the latter was already emperor ; 
he was the same person, 
doubtless, from whom Stobaus 
(Floril. Jo. Damase. 7, 46, vol. 
iv. 162, Mein.) quotes an account 
of a conversation with Musonius 
(Ms conversations with Mu- 
sonius are also mentioned by 
Philostratus) ; for though he is 
called AVKIOS in our test of 
Stobseus, 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. HI, i. 48, 
note, with Nicostratus. Brandis 
( Ueber d. Awsleger d. Arist. 
Orff., AWi. d. JSerl. Altad. 1833 ; 
Hist. PML El. p. 279) and 
Prantl (Gesch. d. Log. i. 618) 
consider both to have belonged 
to the Academy, from the way 
in which they are named by 
Simplicius (Gateg. 7, $, 1, a) 
together with Atticus and 
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, Z. ., from Simplicius, 
against the Aristotelian cate- 
gories of the Stoic type, namely 
in the assertions of Nicostratus 

that no <T7rou3aTos is a <pa\o$ 
(Simpl. 102, a), and that I L c. 
104, a) an aSiafpapoy dBia<6op^j 
avriKetrai, and similarly an aya- 
Bbv aryoBtfy e.g. the tppoviu.^ srepi - 
is opposed to the tppoviu.?] 
(el PMl. d. <9r.'lII.'i. 
213, note) ; as also in the terms 
belonging toTthe Stoic nomencla- 
ture, \6yOt QjlQTlKOl, O.VOjJLQ'TLKn^ 
BaVfACLCrrLKQl, &KTtK&l (1. C. 108 

a) zrf/fe ibid. III. i. 103, 4. But 
the Mnsonius who is called 
Lucius' teacher musb be either 
distinct from Musonius Bnfus, 
or we must suppose, even irre 
spectively of the Tvptos of 
Philostratus, his narrative to 
be inexact ; for as Musonias 
scarcely survived the first cen- 
tury, it is not conceivable that 
Ms disciple should have come 
to Borne after 161 A.D. It 
seems to me most probable 
that the teacher of Lucius is no 
other than Musonius Kufas, and 
that the anecdote, ap. Gell. .V./l. 
is. 2, 8, refers to him; while the 
predicate Tvpios arose through a 
mistake from Tvppijvbs (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 month of his Musonius 
entirely agrees with the quota- 




works, and lie therefore seems "to have occupied 
himself with philosophy more as a scholar than an in- 
dependent thinker. 1 His -work on the gods contents 
itself 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 

tion from Museums Kufus (ap. 
Stob. Jnortt. 29, 78). In the 
first half of the third century 
we hear, through Longinus (ap. 
Porph. V. Plot. 20, of a number 
of philosophers, contemporary 
with this writer, and somewhat 
earlier, and among them are a 
good many Stoics. He men- 
tions as Stoics who were also 
known for their literary activity 
Themistocles (according to 
Syncell. Clironogr. p. 361 B, 
about 228 A.D.), Phoebion, 
and two who had not long 
died (l**XP L irptfiiv &K/jLQi(ra.vrs~), 
Annius and Medina (Por- 
phyry, according to Proclns 1% 
Plat. Remy. p. 41 5, note, in his 
SujUfuKTa npoA^juara 3 mentions 
a conversation with Longinus, 
in which he defended against 
Longimis the Stoic doctrine of 
the eight parts of the soul). 
Among those who confined 
themselves to giving instruction 
(according to Porphyry, I. c. 3, 
probably in Kome),Ath e n sens, 
and Mnsonins. At the same 
period as Plotirms, Trypho 
(described by Porphyry, v. 
Plat. 17, as 2rau:<fc re K&L IlXa- 
ram/cbs) was residing in Home. 
The Athenian Stoic, Callietes, 
mentioned by Porph. ap Euseb. 
Pr. Uv, x. 3, 1, came somewhat 
earlier, about 260 A.D. We 

know nothing as to the dates 
of the following men: Aris- 
toclesof Lampsacus (Suidas, 
sub woe, mentions an exposition 
of his, of a logical treatise of 
Chrysippus),trietwo namesakes 
Theodorus(Diog. ii. 104), of 
whom one probably composed 
the abstract of the writings of 
Teles, from which Stob. Florll. 
Jo.Dam.i. 7,47,T.iv, 164 Hem. 
give s a fragment ; Prota- 
goras (Diog. ix. 56) j Anti- 
bins and Eubius, of Ascalon; 
Publius of Hierapolis (n<for- 
Aios) ap. Steph. Byz. De Url. 
'Aer/caA.. 'lepewr ; the two name- 
sakes, Prod us of Mall os in 
Cilicia (ap. Snid. n/><te\. one 
of these latter is mentioned by 
Proclus In Tim. 166 B, with 
Philonides among the apx^on 
if the pupil of Zeno is here 
intended (Part III. i. 39, 3), 
Proclus himself may be placed 
further hack ; but he cannot 
in any case be older than 
Panffitius, as Suidas mentions an 
vir6fiiviifj.a ratv Aioyevovs (rosier- 
fjidrav, no doubt written by him. 

1 Of. the references to his 
rhetorical writings, his expo- 
sition of the Yirgilian poems, 
and a grammatical work in 
Jahn's Prolegg. in Persittm, 
xiii. sffff. ; Osann. I. c. xxiii. sqq. 

2 Of. PHI. d, Gr. III. i. 520, 


AtnenodoniSj 1 we can see from the fragments pre- 
served, that this treatise regarded its object princip- 
ally from the standpoint of the grammarian. 2 It Is 
an important divergence from the Stoic tradition, if 
he really taught that the soul dies simultaneously 
with the body ; 3 this, however, Is not certain, 4 though 
it Is possible that in his views of the subject he 
allied himself with Panaetius. If, lastly, his ethical 
discourses are praised by Perslns 5 on account of their 
good Influence on those who heard them, we can 
hardly venture to ascribe to him In this sphere 
any Important Individuality, or striking effect on 



1 Slmpl. Cat eg. 5, a 15, 8 j 
47 C; 91, a (ScJiol. in Arist. SO, 
b, note; 47, t>, 22; 57, a, 16; 
80, a, 22) ; Porph. in Cater/. 
4, I (ScJi&l. in Arist. 48. &, 12) ; 
I. c. 21 ; cf. Brandls, Uele r die 
Griech. Ami. d. Arist. Qrg. A bh. 
d. Serl. Akad. 1883, Hist. PJtil. 
in,, p. 275. In this treatise 
was probably to be found the 
statement qnoted by Syrian in 
Metajph. Schol. in AT. 893, a. 9, 
from Cornntns, that he, like 
Boethus the Peripatetic, re- 
dnced the ideas to general con- 

2 Porph. 4, b, says of him 
and Athenodoras : TO. ^Tou/zem 
irepl T(av XQeasv Ka8b \%i$, ola 
ret. Kvpia Kal TO TpcnriKa KaL ocra 
roiavra ... TO: Toiavra ovv irpo- 
<f>povre$ KaliroiasUffTl KaTyyopias 
a.Tropovjn-fs Kal p^i Gvpitneovres 
\XLTT7] (paffiv eTi/at T^V Siaipetnv. 
Similarly Simpl. 5, a, cf. 91, a, 
where Cornutns would separate 
the place from TTOV, and the 
time from xore, because the 

form of expression is different 
in the one case from the other. 
3 Iambi, ap. Stob. Ed. I. 922. 
Does the cause of death lie 
in the withholding of the ani- 
mating air, the extinction of 
the vital power (TC^FOS), or the 
cessation of -vital warmth? 
aAA' e! OUT&JS yiyveTai &, 

POUT-OS oterai. 

4 For though it is probably 
this Cornntns to whom the 
statement of lamblichns refers, 
it is nevertheless possible that 
what he said may relate to the 
animal soul and not to the 
rational and human soul. The 
theories from which lamblichns 
derives his assertion agree with 
the doctrine of the Stoic school, 
according to which death en- 
sues %TCLV vcLVT*X<as yevrirai fj 
favecrts rov al(r0TjrtKov -jn/etJ/taros 
(Plut. Plac. i. 23, 4). 

s Sat. v, 34 *##., 62 sqq. 




philosophy : had this been the case, he would have 
. left stronger traces of it behind him. 

The case is different with Seneca. 1 This philo- 

1 The extensive literature 
concerning Seneca is to be found 
in Bahr, sub woe, in Pauly's 
Rfialencyld. d. Klass. Alterth. 
vi. a, 1037 sgg. Of. likewise, 
respecting Seneca's philosophy, 
Bitter, iv. 189 itgg. ; Baur, 
Seneca, und Paulus (1858, now 
in Drei AbTiandl. &c., p. 377 
sqq.} ; Dorgens, Seneca Disci- 
pline Moralis cum Antoniniana 
ConteMio et Comparatio : Leip- 
zig, 1857 ; Holzherr, Der PJii- 
losoph. L. A. Seneca : East und 
Tub. 1858, 1859 (Gymn. progr.}. 
Concerning Seneca's life and 
writings, besides the many 
older works, Biihr, I. c. ; Bern- 
hardy, GFrundrins der Rom.Litvr. 
4, a, p. Sllsgg.; Teuffel, GeseJi. 
der Rom. Liter. 2, a, p. 616 sgq* 
Born at Corduba, of the eques- 
trian order, the second son of the 
famous rhetorician, M. Anngeus 
Seneca (Sen. Jilpigr. S. Eml. 8, 
9 ; FT. 88 ; ad Melv. 18, 1 sqq. ; 
Tacit. Ann. xiv, 53 et pass.}, 
Lucius Annasus Seneca came as 
a child with his parents to 
Rome (ad Helv. 19, 2). His 
birth must have occurred, ac- 
cording to the statements in 
Ifat. Qu. 1 1, 3 : Hj}. 108, 22, 
in the first years of the Chris- 
tian era. In his early years 
and even afterwards he con- 
stantly suffered from ill health 
(ad Hell). 19, 2; JBp. 54, 1 ; 65, 
1; 78, 1 sqq.; 104, 1), and he 
devoted himself with great ar- 
dour to the sciences (Ep. 78, 3 ; 
cf. 58, 5), and especially to 
philosophy (Ep. 108, 7), to 

which Sotion, the disciple of 
Sextius (vide supra, 181, 2), and 
the Stoic Attalus (vide supra, 
195, 1) introduced him. He 
finally embraced the calling of 
an advocate (JEj). 49, 2), attained 
to the office of qusestor (ad 
Helv. 19, 2), married (cf. De 
Ira, iii. 36, 3 ; Ep. 50, 2 ; and 
concerning a child, Marcus, 
Epigr, 3 ; ad Helv. IB, 4 &%%.; and 
another who had died shortly 
before, I. 0.2, 5 j 18, 6), and was 
happy in his external circum- 
stances (I. G. 5, 4; 14, 3). 
Threatened by Caligula (Dio, 
lix. 19), and banished to Cor- 
sica under Claudius in 41 A.D. 
in consequence of the affair of 
Messalina (Dio, Ix. 8 ; IxL 10 ; 
Sen. jEpigr. S. JExilio ad Polyb. 
13, 2 ; 18, 9 ; ad Helv. 15, 2 $#.) 
he was only recalled after her 
fall by Agrippina in 50 A.D. 
He was immediately made 
prgetor, and the education of 
Nero was confided to him (Tac. 
Ann. xii. 8). After Nero's ac- 
cession to the throne, he, to- 
gether with Burrhus, was for 
a long time the guide of the 
Eoman empire and of the young 
sovereign (Tac. xiii. 2). Further 
details as to Seneca's public life 
and character will be found 
infra, p. 232, 3). With the 
death of Burrhus, however, 
his influence came to an 
end ; Nero discarded the coun- 
sellor who had long become 
burdensome to him (Tac. xiv. 
52 sqg.}, and seized the first 
opportunity of ridding himself 

SESECA. 20;) 

sopher not only enjoys a high reputation ] with his 
contemporaries, and with posterity, and possesses for 
us, considering that most of the Stoical writings 
have been destroyed, an especial importance, but 
he is in himself a really great representative of his 
school, and one of the most influential leaders of the 
tendency which this school took in the Eoman 
world, and especially in the times of the 
Emperors. He is not, indeed, to be regarded as its 
first founder : imperfectly as the history of Eoman 
Stoicism is known to us, we can clearly perceive that 
from the time of Pan set ins, with the growing re- 
striction to ethics, the tendency also to the soften- 
ing of the Stoic severity and the approximation to 
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 many things as an author and 

(cf. xv. 45, 46) and, perhaps, philosopher, but at the same 

also feared. The conspiracy of time testifies to Ms great merits 

Piso in the year 65 A.D. fur- ingenium facile et eopiosuw, 

nished a pretext for the bloody plurimitm gtvdii, mwlta rerum 

mandate, to -which the philo cognitio and the extraordinary 

sopher submitted with manly reputation he enjoyed) ; Plinins 

fortitude. His second wife (J21 J\~at. xiv. 5, 51) ; Tacitus 

Paulina (Ej). 104, 1 *#j.) who (Ann. xiii. 3) ; Columella (R. 

wished to die with him, was B. iii. 3) ; Dio Cass. (lix. 19) ; 

hindered in her purpose after and the Christian writers (cf. 

she had already opened her Holzherr, i. 1 $f .) Otters, in- 

arteries (Tac. Ann. xv. 56-64). deed, as Gell. N. A. xii. 2, and 

1 Concerning the favourable Fronto, ad Anton. 4, 1 gg. 9 123 

verdicts of antiquity of Quin- sgg., speak of him with very 

tilian (who, indeed, censures little appreciation. 
Seneca, Inst. x. 1, 125 sqq., for 


CHAP, that is universally human, based upon immediate 

L_ consciousness and important for moral life the 

universalistic development of ethics the endeavour 
after a system 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 
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 l for himself, 

1 That Seneca is and professes school, and unreservedly to ap- 

to be a Stoic requires no proof, propriate anything that he finds 

Of. the use of no8&nd.nostri,JEp. serviceable, even beyond its 

113, 1 ; 117, 6 etpass. ; and the limits (Ep. 16, 7 ; De Ira, I 6, 

panegyrics he bestows on Stoic- 5). He very frequently applies 

ism, De Coiist. 1 ; Cons, ad Helv, in this manner sayings of Epi- 

12, 14 ; Clemen1;,ii. 5, 3; Ep. 83, 9. curus, whom he judges in regard 

He expresses himself, however, to his personal merits with a 

very decidedly on the right of fairness that is most surprising 

independent judgment, and on from a Stoic (vide PHI. d. Gr. III. 

the task of augmenting by our i. 446, 5) ; and if in this he may, 

own enquiries the inheritance perhaps, be influenced, by the 

we have derived from our prede- predilectionof his friendLucilins 

cessors ( V. B. 3, 2 ; De Otio, 3, for Epicurus, it is, nevertheless, 

1 j Ep. 33, 11; 45, 4 ; 80, 1 ; unmistakable that he wishes to 

64, 7 ###.) He does not hesi- show his own impartiality by 

tate, as we shall find, to oppose this appreciative treatment of a 

tenets and customs of his much -abused opponent. 


is shown In his views concerning the end and problem CHAP. 
of philosophy. If in the original tendencies of __ VIIL 
Stoicism there already lay a preponderance of the #/* foe- 
practical interest over the theoretical, with Seneca lamin 
this was so greatly increased that he regarded manv tf*e jm^ 
things considered by the older teachers of the school $&? 
to be essential constituents of philosophy, as un- *'^- 
necessary and superfluous. Though he repeats in a 
general manner the Stoic determinations respecting 
the conception and parts of philosophy, 1 he lays even 
greater stress than his predecessors on its moral end 
and aim ; the philosopher is a pedagogue of human- 
ity, 2 philosophy is the art of life, the doctrine of 
morals, the endeavour after virtue : 3 in philosophy 
we are concerned not with a game of quick-witted- 
ness and skill, but with the cure of grave evils ; 4 it 
teaches us not to talk, but to act,* 5 and all that a 
man learns is only useful when he applies it to his 
moral condition. 6 According to its relation to this 
ultimate end the value of every scientific activity is 
to be judged : that which does not effect our moral 

1 Of. in regard to the latter * Ep. 117, 33: Adice mine, 

Phil. d. Or. III. i. 51, 2, and to quod adsnescit animus delectare 

the former, 1. c. 61, 1 ; 64, 1 ; sepotius quam sanare et philo* 

67, 2 ; 207 ; and Up. 94 ; -47 sq. ; sopJiiam oWectamentum faeere, 

95, 10. cum remedium sit. 

- Ep. 89, 13. Aristo main- 5 Ep, 20, 2 : Facere docet 

tailed that the panenetic part pldlosopMa, nan dicere, &c., 24 } 

of Ethics is the affair of the 15. 

pedagogue, and not of the philo- 6 Ep. 89, IS: Quicqitid le- 

sopher : Tamquam quicquam fferis ad mores statim rffarag. 

aUud sit sapiens quam generis Loc. tit. 23 : fft&c aim lie . . . 

Jiwmani pesdagogus. onmia ad mores ft ad sedan- 

3 PMl. d. 6fr, III. lpp. 51, 2 ; dam rdbiem adfectuum refer ens. 

54 ? 1 ; JSp. 117, 12 ; 94, 39. Similarly 117, 33. 


CHAP, condition 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 
conversant he himself is with them. What are we 
profited, he asks, by all the enquiries with which 
Uselessmss the antiquarians occupy themselves ? Who has ever 
become the better and the juster for them ? * How 
small appears the value of the so-called liberal arts, 
when we remember that it is virtue alone that is 
important, that it claims our whole soul, and that 
philosophy only leads to virtue ! 2 But how much 
that is superfluous has even philosophy admitted into 
itself, how much trifling word-catching and unprofit- 
able subtlety ! Even in the Stoic School, 3 how many 
things of this kind have found entrance ! Seneca 
for his part will have nothing to do with them, even 
in cases where the subtleties of which he complains 

1 revit. Vit. 13, where after snientia ftonorwn ao malorum 
the citation of numerous ex- immutMli, qua soli philosopliiee 
amples of antiquarian and his- oompetit : niJiil autem ulla ars 
torical enquiries he concludes" alia de lonis ac malls qucerit 
thus : Cwjw ista errores <niinu<- (p. 28). Magna et spaiAosa res 
ent y cujus cupiditates prement? est sapientia. Vacua illi loeo 
Quern fortiorem,qiiemjustioreTn, opus est : de divinis humanisqne 
quern liberalwrem facient ? discendwm est, de prtzteritis, de 

2 This is discussed at length futuris, de caducis, de <%ternis, 
in Ep. 88. Seneca here shows c. Hcec tarn multa, tarn 
that grammar, music, geometry, magna ut Tia'bere possint liberuwi 
arithmetic, and astronomy are hospitium, mpervacua ex animo 
at most a preparation for the tollenda, sunt. Non daUt se in 
higher instruction, but in them- has angustias virtus : laxum 
selves are of subordinate value spatiimi res magna desiderat. 
(p. 20) : Scis qufe recta sit linea : JExpellantur omnia. Totum, pec- 
quid tibi prodest) si quid in vita tu$ illi vacet (p. 33-35). 
rectum sit, ignoms ? &c.(p. 13). 3 Of. Ep. 88, 42, 

Una re consummatur aninws, 


are evidently connected with the presuppositions CHAP. 
of the Stoic doctrine, 1 and in the same way he VIJI * 
easily disposes of the dialectical objections of their 
opponents : he considers as trifling juggleries not 
worth the trouble of Investigating, not only the 
fallacies which so readily occupy the Ingenuity of a 
Chrysippus and Ms followers/ but also those compre- 
hensive discussions of the sceptics, which gave the 
ancient Stoa so much employment ; and the eclectic 
arguments against the sensible phenomenon are 
simply reckoned by him among the superfluous and Swrjiu- 
trifling enquiries which merely serve to divert us &*& 
from the things that are necessary for us to know. 3 

1 Up. 117, 13 ; Ep. 113, I $gq. 
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 passim ride infra, p. 208, 1. 

2 J&p. 45, 4: His predeces- 
sors, the great men, have left 
many problems : Et im-enissent 
forsitan neeessaria, nisi et super- 
vacua quaesissent. Jfultum ittis 
temporis ver'borum camllatw 
eripuit et captiosw disputatwnes^ 
gu(g acumen inritum, . . . exer- 
cent. We should search out 
not the meaning of words, but 
things the good and the evil ; 
and not fence with sophisms the 
acetabula prcBstiglatorum fcf. 
the fy-nQoirouKrai of Arcesilaus, 
Phil. d. Gr. m. i. 495, 4) igno- 

rance of which does not harm, 
nor knowledge of them profit 
us : Quid me defines in eo y gruem 
tu ipse if/ev$6jjLjfov adpella . . .? 
Ecce iota ndJd nta meittttur, 
&c. Similarly Ep, 48 ; 49 

5, *M. 

3 Ep : 88, 43 : Audi, qitautvm, 
mali faciat nimia suteilita* et 

$uam iufesta ventati sit. Pro- 
tagoras says we can dispute for 
and against everything; Nau- 
siphanes, that everything is 
not, just as much as it is ; Par- 
menides, that nothing is except 
the universe ; Zeno, of Elea, 
nihll esse. Circa eadem fere Pyr- 
rJwnei verxantur et Megarici et 
JEretrlei et Academic^, gui no- 
ram indusseruntseiejitiam, mkil 
sdre Jieee omnia in ilium super 
vacuum studi&rum IVberalium 
gregem cornice, &c. JV<w& fam,le 
dixerim, uiris magi* ira$car> 
illis qui non nlhil scire wliie- 
riint, an illis, qui ne hoc quidem^ 
'jwMs reliquerunt, ntfdl scire. 


CHAP. Wisdom, he says, is a simple thing and requires no 

1__ 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 ; l 
they inj ure, indeed, rather than benefit, for they render 
the mind small and weakly, instead of elevating it. 2 
We certainly cannot, as we have already seen and 
shall see later on, take Seneca exactly at his word in 
regard to such declarations ; but it is undeniable 
that he wishes to limit philosophy in principle to 
moral problems, and only admits other things so far 
as they stand in manifest connection with those 

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 
philosophy, 3 the subject is only cursorily and occa- 

1 Up. 106, 11. After a Ep. 47, 4 sg.; 87, 38 $q. ; 88, 

thorough discussion of the pro- 36 : Plus scire velle giutm sit 

position that the a;ood is a body satis, intemperantice genus est. 
(Part III. i. 120, 1, 3 ; 119, 1) : 2 In Ep. 117, 18, after dis- 

.Latrunculis ludimus, in, super- cussing the statement that sa>- 

vaoaneis siibtilitas teritur : non pientia, and not sapvre, is a good: 

faeiioit ~bo)ios ista, sed doctos, Omniaista circa sapiential-nan 

apertior res est sapere, imnw in ipsa swit : at noHs in ipsa 

siniplieior. Pauds exb ad men- comnwrandum est . . . h&G vero, 

tern lonam uti literis : sed not de quibus paulo ante dieebam, 

lit cetera in supervacaneum inimiwit et depmmunt, nee, ut 

diffimdimus, ita, pliilosopTdam 3)utatis,eccacii,urit,sedexte7i'U<ant. 

ipmm. Quemadm,odum omnium Similarly, Ep. 82, 22. 
reruw,, sic literarum quoque 3 Vide PkiLd. G-r. IILi. 61, 1; 

intemperantia laboramus : non 64, 1 ; 67, 2. Elsewhere, however 

vita sed soholcB discimus. 01 (Ep, 95, 10), philosophy is di- 


sionally touched upon In his writings. He expresses r - HAP. 

himself at times in agreement with his school re- _JLllL_ 
specting the origin of conceptions, and the demon- 
strative force of general opinion; 1 he speaks of 
the highest conception and of the most nniver-al 
conceptions subordinated to it ; - he shows general>: 
that he is well acquainted with the logical defini- 
tions of his school ; 3 but he himself has no inclin- 
ation to enter into them more deeply, because in 
his opinion this whole region lies too far from that 
which alone occupied him in the last resort the 
moral problem of man. 

Far greater is the value which he ascribes to 
Physics, as in his writings also he has devoted to it 
greater space. He praises Physics for imparting to 
the mind the elevation of the subjects with, -which 
it occupies itself; 4 in the preface, indeed, to Ms 
writings on Natural History, 5 he goes so far as to 

vided, as with the Peripatetics, 3): the animate is partly mortal 

into theoretical and practical and partly immortal (of. Ep. 

philosophy ; and in Ep. 94, 45, 124, 14). 

virtue is similarly divided (as 3 Besides the quotations sn- 

with Pansstins, xide supra, p, pra,pp, 207, 1 ; 208, 1, 2, cf. in 

48). This division -was all the regard to this, Ep. 118, 4 *., 

more obvious to a philosopher and PJdl. d, Gr.TLl, i. 97 2 ; EJJ. 

who ascribed no independent 102, 6 sq. : 3'at. Qtt. II. 2, 2, and 

value to logic. Phil d. GT. III. i. 96 7 2 : 118, 4. 

1 PUld.G7-.lILi. 74,3; 75,2. * Ep. 117, 19: De 'Deornm, 

2 JSp. 58, 8 sq^.j PlnLd. Gr. nafur& qii&ramii*+ de giderum 
IIL i. 92. The highest concep- aKrnento, de Jds tarn rariig gfel- 
tion is that of Being ; this is larum, disctiraibii*, &zc. Igta, 
partly corporeal, partly tncor- jam a formation? moritm veces- 
poreal ; the corporeal is partly sernnt : sed lerani an j mum et 
living, and partly lifeless ; the ad ipsarum qua* tratiant rerum, 
living is partly animated with a magjiitudinem adtollunt. 

soul and partly inanimate (tf/ux^ s ^ot- Q u - i- ProL Cf. vi, 
and (pv<ri$, vide iUd, IEL i. 192, 4, 2 : * Quod? inquu, < erit j)re- 





His Jrigh 

maintain that Physics are higher than Ethics, in 
proportion as the Divine with which they are con- 
cerned is higher than the Human ; they alone lead 
us from earthly darkness into the light of heaven, 
show us the internal part of things, the Author and 
arrangement of the world ; it would not be worth 
while to live, if physical investigations were forbidden 
Where would be the greatness of combating 


our passions, of freeing ourselves from evils, if the 
spirit were not prepared by Physics for the know- 
ledge of the heavenly, and brought into communica- 
tion with God if we were only raised above the 
external, and not also above ourselves, &c. Mean- 
while, we soon perceive that these declamations 
express rather a passing mood than the personal 
opinion of the philosopher. Seneca elsewhere reckons 
physical enquiries, to which we have just heard 
him assign so high a position, among the things 
which go beyond the essential and necessary, and are 
rather au affair of recreation than of philosophical 
work proper; though he does not overlook their 
morally elevating effect on the mind ; l he declares 

tium opera ? ' Quo null-urn 
magis ext, nosse naturam. The 
greatest gain of this enquiry 
is, quod Jiominem magnificetitia 
sui detinet, nee mereede, sed 
miraculo eolitur (.Ep. 95, 10, 
&c . ) . 

1 Ep. 117, 19 (cf. sup. p. 209, 
4) : Dialectic is only concerned 
with the outworks of wisdom. 
Etia/in si quid evagari libet, 
amplos Jiabet ilia [sapientia] 
spatiososgue secessus : de Deorum 

natura qu<?ramm, de siderum 
alimento, &c. Similarly in JUp. 
65, 15, a discussion on ultimate 
causes is defended as follows : 
Ego quidem prior a ilia ago et 
tracto, quibus pacatnr animus, 
et in e prius scrutor^ deinde Jiii n c 
mundum. Ne nu?ie quidem 
tempm, ut existimas, perdo. 
1st a enim omnia, si ?wn conci- 
dantur nee in hanc sitbtilitatem 
imdilem distrahaiitiir, adtollunt 
et levant a-nimuni. In the con- 



the essential problem of man to be the moral 

problem, and only admits natural enquiries as a 
means and help to this ; ! and tie considers it a duty 
to Interrupt from time to time his expositions of 
natural history by moral reflections and practical 
applications, because all things must have reference 
to our welfare. 2 The interconnection between the 
theoretical and practical doctrines of the Stoic 
system is not abandoned by him, but It seems to be 
laxer than with. Chrysippus and his followers. 

In those of Ms writings that have come down to 
us, Seneca has treated in detail only that part of 
Physics which the ancients were accustomed to call 
Meteorology. To this In the last years of his life 3 
he devoted seven books of enquiries into natural 


teniplation of the -world and 
its author, man raises himself 
above the burden of the flesh, 
learns to know his high origin 
and destiny, to despise the body 
and the corporeal, and to free 
himself from it. Lofty as is 
the position here assigned to 
speculative enquiries, Seneca 
in the last resort can onl}- 
justify them by their moral 
effect on men. 

1 JXat. Qu. iii. Prtrf. 10, 18 : 
Quid p'Tcec'lj)muii in rebus hit- 
nianis est? . . . Vitia doinuuse 
. . . erlgere animum sujira minas 
et promisza fortun&i &c. Hoc 
noMs pTodent inspicere rerum 
natitram, because we thereby 
loose the spirit from the body 
and from all that is base and 
low, and because the habit of 
thought thus eng-endered is 
favourable to moral convictions. 

2 Cf. Xat. Qn. iii. IS ; iv. 13; 

v. 15, 18 ; vi. 2, 32 ; but, espe- 
cially ii. 59. After Le has 
treated of lightning at l^ncrtL, 
he remarks that it is ixoieli 
more necessary to remove the 
fear of it, and proceeds to do 
so in these words : Sffnuir quo 
rocas : am it I 7; us en i at relt us om it i- 

tare inixceiidum c&t. CUM it/tus 

per ot'culia, naiurcp) cum til r hi a 
tracfamus, vinfl'tcattdux ext a, 
ynalis suis animvs ac mtiinde 

Jirmandus, &:c. 

3 This appears frnm iii. Prerf., 
and from the description of the 
earthquake which in the year 
63 A.D. destroyed Pompeifand 
Herculaneum, vi. i. 26, 5. Seneca 
had already composed a treatise 
on earthquakes in Ms earlier 
years (Sat. Qu, vi. 4, 2). 



His meta- 
and theo- 

history. Meanwhile the 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 
history which are attributed to Seneca. 3 The meta- 
physical and theological opinions which he occasion- 
ally enunciates, are of 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 all the Eeal ; 4 

1 In proof of this let anyone 
read the beginning of the trea- 
tise, and he will scarcely be 
able to resist the feeling of an 
almost comic disappointment, 
when the author, after the 
above-mentioned declamations 
on the dignity of natural en- 
quiry, after the concluding sen- 
tence : Si niMl aliud, hoc certe 
sol am, omnia, angusta esse, 
metisus Dcuin, continues : 2\ r unc 
ad propositum veniam opus. 
Audi Quid de iff nidus sent lam, 
QUOS a>er transversos . . . 

2 Cf. on this subject, and the 
content of Nat. Qu., Phil. d. Gr. 
III. i. 191, 2, 3. 

3 According to Plin. H. N. i. 
9, 36 ; ix. 53, 167, he consulted 
Seneca about Ms statements on 
water - animals and stones. 
Pliny, vi. 17, 60, and Servius on 
J&n. ix. 31, mention a treatise, 
De situ Indies ; Serv. J38n. vi. 
154, De situ et sacris JEgyp- 
torum. Cassiodorus, De Art. 
Lib. c. 7, speaks of another 
treatise, De forma mwidi. 

4 CtJEp. 117,2; 106,4; 106, 
5 ; 113, 1 sqq. ; where Seneca, 
indeed, opposes some conclu- 
sions of Stoic materialism, 
but expressly teaches it him- 


like them he discriminates matter from the force CHAP. 
working in it, and the Deity from matter ; ] and he VllL 
does this in exactly the same sense as they do : the 
active force is the spiritus, the breath, which forms 
and holds together material substances. 2 Even the 
Deity is the Spirit, not as an incorporeal essence, hut 
as the TTvsv/Jia permeating the whole universe, 3 cor- 
poreally and in an extended manner. So also he 
follows the Stoic doctrine of the relation between 
God and the world : God is not merely the reason of 
the world, but the world itself, the whole of the 
visible, as of the invisible things. 4 Seneca, however, 
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 

1 Cf. Gr. Ill, i. 131, rialistically ; that even visible 
4 ; 134, 1 ; also 177, 1. Proofs things are described as parts of 
of the existence of God, 131, 3 ; the Deity (Phil. d. Gr. III. i. U6, 
161, 2 ; 135, 5. 6) ; that only a corporeal god 

2 Ibid. III. i. 118, 4. Seneca's can take back into himself the 
conception of: spirit us will he corporeal world by means of 
discussed infra, p. 219, in con- the world's conflagration (Z, e. 
nection with his psychology. 141, 1). If, therefore, Seneca, 

3 Seneca is not very explicit (ad Helv. 8, 3) places the Pla- 
here, but, from the fact* that tonic conception of Deity as 
everything efficient must be- a incorporeal reason, and the 
body (Jp. 117, 2), it follows Stoic conception, according to 
that what he says (Up. 102, which the Deity is the univer- 
7) must hold good even of the sally diffused spirits*, side by 
world viz., that the unity of side without discriminating 
everything depends upon the them, the second only corre- 
sjriritus which holds it to- spends with his own opinion, 
gether ; that the soul which he 4 Cf . PMl d. Gr. III. i. 146, 6 ; 
represents to be of the same 148, IjalsoJV. 16(ap.Lact.I>2s. 
substance with Deity in fact, i.5, 27) : guamr4s ipse p&r totum 
as a part of Deity is, as we seaorj)us(&Q.mundi)inte}iderat; 
shall presently find, conceived and also the Stoic doctrine of 
by Seneca, in agreement with Pneuma and r6vos. 

the whole Stoic school, mate- 


CHAP, activity of Grod in the world under the idea of Provi- 


L_ 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, His beneficent good- 
ness, are continually extolled. 1 He loves us as a 
father, and desires to be loved by us, and not feared ; 2 
and therefore the world, whose Creator and ruler 3 He 
is, is so perfect and beautiful, and the course of the 
world so blameless ; which Seneca proves in many 
ways. 4 Since his general theory of the universe has 
its centre in the moral life of man, so in his con- 
ception of God the physical element is less promi- 
nent than the ethical : it is the care of the Deity 
for men, His goodness and wisdom, in. which His 
perfection is principally revealed to Seneca; and 
therefore it is inevitable that the personal aspect of 
the Deity, in which, as reason forming and govern- 
ing the world and working according to moral ends, 
He is distinguished from the world itself, should 
preponderate, as compared with the Pantheistic 
aspect, in which the Deity is not only the soul, but 
the substance of the world. It is going too far, how- 
ever, to say 5 that Seneca abandoned the Stoic idea, 
and thus gave to ethics a new direction ; that 
whereas in true Stoicism Gocl and matter are in 

1 Authorities are given in 3 Fr. 26 j b. Lact. Inst. i. 6, 

Pkll d. ffr. III. 1 139, 1 ; 26 ; F. 2to. 8, 4. 

348, 1. Others may easily be 4 Of. Phil, d, @r. III. i. p. 

found: Cf. Holzhonr, i. 90 SQ. 171, B j 178, 2 ; 135, 5. 

* X>fl P-MV. 15 8$.; 2, 6; 8 Holzherr,i. 33 j 36; 

Eawf. ii. 29, 4-6; iv. 19, 1; ii. 5 8$$. 
De Ira, ii. 27, 1; cf. p. 313, 1. 


their essential nature one, in Seneca they appear as CHAP. 
essentially different ; that God is to him the incor- VIIL 
poreal nature, who has formed the world by His free- 
will, and that his god is no longer the god of the 
Stoics, but of the Platonists. Our previous argu- 
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, regarded Him as the Spirit that guides all 
things, the reason that has ordered and adapted all 
things for the wisest ends ; by them also the belief 
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. 1 They will also have shown that Seneca, 
on the other hand, is far from abandoning those 
definitions of his school according to which the 
distinction between efficient force and matter is only 
a derived distinction, and consequently is often an- 
nulled in the course of the world's development ; 2 
that he, too, seeks God in the irvsvfia, conceived as 

1 Of. Phil. d. Gr. III.l. 139, 1 ; the doctrine of the Stoic school, 
159, 1; 161; 163, 1; 171 sg.; to which Seneca, indeed, ex- 
505 8q. pressly appeals ; and when in 

2 S/p. 6, 16, where Seneca says De Prov. 5,9 (the mere qttes- 
exactly the same as is quoted tionsin Nat. $w.L JrW/116,can 
from Chrysippxis, Phil, d. Grr. prove nothing) he brings forward 
III. i. 143, 2. Similarly Holz- for the Theodicee the proposi- 
herr's chief proof for the essen- tion that the Divine artist is 
tial difference between God and dependent on his material, he 
matter (23p. 65), as will be seen follows herein not only Plato, 
from Phil. d. Qr. III. i. 131, 4 but also Chrysippus, as is shown 
*#., entirely corresponds with Phil. d. &r III. i. 177, 1. 


CHAP. . .corporeal, and not in the incorporeal Spirit ; l declares 
_ 1__ the -parts of the world to be parts of the Deity, and 
God and the world to be the same ; 2 identifies 
nature, fate, and God, 3 and reduces the will of God 
to the law of the universe, and Providence to the 
unalterable concatenation of natural causes. 4 If, 
therefore, a certain difference exists between his 
theology and that of the elder Stoics, this does not 
consist in his giving up any essential definition of 
theirs, or introducing any new definition ; it is 
merely that among the constituents of the Stoic 
conception of God he lays greater emphasis on the 
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 is subordinate to the former, so the 
metaphysical and physical determinations of the 
Stoic theology are in his exposition less prominent 
than the ethical. But it was all the easier on this 
account for the dualism of the Stoic ethics to react 
upon his theology, and it is undeniable that the 

1 Vide supra, 213, 3. 

2 Phil. d. (}?. III. i. 146, 6; Dei 9iom>i)ia> sunt wa/rw ntentis 
14$, 1 ; 140 m ; J8p. 92, 30: Totwn wa gfft&stafa 

hoc, quo contincmur, et umrm cst 4 LOG. tit. and Phil. S. G<r, 

ct Daus: et sooil summ qfus 0t III. 157, 2; 168, 2; of. 108, 1, 

membra. 2. Tihe same results from Be'ncf. 

3 Pkil d, Gr. III. 1 140 m. j vi. 23, though Seneca at first ex- 
148, 1 ; Henef. iv. 8, 2 : Nw >na- presses himself as if the will 
tura sine Bco est nee Dots siM of the gods were the author 
natura, Ke& idem est utritMgve, of the laws of the universe. 
di&tat (>fficio . . . naturam, 


opposition of God and matter, in direct connection - CHAP. 
with the ethical opposition of sense and reason, is VIIL 
more strongly asserted by him than their original 
unity. 1 If, however, on this side he has reached the ' 
limits of the Stoic doctrine, he did not really over- 
step them. 

Nor do we find in Seneca's theory of the world Tkeorintf 
and of nature anything that contradicts the prin- tJie m>rld 
ciples of the Stoics. His utterances concerning the nature. 
origin, the end, and the new formation of the world ; 2 
its form ; 3 its unity establishing itself out of contra- 
dictions, 4 and maintaining itself in the ceaseless 
change of things ; its beauty 5 asserting itself in the 
multiplicity of its productions ; the perfect adapta- 
tion of means to ends in its arrangement/ as to 
which even the evil in it should not cause us any 
doubt ; 7 all these serve to complete and verify the' 
accounts we have from other sources respecting the 
doctrines of his school. To the littleness and super- 

1 Vide ISp. 65, especially 2 27, 3 SQ. : V. Be. 8> 4 sq. ; Jgp. 

and 23. 107, 8 ; and Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 

8 PML d. Gr. III. i. 149, 3 ; 179, 3 ; 18S, 1. 

144, 1; 152, 2; 154, 1; 155; 156, 5 J^c.ett.l71,3;j?d/.iv.23. 

3. In Seneca these doctrines 6 J8p. 118, 16; I>e PromdA. 1, 

are connected with the theory 2-4 ; Nat. Qu. i. PTOCGDI. 14 s$. 

that mankind and the world in Of. "with these passages Sen, 

general had been un corrupted Benef. iv. 5 ; ad Mcvre. 18. The 

in proportion as they were conception of the world as an 

nearer their first beginnings, itrls Dis Jiomini'biisgve com- 

He opposes, however, the ex- wiunis 9 in the latter passage 

aggerated notions of Posido- is eminently Stoic. Vide PML 

nlus on this subject. Gf . J2p. d. Gr. III. 1. 285, 1 ; 286, 2 ; S61 sq* 

90, especially from s. 36, and 7 Concerning the Stoic Theo- 

PJtil. d. Gr. III. i. 269, 6. dicee, and Seneca's participa- 

8 FT. 13, and PMl. d. 6fr> III. tion in it (about which much 

i. 146, 6, end. might be quoted) vide ibid. III. 

4 JV. Qu. iil 10, 1, 3 ; \ii. i. 173 sg$. 


CHAP, ficiality into which, the Stoic teleology had already 

L_ fallen at an early period, he opposes the propositions 

that the world was not created merely for men : it 
rather carries its purpose in itself and follows its 
own laws ; l it is an undue limitation when we place 
it under the aspect of the useful, instead of ad- 
miring its glory as such. 2 Pie does not, however, 
deny that in the arrangement of the world regard 
was paid to the welfare of man, and that the gods 
unceasingly show the greatest benevolence to men. 3 
What he says likewise concerning the system of the 
universe and its parts- the elements, their qualities 
and their transition into each other; 4 on the 
heavenly bodies, their revolution, their divine 
nature, 5 their influence on earthly things ; 6 the 
earth, and the spirit that animates it ; 7 on the 
regular interconnection of the universe, 8 interrupted 
by no empty spaces, all this only deviates from the 
Stoic tradition in regard to certain details which do 
not affect his theory of the universe as a whole; 9 

1 Be Im> 27, 2; Nat. Qu.viL JBcnsf. t c.\ Nat. Qu. ii. 11; 
30, 3 ; Eetief. vi. 20. iii. 29, 2), but he couples with 

2 JRenef. iv. 23 sq. it in the manner of his school 

3 Benef. I. e. ; vi. 23, 3 .<?#. ; i. the theory of a natural pro- 
1. 9 ; ii. 29, 4 sq. ; iv. 5 ; Nat, gnostication through the stars, 
Qv>. v. 18 &tpa8S. which, as he believes, is as little 

4 PMl. d. 6fr. III. 1. 179, 3 confined to the five planets as 
(Nat. Q%. iii. 10, 1 ; 3) ; ibid. III. the influence above mentioned 
i. 183, 2; 184, I (Nat. Qu,. ii, (Nat. Qit.ii. 32, 6 3$. j ad Marc. 
10) ; and iUd. 185, 3 (Nat. Qu. 18, 3). 

vi. 16); Nat. C; J&>.31,*5. 7 Nat. Qu. vi. 16; ii. 6. On 

5 Nat. Qu. vi. 16, 2 ; vii. 1, 6 ; the repose of the earth, wide D& 
2.1, 4 ; J3ew>f. iv. 23, 4; vi. 21- Pnmd> i 1, 2 ; l$p. 93, 9; Nat. 
23. Qu. i. 4 ; of. vii. 2, 3. 

6 In regard to this influence 8 Nat. Qu, ii. 2-7 (cf. Phil. 
Seneca alludes first to the natu- d. Or. III. 'i. 187, 4). 

ral influence of the stars (0.ff. 9 Bo in regard to the comets, 


He also adheres to that tradition in the few passages CHAP. 

to be found in his works mentioning terrestrial _ L_ 
natures exclusive of man. 1 

In his views of human nature he is farther 


removed from the doctrine of the elder Stoics. The 
groundwork of these views is formed by the Stoic 
psychology with its materialism; but the dualism 
of the Stoic ethics, the reaction of which on his 
theoretical view of the world had already made itself 
felt in his theology, acquires a stronger and more 
direct influence on his anthropology, in which con- 
sequently two tendencies cross one another. On the 
one hand, he wishes to derive, with his school, the 
whole life of the soul from a simple principle con- 
ceived materially ; on the other, the ethical oppo- 
sition of the inner and the outer, which even in the 
Stoic doctrine is so sharply accented, is transferred 
by him to the essential nature of man, and based 
upon it; and thus over against the ancient Stoic 
monism a dualism, is introduced, which approximates 
to the Platonic anthropology, and depends upon it. 
The soul, says Seneca (in general agreement with 
the Stoics), is a body, for otherwise it could not 
possibly have any effect upon the body, 2 It must, 

which he considers to be wan- indeed, ascribes to the animals 

dering stars with very distant a prinoipale, but denies them 

orbits (Nat. Qu* vii. 22 *,) no ^ on ^y re &son, but affections 

1 Seneca ag % rees with the dis- (De Ira, i. 3). With this coin- 

crimination of i'ts and Averts, cides what is remarked con- 

fee. (PML d. Gfr. III. i. 192, 3) cerning the soul life of animals 

by virtue of his classification (JEp. 121, 5 sqq. ; 124, 16 sqq.). 
of essential natures mentioned 2 He expresses himself quite 

8upra,j). 209, 2; like Chrysippus unequivocally on this point in 

(PUL d. Gr< III. i. 193, 1) he, JBp. 106, 4, and it is not true 




however, certainly be the finest of all substances, finer 
even than fire and air. 1 It consists, in a word, of 
warm breath, or Trvev/Aa? This theory had not pre- 
vented the elder Stoics from recognising the divine 
nature and dignity of the human spirit to the fullest 
extent, and Seneca is so completely possessed by it 
that there is no other theorem which he reiterates 
more frequently and more emphatically. Human 
reason is to him an effluence of Deity, a part of the 
Divine Spirit implanted in a human body, a god who 
has taken up his abode there ; and on this our 
relationship to Grod he bases, on the one hand, his 

(Holzherr, ii. 47) to say that lie 
is arguing from a Stoic premiss 
which he did not himself share. 
On the contrary, he is speaking 
in his own name ; and if he 
ultimately declares the investi- 
gation of the question whether 
the good is a body to be worth- 
less (s-itjpra, p. 207, 1 ), it does not 
follow that he himself does not 
regard the good as such, still less 
that he was not in earnest as to 
the proposition which is brought 
forward to assist tins enquiry, 
but is quite independent of it 
viz., that the soul is a body. 
The same holds good of the 
further proposition (I. c.) that 
the affections and the diseases 
of the soul are bodies, and of 
the reason given for it that 
they cause the changes of ex- 
pression, blushing and turning 
pale, &c., and that they cannot 
be accounted for : Tom muni- 
fextas 'Mtas corpori imprimi 
to* ff. corjww. This also Seneca 
declares to be his own opinion. 
If, however, the affections are 
something corporeal, so is the 

soul ; for an affection is only 
the animus quodaMi modo se 
Mb&tu (Phil. d. Or. III. i. 120, 
3) ; and if the corporeal alone 
can work upon the body, the 
soul must be something cor- 
poreal, as Cleanthes had already 
shown (ibid. III. i. 194, 1). 

1 ]3p. 57, #. As the flame or 
the air cannot be subjected to 
pressure or a blow, sio animus, 
qui cis toMiisxiwo oonstatj de- 
jjreh&njl'l noti potcst . . . animo, 
qm a&liiic tenuwr est igtw, jpvr 
omne corjnt<!t ftt>gti est. 

2 JSp. 50, 6. If a man can 
bend crooked wood, and make 
it straight, quanto faeilius 
(t'liim us ati(?jj)itfflW9iff>M> , fiend MUs 
et ovi-rbi hit more oibseqwMtior / 
Quid enwt est aliud aniw.tis 
qu(im> ftuodami modo $6 Jtfibens 
sjtiri.ttts? Vides atttem tanto 
s/riritum esse faoiliore^i omni 
alia mat&ria>> qua/tto tenttior est. 
Of. Phil d. &r. III. i. 196, 2, and 
142, 2, where definitions entirely 
similar are proved to be uni- 
versal among the Stoics. 


demand for the elevation of the soul above the CHAP. 
earthly, and for the recognition of the dignity of VIIL 
mankind in every man; and, on the other, the 
internal freedom of the man who is conscious of his 
high origin and essential nature. 1 This thought, 
however, takes a direction with Seneca which makes 
him deviate from the ancient Stoic doctrine on the 
side of Platonism. The Divine in man is his reason, 
and that alone ; but in opposition to reason stand 
the irrational impulses, the affections ; and in com- 
bating the affections Seneca, as we shall find, in 
accordance with the whole Stoic school, finds the 
weightiest moral problem. The elder Stoics had 
not allowed this to confuse them in their belief as to 
the oneness of man's essential nature. But already 
Posidonius had discovered that the affections couldnot 
be explained, unless, with Plato, irrational powers of 
the soul were admitted as well as the reason. 2 Similar 
reflections must have had the more influence on 
Seneca's view of human nature. With all the greater 
force, the more vividly he felt its moral weakness and 
imperfection, the more absolutely he was convinced 
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 
manners cease ; 3 and that even after the renovation 

1 Some of his utterances on 12 ; JSp. 41, 5 j 44, 1 j 65, 20 so.* 

this subject are quoted, Phil d. 120, 14, &c. 

Gr. III. i. 200, 2 ; 201, 1 ; and 2 Of. supra, p. 64. 

mpra> 216, 2 j vide V&B& ad Helm. a Cf. PML d. Grf. HI. i. 253 

6, 7 ; 11, 6 $. ; Nat. Qu. i. Prcef. *%. ; JSenef, vii. 27 ; Hj). 94, 54 ; 


time ^ innocence would 


Yirr. ^e on iy O f short duration. 1 Such a universal phe- 

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 therefore in man, 
side by side with the Divine, there must also be an 
element not Divine ; and side by side with reason, 
from which error and sin cannot be derived, an 
element which is irrational and strives against 
reason. 2 This irrational element of human nature 
Seneca finds primarily in the body, the opposition of 
which to the Spirit he emphasises much more 
strongly than the ancient Stoics appear to have 
done. The body, or, as he also contemptuously calls 
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 : a 
burden by which it is oppressed : a fetter, a prison, 
for the loosing and opening of which it must neces- 

and elsewhere. Expressions like natural destiny and vocation, 

those in JBp. 11, 1-7; 57, 4, are and are not inherent in us; 

ot less importance. they develop themselves gradu- 

1 Nat. QM. iii. 30, 8 ; cf. PJdL ally. But that does not exclude 

d. Gr III. i. p. 156, 3. the theory that they develop 

' 2 Seneca himself seems freely themselves from natural causes. 
to admit this. l Nrms' lie says, 8 /#>. 05, 22 : NuMgwwi we 

in Ep. 04:, 55, si cxistwws euro istft omnjM'llflt (id ineftwn, 

noluenwi vitito nasti: sttjw- . . . WMnqunM in, fwnorcn Jwjus 

wwermt, inyesta, sunt . . . nulli cor/Htwulimtittttor. Cum W.WM 

nos ritio nfitura cmoiliat : Ufa wit, di&traJiam nm Ulo sooift- 

inteqrost ac lilwros gen nit. But tatvm . . . contemptm oorporis 

this* utterance must be judged &ni corta libertds eat. Concorn.- 

accordinfx to the standard of ing 1 the expression cf. (id Ma/ro. 

the Stoic fatalism, Vices stand, 24, 5 ; Kp. 74, 16 ; 02, 10 j arid 

iadeed, in opposition to our Phil, d. 6V. III. i. 445J, 8. 


sarily long; 1 with its flesh it must do battle, CHAP. 
through its body it is exposed to attacks and suffer- YIIL 
ings, but in itself it is pure and invulnerable, 2 
exalted above the body, even as Grod is exalted 
above matter. 3 The true life of the soul begins, 
therefore, with the departure from the body, and 
though Seneca is averse to exchanging the Platonic 
belief in immortality 4 for the Stoic theory of a 
limited continuance of existence after death, he 
closely approximates to the latter 5 (as has already 
been shown) in his idea of the close relationship 
existing between the present and future life, and 
also in respect to the duration of future existence 
expressions involuntarily escape him which a Stoic 
in the strictest sense of the term would not have 
ventured to employ ; 6 even the pre-existence of the 
soul, which as personal existence certainly had no 
place in his system, finds countenance in passages 

1 %p. 92, 13, 33 : The body 2 Ad Marc. 24, 5 : Omne illi 

is a garment, a vela/nie'iitwn of cum kac came grave certamen 

the soul, an onus necessarium. est, ne abstrahatur et sidat. 

102, 26: The day of death is Ad Helv. 11, 7: Corpmculmi 

ceterni natalis. Depone onus : hoc, custodia et vlnculum animi, 

Quid cunGtaris ? 120, 14 : Nee hue* atque Ulna jactatur . . . 

domum esse Jwe corpus, sed Jios- animus quidem ipse sacer et 

pitium et quidem breve hospi- after tius est et cui non jpossit 

tium. 65, 16 : COTJJUS JWG anwii inici vnamis. 

pondus ae 'pwna est : prcvnente 8 Ep. 65, 24 : Quern in lioo 

illo urgetur, in vinoulis est, nisi mundo locum Deus obtinet, hunc 

acoessit pMlosopliia,, &c. Loo. in Jiomine animus. JVa. Qu>. 

cit. 21 : I will not be a slave to Prof. 14. 

my body, quod equideni non 4 Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 154, 1 ; 

aliter adspicio quam vinclum 202, 1. 

aliquod libertati tnece oircunida- 5 Ibid. 203 sq. 

turn . . . in hoc o"bnoxio domi- G Iwimortalis, aeternus (J$]j>. 

cilio animus liber habitat. 57, 9 ; and Phil. d. 6fr. III. i. 

Ep. 102, 22 ; ad Marc. 24, 5 ; ad 154, 1 ; 203, 3). 
Polyl. 9, 3 5 Part III i. 203, 3. 


CHAP, where the recollection of its high descent is en- 
yni ' joined upon the soul, and its elevation to heaven is 
represented as a return to its original home, when it 
leaves the body behind, where the soul found it. 1 
But as with Plato the psychologically different parts 
of the soul had been combined with the anthropo- 
logical opposition of soul and body, so Seneca cannot 
entirely escape this inference. With Posidonius 2 
he follows the Platonic discrimination of a rational 
and irrational element in the soul, the irrational 
element being again divided into courage and 
desire ; 3 and though he expressly includes them 
all under the qryspovucov, and so far adheres to the 
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. 4 

Though we cannot help recognising the period of 

1 Ad Marc, 24, 5; Up. 70, dcri ved powers of the soul \PMl. 
12; 102, 22; 120, 14; Phil d. d, (h. III. i. 198, 1] or analo- 
&r. III. i. 203, 2 ; 3 ; $]>. 65, 16 : gous to them) in, koo princijmli 
The soul will rflrerti ad ilia ext atignid irrationale, ext et 
git-orion fit/it (02, 30 ##.). rationale : Hind Mtio s&ntiti. 

2 Supra, p. 64 $q$. oc. oit. 8 : Zrratwnalis pars 
8 JUj). 94, 1 : Pnto inter mfl anwii duns habet partes, alte- 

tecfuv conrcniet, externa corpori raw, aMwiosam, amHtwrnm^ m- 

adtjitirij corpus in honor ew, poteritem, posit a,m> in adftfatwni" 

a-niwi coli, in animo ess& Cartes bu$,altrraMhumilew,)lm{jwidam 

wityistras, per QUOM mwtmtur voluptatlbm deditam (Jp. 71, 

aUMMrgiw, pro/tier ipyuni fwin* 27). 
oipale no'bis datas (tlie seven 4 Vide Phil d,6 


eclecticism in these deviations from the older Stoic CHAP. 
doctrine, yet the sceptical side of this eclecticism YIIL 
is also exhibited by Seneca in the occasional uncer- 
tainty of his language respecting the same subjects of 
which he elsewhere speaks in the tone of full dog- 
matic conviction. We cannot perhaps, argue from 
the fact that in his epistle to his mother concerning 
the comfort afforded by the dependence of all things 
on God, he secures himself against every attack by 
not deciding what Grod is. 1 But it has an unde- 
niably sceptical sound when he elsewhere, in dis- Assertion 
cussing the question of the highest causes, declares fj^^" 
that a man must be content among conflicting of all spe- 
views to choose the most probable: to determine Gulatwn - 
the truest, exceeds our powers. 2 In the same way 
he says of the soul : < What and where it is, no 
one can fathom. One sets up this definition and 
another that ; but how can the soul, which is not 
clear about itself, attain to certainty about other 
things ? ' 3 We should not be justified in calling 

1 Of. Z. c. 145, 1. echoes the passage from Plato, 

2 jBp. 65, 10 (cf. 65, 2, and Tim. 29, o 9 which Seneca has 
65, 23) : jFer ergo judex senten- quoted in the preceding con- 
tiawi et pronuntia, quis tiM text. 

videatitr verisimillimttm dicer e, s JVat. Qu. vii. 25, 1 : Midta 

awn qitis verissimttm Meat. Id sMwt,g[ f it<<%esseconGedi'ni'us,qua>lia> 

enim tarn swjvra nos est qiia/m sunt, ignovamus. Habere nos 

ipm veritas ; and after he has animum . . . omnes fatebuntur : 

set forth the objections of the qidid to/men si-t animus ille rector 

Stoics against the Platonic dominusque nostri^ non magis 

theories he proceeds thus : Aut tiU qui$q%a>m easpediet, gwam 

for sententiam aut, quod faciU'us idbisit: alius illim, dicet $j)iri- 

in ejustnodi rebus est, nega tifri turn, esse, aMus eoncentum qu-en- 

ligueve et nos r&verti jufie. In dam, alius vim dwinam et Dei 

estimating this passage we pa,rtem,a,limtenvmsimuma're f ni, 

must rememher that it clearly aMus incorporalem potentiam,. 






mtk the 
of the 

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 and other eclectics, it is, above 
all things, the strife of philosophic theories which 
causes the dogmatism of the Stoic to waver. 

The Stoicism of Seneca is purer in the sphere to 
which he himself attaches the greatest importance 
namely, ethics. The idealism of the Stoic moral 
doctrine in its grandeur, and also in its asperities, 
finds in him a zealous and eloquent representa- 
tive. He declares with the Stoics that there is no 
good but virtue, because virtue alone is, for man, 
according to nature : he can paint the satisfaction 
which it secures, the independence of all external 
fortune, the invulnerability of the wise man, with 
glowing and even glaring colours ; he is convinced 
that the virtuous man is in no way inferior to the 
Deity, in a certain respect, indeed, is even superior ; 
he requires from us not merely moderation in 
our emotions, 1 but their unconditional eradication ; 
he reiterates the well-known remarkable state- 
ments about the unity and equality of all virtues, 
the perfect completeness of the wise man ; the 

Non deerit, qiii sanguinem dicat, 
qui calorem: adeo animo non 
potent Uquere de ceteris rebus, 
ut adhiio ipse se gw&rat. De 
Clement, 1 3, 5, would prove 
little, taken alone, and Ep. 121, 
12, still less. In Up. 102 
(beginning) a belief in immor- 
tality, which is based rather 

upon wishes and authority than 
on proofs is named a fiettum 
somnium ; but this is unimpor- 

1 Vide PMl. d. Gr. III. i. 252, 
1 *#., and Ep. 53. 11 : Est ali- 
quid, quo sapiens anteeedat 
Deum : ille leneficio natwce non 
timet mo sapiens. 



misery, defectiveness, and madness of the unwise ; CHAP. 
in fact, all the principles on which the peculiar _ ' 
character of the Stoics had been most clearly 
stamped with the full decision of personal convic- 
tion, and all the pathos of the orator. 1 But even 
here we can perceive that the reasons which must 
have recommended the Stoic doctrine to him are 
opposed by reflections and inclinations of another and quali- 
kind. The Stoic morality is intended for natures * 
capable of a pure and perfect virtue ; how can it be 
applied unaltered to us men, who one and all are so 


1 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 
a few others, though many 
might be added, since Seneca 
declares in innumerable places 
the leading thoughts of his 
ethical doctrine. On the prin- 
ciple of life according to nature, 
and its derivation from the 
impulse of self-preservation, cf . 
Sen. Up. 121, 5 &%%. ; 10, 11 ; 
Vita Beat. 3, 3 ; Mp. 118 sqq. ; 
Wp. 121, 14; 92, 1; 76, 8; 89, 
15 ; Vita, Seat. 8, 6 ; Mp. 120, 
22 ; Benef. iv. 25, 1 ; JSp. 122, 
5 sgr. Concerning the Good 
and goods, Benef. vii. 2, 1 ; JEp. 
66, 5 ; 71, 4 ; 74, 1 ; 76, 11 ; 
85, 17 ; 120, 3 ; 118, 10.\ Con- 
cerning the autarchy of ./irtue 
and against the admission of ex- 
ternal and corporeal things, 
pleasure and pain, among goods 
and evils, wde PMl. d. Gr. III. 
i. 215-221 ; Benef. vii. 8 sgg. ; J&p. 
7, 76, 20 #.; 71, 17 sqq. On 

peace of mind as the chief con- 
stituent of happiness, De Con- 
stant. 13, 5 ; 75, 18 ; Ep. 29, 12. 
On the nature and reprehensi- 
bility of the emotions, Be Ira, ii. 
2, 1 ; JBp. 75, 11 ; 85, 5 ; 116, 1 sqq. 
On the nature and origin of 
virtue, Ep. 113, 2; 117, 2; De 
Otio, 1, 4 ; Ep. 65, 6 ; Ep. 108, 
8 ; JSp. 94, 29. On wisdom and 
the principal virtues, JSp. 89, 5 ; 
95, 55; 120, 11; 115, 3 (the 
division of the virtues, Vita 
Beat. 25, 6 s%. is of less import- 
ance) 67, 6 ; 10 ; 88, 29 ; Benef. 
ii. 34, 3. On the disposition 
and will as the seat of all 
virtue; on the equality of all 
virtues and vices and of all 
goods and evils, Benef. vi. 11, 
3; i. 5, 2; ii.31,1; Ep. 71, 18; 
66, 5- sqq.; 66, 32. On wise 
men and fools, Benef. iv. 26, 
27, 2; v. 12, 3; 15, 1 ; vii. 3, 
2*#. ; 6,3; 8,1; -2^.8 
73, 11, 13 ; Prov. 1 5; 6, 
Be Const. 8, 2; Be Ira, ii. 8-10; 
Be Const. 2, 1 ; 7,1; J^.9,14 et 

Q 2 


CHAP, wicked and weak as Seneca maintains, and have 

these evils, as he also says, so deeply rooted in our 

nature ? l The happiness of the wise man is con- 
ditioned by his wisdom, the autarchy of the virtuous 
by a virtue which corresponds to the Stoic demands. 
What does it profit us if this virtue and wisdom are 
never, or hardly ever, to be found in the actual 
world ? 2 By these arguments the older teachers of 
the school had already, as we have seen, been in- 
duced to modify their original demands by important 
concessions, and Seneca was still more likely to 
adopt the same procedure. Thus we see him not 
only approving the concessions which his prede- 
cessors had made to human weakness, but in 
many of his utterances deviating still further from 
the original severity of the system. Like the 
older Stoics, he attributes a certain value to other 
things besides virtue; 3 and reckons these things 
among goods in the wider sense. 4 This is unim- 
portant. 5 On the other hand, he is no longer 

1 Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 252 $$$., dence only shows that two 
and supra,, p. 221. The utter- kinds of exposition were pro- 
ances of Seneca there quoted duced from similar circum- 
offcen coincide almost word for stances, experiences, and tern- 
word with those of the Apostle peraments, and that two 
Paul on the universal sinfulness writers need not stand in any 
of man, and this is one of the immediate connection in order 
most striking- of the points of to agree, even as to their words, 
contact between them which in many propositions, 
have given rise to the legend of 2 As Seneca admits, Trcwqu. 
their personal intercourse and An. 7, 4 ; J$p. 4, 2 ; 90, 44. 
written correspondence; con- 3 E.g., yyro&ucta, (vporj-y^va, 
cerning which of. Baur, J)rei concerning which cf. Ep. 74, 17: ; 
AbMndL p. 377 *##., and A. 87, 29; Vita Beat. 22, 4). 
Fleury, Seneque et St. Paul, Seneca calls them also yotwra 
Paris, 1853 ; i. 269 sq$. His- and oommoda,. 

ally regarded, this coinci- 4 In Benef* v. 13, 1, he agrees 


quite consistent when he sometimes extravagantly OHAP. 

praises the Cynic contempt for the necessaries of '__ 

life and at other times counsels compliance with 
existing customs, and careful avoidance of all that 
can attract notice. 1 But we hear more of the Peri- 
patetic language than the Stoic when Seneca, in 
spite of all his declamation about the self-satisfying 
nature of virtue, and indifference to things ex- 
ternal, 2 is once more of opinion that Fortune can find 
no better steward for her gifts than the wise man ; 
since riches alone can give opportunity for the un- 
folding of a number of virtues, and external goods 
may add something to the cheerfulness which 
springs from virtue. 3 It is the same thing with 
what he says of external evil. It sounds magna- 
nimous enough when the philosopher challenges 
Fortune to an encounter, when he extols the subli- 
mity of the spectacle which the wise man grap- 
pling with misfortune affords to the gods ; 4 but 
this lofty tone changes only too completely into a 
feeble and querulous sound, when Seneca (to pass 

with the Academy and the Peri- 20, 9 ; 62, 3. And, on the other 

patetics in distinguishing lona hand, dc. Fin. iii 20, 68 ; JEJp. 

animi, corjporis> fortunes. Else- 14, 14. 

where, however (Ep. 74, 17; 2 Mg. 9 Mp. 92, 5; De Vzt. 

76, 8 ; 124, 13) he expressly Seat. 22, 5 ; Ep. 62, 2. Sre- 

says that everything except wssima ad dimtias (to the true 

virtue is improperly (precario} riches) per cmtemptum dim- 

named a good. The former tiarwn via est. Further proofs 

view is to be found in Ohrys- Phil. d. Gr. III. t 215, and 

ippus and others, Phil. d. 6fr. swpra, p. 227, 1. 

III. i. 262, 3, 3 Vit. Seat. 21 1$. ; J0p. 5. 

1 Trangu. An. 8, 4 *q&. ; 4 Promd,. 2, 6 *q$. ; JBp. 64, 

Senef. v. 4, 3 ; 6, 1 ; JBp. 29, 1 ; 4 : 85, 39 ; PMl. d. Gr, III. i, 

90, 14; Senef. vii. 8 *.; tip. 178,2; 215,2. 


CHAP, over other unimportant examples), 1 though elsewhere 
constantly assuring us that banishment is no evil, 
and that every land is a home for the wise man, 2 
breaks forth into unmanly lamentations over his 
own exile, 3 or when he enforces the courtly principle 
that we must put a good face upon the wrong doings 
which those in high places permit themselves ; 4 
when he argues with much earnestness that there 
are no more peaceable citizens or more obedient sub- 
jects than the philosophers; 5 and when even Cato, 
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 
excuses himself in such cases, it is true, by avowing 
that he is not a wise man, nor ever will be ; he only 
regards himself as on the road to wisdom, and is 

1 As in Ep. 53, where the man and his master (Dio, Ixi. 

incredible troubles (incrediHlia 10). 

sunt, guce tiderym} of a short 4 De Ira, ii. 33 ; Ep. 14, 7 ; 

sea voyage are described. cf . also the admonitions to 

" 2 Not only in his later prudence, Ep. 103, 5 j 14, 14. 

writings, as in Benef. vi. 27, 2 ; Elsewhere, indeed (as in De 

EJJ. 24, 3 ; 85, 4 ; but also and Ira, iii. 14, 4), Seneca's judg- 

especially during his own exile ment was quite different, 

in his consolatory letter to his 5 Ep. 73, where among other 

mother, cf . 4, 2 ; 5, 4 ; 6, 1 ; 8, things he assures us that the 

3 sqq. ; 10, 2 ; 12, 5 $([%. rulers (the then ruler was Nero) 

3 Ad Polyl. 2, 1^ 13, 3; 18, are honoured as fathers by the 

9 -, and in the Epigrams from philosophers who are indebted 

exile. The dedication to Poly- to them for their leisure, 

bius Seneca is said to have 6 Ep. 14, 12 sggt. ; cf. for the 

subsequently tried to sup- sake of the contrast, Ejp. 95, 

press on account of the natter- 69 sg@. ; De Const. 2, 2 ; De 

ies it contained of this freed- JProvid, 2, 9 &qc[. 


content if things with him are going somewhat CHAP. 
better ; l but his concessions to hnman weakness _ 
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 man who is progress- 
ing for the wise man, 2 the requirements of the 
system on man as he is in reality are thereby neces- 
sarily lowered ; and whereas it at first seemed as if 
through perfect wisdom and virtue he would and 
could be like God, it ultimately appears that we 
must be satisfied to imitate the gods, so far as 
human weakness allows of it. 3 In other places, 
again, Seneca speaks as though nothing were easier 
than to lead a life according to nature and reason, 
and as if such a life were solely and entirely a matter 
of will 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 
of the earlier Stoicism. The proud reliance on the 
power of moral will and intelligence, from which the 
Stoics' ethics started, is with Seneca deeply shaken. 
Were it otherwise he could not express himself so 
strongly respecting the weakness and wickedness of 
men, and the unavoidableness of these defects. We 

1 Vlt. Beat. 16 s^.j cf. Ep. imbecilUta&patitwr, Vit. Beat. 
57, 3 j 89, 2 : ad &elv. 5, 2. 18, I : Cumpotuero, mvam quo- 

2 Cf. JEtp. 72, 6 s$$. ; 75, 8 modo vportet. 

s$g. ; 42, 1, and p. 268-271. * Mp. 41, 9 ; 116, 8 ; Be Ira, 

* Benef. i, 1, 9 : Hos seqtta- ii. 13, 1 8%q. 
mur duces, gua/n&uan* 




perceive a similar deviation when Seneca, in spite of 
his sublime utterances about the blessedness of the 
wise man and Divine Providence, is forced by the 
consideration of human sufferings to complain l that 
all life is a torment, and that amidst its storms death 
is 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 
emphatically expresses \ but as in his life he did not 
keep sufficiently free from the influence of his 
position and from the faults of a period (to the best 
men of which he nevertheless belongs) to preserve 
his character from vacillations and contradictions 2 

1 Ad Pjlyl. 9, 6 sq. : Omnia 
vita supplicium est . . . in Twc 
tarn procelloso . . . mari navi- 
gantibus mdlus jporti($ nisi 
mortis est. LOG. cit. 4, 2 sg>. 
The rhetorical nature of this 
consolatory treatise makes this 
testimony the less valuable. 
But we find the same else- 
where. Thus in the epistle ad 
Marc. 11, 1 : Tota fleUlis vita 
est, &c. Ep. 108, 37 j 102, 22 : 
Gram terrenoqm detineor car^ 

2 Seneca's character, as is 
well known, has been fre- 
quently defamed in the 
strongest manner, both in an- 
cient and modern times ; and, 
on the other hand, it has been 
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 

Seneca's life as altogether 
blameless. He himself made 
no such claim; he speaks of 
the anni inter vana studia con- 
sumpti (Nat. Qti. iii. Preef. 1) ; 
he acknowledges plainly that 
he was 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 ( Vit. 
Beat. 17 ; JEp. 6, 1 et pass. ; 
vide p. 231,2), 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 
in his own name) Ixi. 10, fol- 
lowing the same or an equally 
hostile authority, says of his 
colossal income (supposed to 
be 300 millions of sesterces), 
his avarice, and his luxury, we 
must, nevertheless, suppose that 



so, as a philosopher, he was not so alive to the ten- CHAP. 
deneies of his people and of his age, that we can ( L 

the * over-rich and over-power- 
ful ' minister of Nero, ascribed 
to external possessions a far 
greater value, and perhaps 
beyond what was unavoidable 
in his position made a more 
luxurious use of it, than might 
have been expected from a 
Stoic. Concerning Ms riches 
* and the splendour of Ms 
country houses and gardens, 
cf . Nat. Qu. iii. Prcef* 2 ; Ep. 
77, 3 ; but especially Tacit, xiv. 
52 sq. According to Dio, Mi. 
2, the severity with which he 
demanded repayment of a loan 
of ten millions of sesterces was 
one of the causes of the insur- 
rection under Nero in favour of 
Britannicus. Similarly, it may 
be that he, as a courtier and 
official of the empire, may have 
been silent, or lent his aid in 
regard to many a wrong. When 
he had once committed himself 
to tMs 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. 
MeanwMle it is difficult to 
form a judgment. If, for in- 
stance, Seneca and Burrhus 
favoured Nero's inclination for 
acting (Tac. xiii. 12 8$. j cf. c. 
2; xiv. 2), Tacitus avers that 
tMs was the best thing they 
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 Mnder it. (An 

unwortMer part is ascribed to 
them by Dio, Ixi. 2. Meanwhile 
Seneca is censured by Tacitus, 
xiv. 52, for precisely the oppo- 
site conduct.) "Whether they 
were accessory to the plan for 
Agrippina's murder (as Bio 
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 with their 
own certain destruction. Be- 
fore Ms death Seneca speaks 
(Tac. xv. 62) as if he had had 
no complicity with the crime 
wherewith to reproach himself ; 
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 Ms freedman 
Polybius (in the Consolatio ad 
PolyMum?) by wMch he sought 
to effect Ms return from banish- 
ment, and the despondency he 
displays under tMs misfortune, 
are justly considered blame- 
able, especially when they are 
contrasted with Ms equally 
unworthy mockery of the de- 
ceased despot (in the l*udus 
de morte Claudii) and Ms 
valiant protestations to Helvia 
(4 sqq. et jpas*.; ,mp. 230, 2). On 
the other hand, the reproach of 
immoral conduct cast upon Mm 
by Suilius and Dio (L #.) are 
not only without proof, but to 
all appearance gratuitous inven- 
tions. Tacitas describes the 



expect from him perfect logical consistency in 
his views. If in addition to this we consider how 
easily the endeavour after rhetorical effect led him 
into exaggerations on the one side or the other,, we 
may well understand that even in questions as to 
which he had a clear opinion he is not always con- 
sistent in his utterances. 

In the further development of his ethics, as we 

influence of Seneca and Bur- 
rhus on Nero (Tac. xiii. 2) as 
very salutary. Seneca himself 
appeals (I. c, xv. 61) to Ms 
independent bearing towards 
Nero, of which. Tacitus gives 
an example (Tac. xv. 23), and 
likewise Plutarch, Goh. Ira,, 13, 
p. 461. I)io, Ixi. 18, also re- 
lates an instance in which he 
restrained Hero's cruelty by a 
bold word. The same author 
says of him (notwithstanding 
all his hatred elsewhere), lix. 
19 : irdvras fjt,ev /ca0' eavrbv 'Paj- 
/xafow TroXAota Se Kal &\.\ovs cro^la 
virepapcis ; and the judgment of 
Tacitus far outweighs even this. 
Tacitus (xv. 23) calls him a vir 
egregius ; in xiiL 2, praises his 
oomitas Jionesta ; in xv. 62, he 
says he bequeathed to his 
friends before his death guod 
uimm jam et pidoherrimum 
Tictbebat, imagines, vitce sues ; 
and in c. 65 he relates that 
many in the conspiracy of Piso 
had destined him for the 
throne, gitasi in sontibm clari- 
tudine virtutum, && swnimwn 
fastigium deteoto. Seneca him- 
self, in his writings, despite 
much that is declamatory, 
not only gives us the impres- 
sion of a man to whom 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 self- 
examination (De Ira,, iii. 36 
*#.) ; that in his youth, from 
enthusiasm for philosophy, he 
abstained from meat during 
many years, according to So- 
tion's precept; 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 (corpus senile et 
parw victu tentatwTTi) ; the 
passage 1. c. xv. 45, where he 
follows prudential considera- 
tions, as in the contemplated 
transfer of his property to Nero 
(xiv. 53 $g. ; Sueton. Nero, 35) 
cannot be adduced as contra- 
dictory evidence. One of the 
most pleasing features of his 
life is finally his beautiful re- 
lation with his admirable wife 
Paulina, cf . Mp. 104, 2, 4 s%, ; 
Tac. xv. 63 s%. 


should expect, the same principles are prominent CHAP. 
which characterise Stoicism as a whole. It has, *__ 

however, been already pointed out that Seneca and s irit and 
the, .yonnger Stoics generally, differ somewhat from applica- 
the older in their closer acceptation of these prin- ^ai doc- 
ciples. Without abandoning or altering the ethics trine*. 
' of their school in any important point, they yet lay 
greater stress on such determinations as chiefly 
correspond with the conditions and necessities of 
their times. The most important of these deter- 
minations are three. In a period of such terrible 
moral corruption and despotic tyranny, it must have 
been of the first consequence for the earnest 
thinker to gain a fixed basis in himself, and to 
found for himself in his own mind an impregnable 
refuge against the corruption of his surroundings 
and the power of Fate. If he turned his atten- 
tion to others, all external distinctions among men 
must have lost their significance, when each day 
beheld the most abrupt , vicissitudes of fortune, 1 
when all national and historical oppositions dis- 
appeared in the 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 as well as the 

1 Seneca from this experience cially in regard to each man's 

(Trcunqu. An. 11, 8 sqq. ; 16, 1 ; own conduct, that he dares not 

fy. 74, 4, et passim} deduces attach any value to things es> 

the moral application, espe- ternal. 


CHAP, 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 
mankind. Finally, the less that circumstances 
afforded opportunity to individuals in the way of 
effectual interference with the course of the world, 
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 
life have gained ground, but the more strongly also 
must the necessity for submission to fate, and for 
the interdependence of moral conduct with religious 
conviction, which the Stoics had never denied, have 
made itself felt. 

All this may be perceived in Seneca's moral 
writings. The independence of external things, 
tMngsese- wn i n * s assured to us by wisdom and virtue, is by 
ternal. 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 

1 Numerous authorities for Benef. iv. 2, 2, 4 ; Vita Seat. 

this will be found in J$p. 82, 2 ; 11, 2 ; 13, 5 ; 14, 1 ; De Ira, 1, 

30, 4 8g$. ; 77, 11 *#. ; 8 sqq. ; 9, 2 *#.; of. JBjp. 85, 10; Phil, d. 

Cons, ad Marc. 19, 3 sq. ; Vita Or, III. i. 234, 252, supra 226, 1. 

Beat. 4, 3 , J@p. 66, 14 ; 71, 18, To the more decided declara- 

21 ; 85, 18 ; 39 ; 87 ; 11 sq. ; 44 ; tions on this subject belong : De 

120, 3 ; 92, 14 sg$. ; 72, 7 ; Provid. 2, 9 sqq, ; De Const. 3, 


encounter bravely wliat fate may send us. But since CHAP, 
it is his moral constitution alone which gives to man '_ 

this freedom, 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 more he is convinced that the 
victory is only to be won over man's inclination to 
evil by the most severe conflict, 1 All are, as he 
believes, sick and in need of healing; the com- Strictness 
bating of our faults is the chief problem of philo- 
sophy ; the recognition of this, the first condition of 
improvement ; 2 and even in his old age he says of 
himself that he is visibly another man, as he now 
sees what his defects are. 3 He, therefore, cannot 

5 ; 4, 2 ; 5, 4= ; 8, 2 sq. ; 19, 4 ; tive of Christian conceptions, 

Vita Beat. 4, 2 sq. ; Hrevit. v. Ep. 6, 1 : InteUego^ Ludli, non 

2 ; ad Helv. 5 ; JBenef. Hi. 20, em&ndan me tantuni, sed trans- 

1; Mp. R3, 11; 59, 8 ; 64, 4; figwari. Much, Indeed, is al- 

74, 19 ; 75, 18 ; 85, 39. ways in need of improvement : 

1 Cf. Baur, Drei AbJiandl. p. Et Jwc ipsum argumentum est in 
40 sqff. meli'us transla-ti animi, guod 

2 Besides the quotations in vitia, sua-, qua adTvue igvwrabat, 
PHI. cL. Gr. III. i. p. 253 ^., videt. Quibvadam cegris gratis 
and supra, cf. Mp. 50, 4 : Quid latio fit, eiim ipsi cegros se esse 
nos deeipimus ? Jon est extrin- senserunt. Concerning the es- 
seGus malum nostrum: intra pression transfigurari (fjuzra- 
n&s est, in visceribus ipis sedet, popfyova-Qai) cf . JSp. 94, 48, where 
et idea difficulter ad swnitatem these words are quoted from 
pervenim/iis, quicu nos eegrotare Aristo : Qid didioit et fadenda, 
nescimus. J2p. 28, 9 : Initinm ac mtanda percepit, nondwn, 
est salutis mtitia, peccati (ac- sapiens est, nisi in ea, qua didiovk 
cording to Epicurus) . . . ideo animus ejus transfiguratus est. 
quantum potes te ipse coargue, The expression therefore signi- 
inquire in te, &c. Vita Beat. 1, fies the inner transformation of 
4 : One infects another : Sana the whole will and disposition, 
T)imur,simodo separemur accetu. as distinguished from the 
Similarly, ,%. 49, 9 j 7, 1 ; 94, merely theoretical conviction 
52 s#. ; 95, 29 s%. on the one hand, and merely 

3 In the remarkable passage temporary and occasional im- 
which is so strikingly sugges- provement on the other. 


CHAP, too strongly impress upon us the necessity of a 
1_ severe self-examination and a ceaseless labour within 
ourselves ; l he recommends to us what he himself 
made a duty, to take precise account every evening 
of the day past ; 2 he refers us to our conscience, 
from which nothing that we do can remain hidden ; 3 
he reminds us of the gods, the ever present 
witnesses of our words and deeds, 4 of the day of 
death, that great judgment day when it will be 
shown how much in man is genuine or false ; 5 in 
a word, he desires that we should regard the happi- 
ness of the wise as the reward of the most unceasing 
moral activity, and he consequently finds necessary, 6 
side by side with the universal principles of virtue, 
all 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 corre- 

1 Of. also Ep. 50, 5 *#., 51, 5 Ep. 26, 4 s$g. ; PUL d. @r. 
6, 13 (nobis qiioqm militandum III. i. 204, 3. 

e$t . . . proioe qii&eungue GOT 6 He goes very minutely 
tmm lawiant*). into this in his 94th and 95th 

2 De Ira, iii. 36 ; cf . p. 186, 5. letters, in the former proving 

3 Ep. 28, 9 ; 41, 2 ; sup. p. 237, the indispensability of special 
2 ; Ep. 43, 4 : Men live in precepts for practical life, and 
such a manner that scarcely in the latter that of universal 
anyone could bear his whole ethical principles (deer eta). In 
conduct to be made public, both he maintains that, con- 
Qwld autem prodest recorder e sidering the greatness of human 
se et ocidos hominum auresqtte corruption, and the overwhelm - 
wtcvre ? Bona conscientia tw- ing influence of society, no 
bam advooat, mala etiam in soli- counteracting means should be 
tudine anxia atgiw sollicita, ext left unemployed ; 94, 52 $g. ; 
. . . o te mi^er-um^ si contemnis 68 sgg. ; 95, 14 %%. ; 29 sqg. 
kwic testem ! 7 Especially in the treatise 

4 Vita Beat. 20, 5 ; JBp. 83, 1. De Benefciis and in the letters. 


sponds to Ms moral destination, the more closely CHAP. 
will he find himself connected with others, the more L_ 

purely will he apprehend this relationship, and the 
more entirely will he extend it to all men. The Universal 
Stoic principles respecting the natural kinship of 
mankind, and the disinterested help which we owe 
to all without exception, have found in Seneca one 
of their most eloquent assertors ; * in his conception 
of this relation, however, the political element 
throughout recedes before the universally human 
element, and the severity of the moral judge before 
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- 
sidering the age in which he lived, and his personal 
experiences : he finds the mass of mankind so evil 
that we cannot without moral injury make ourselves 
dependent on their favours, and the condition of the 
Commonwealth too hopeless for us to waste our 
strength upon it ; the individual state seems to him 
too small beside the great polity of mankind and of 
the world, and the activity of the statesman, beside 
that of a teacher of the human race to allow of his con- 
fining himself to them. Those connections have for 
him a far greater charm 2 which are based upon free 

1 As is shown in Phil. d. Qr. Clement, i. 3, 4 sgg., where we 
III. L286, 1; 287, 2; 299, 3. cannot suppose that what 

2 Cf. ibid. III. i. 295 sgg. ; Seneca says of the importance 
J3p. 14, 4 sgq. (cf. mpra, 230, 7), of the roler of the common- 
and, concerning politics also, De wealth, apart from some ex- 


CHAP, choice and are regulated according to the needs and 
YIII< peculiar character of the individuaL To marriage 
he has devoted an entire treatise, 1 and we have every 
reason to suppose, from what we are told on the 
subject that Seneca held married life, of which he 
himself had full experience, in the highest estima- 
tion. A- taste for friendship also appears in him in 
a very marked degree, and we have already seen 
that he has difficulty in reconciling his need of 
friendship and his noble conception of this relation 
with the wise man's sufficiency for himself. 2 But 
the real crown of his moral doctrine lies in the 
universal love of man, the purely human interest 
which bestows itself on all without distinction, even 
the meanest and most despised, which even in the 
slave does not forget the man ; 3 in that gentleness of 
disposition which is so especially antagonistic to 
anger and hatred, tyranny and cruelty, 4 and which 

travagances of expression, is roust have lost its cliarm for 

merely the language of a cour- the best of them, 

tier ; it was not only quite true l For the fragments of this 

according to the existing state treatise which, however, consist 

of things, but doubtless his for the most part of quotations 

own personal conviction that in from other authors and exam- 

the Roman empire as it was then pies of good and wicked women, 

constituted, the emperor (as cf. Haase, iii. 428 $qc[. On the 

he says in c. 4) was the uniting view of marriage there enun- 

bond of the state ; and that th e ciated, cf . PML d. 6fr. III. i. 203, 

pax Romana, the dominatio 4 ; concerning Seneca's second 

urMs, was linked with his pre- wife (of the first we do not 

servation : Olim enim ita se know even her name) vide sup. 

induit reipublicce Ctesar, ut se- p. 234, n. 

duci aMerum non jyossit, sine * 2 Vide Phil. d. Gr. III. i. 289 

utriusque pernicie ; nam ut illi syq. 

wribiis opus est, ita et kivio 8 Ample authority for this is 

capite. But if the republic quoted, Ibid, III. i.29 9 ^.286, 1. 

was abandoned, public service 4 A mode of thought which 



considers nothing worthier of man and more accord- 
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 goodwill, and will not return even 
injury with injury. 1 Seneca's dissertations on these 
subjects are among the most beautiful testimonies 
to the purity of moral conceptions arrived at by 
classical antiquity. In their content, as has already 
been shown, they entirely harmonise with the Stoic 
principles ; but they have manifestly arisen from a 
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 account of his 
passionate disposition and want 
of self-control, those severe 
sentences were passed upon 
Alexander the Great which fur- 
nished such welcome material 
for Seneca's rhetoric, Benef. i. 
13, 3 ; Clement, i. 25 ; De Ira, 
iii. 17, 1, 23, 1 ; Nat. Qu. vi. 

23, 2, et -passim. 

1 Of. Ep 95, 52; Vlt. Beccb, 

24, 3 ; De Clem. i. 1, 3 ; Delra, 
i. 5 j De Otio* i. 4 ; 'Zte Ira, ii. 
32, 1; JBenef. iii. 18-28; De 
Clem. i. 18, 2 ; ii. 4 ; JEp. 31, 
11; Wt. Beat. 24, 3. In De 
Clem, ii. 4, he speaks of the 
possibility of uniting mildness 
with justice and the distinc- 
tion between this and culpable 
neglect; the one does not 

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 ; 
10, 1 0. 28 ; iii. 27, 3 (on the 
weakness of man we should 
not be angry with error, but 
pardon it) ; JBenef. iv. 25 sqq. 
(how far, according to fche 
example of the Gods, should 
favours be bestowed on the 
ungrateful ?) ; vii. 31 sq. (vincit 
malos yertinax bmitas). As the 
gods, in spite of all unthank- 
fulness, 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 ground by tillage ; L c. ii, 
9 s%. (hidden benefits). 


CHAP, than were found among the elder Stoics. The need 
vin ; of community is stronger with Seneca than with 
them, and though the social nature and vocation of 
man is in both cases recognised with equal decision, 
in the older Stoics it appears more as the fulfilment 
of a duty, in Seneca more as an affair of inclination, 
of human affection, and of benevolence ; and hence 
he lays the chief stress on the virtues of the philan- 
thropic disposition. How closely this softening of 
the Stoic severity is connected with Seneca's deeper 
sense of human imperfection has already been in- 

From the same source we must also derive the 

His reii- religious cast of his ethics. Here, too, he follows 

tern- y 7 

perament. throughout the common tendency of his school. 1 
The will of G-od is to him the highest law ; to obey 
and to imitate that will, is the most universal com- 
mand, 2 synonymous 3 with the claim of life accord- 
ing to nature ; he perceives in reason and conscience 
the divine spirit dwelling in us ; 4 he bases the 
equality of all men on the proposition that God can 
take up his abode as well in the soul of a slave as 
in that of a nobleman ; and the union of the in- 
dividual with humanity on the thought of the gods 
who, with us, belong to the universe and govern it ; 5 

1 Phil. d. G<r, III. i. p. 130. emplum sequi. L, e. vii. 31,2; 

2 The Deity here coincides V. Be. 15, 4-7 ; Mp. 16, 5 ; of, 
with Nature, and, therefore, JEtenaf. vi. 23, 1 ; Provid,. 5, 8. 
also the will of Gfod with the 4 PUl. A, G-r. Ill.i. p. 319, 2 ; 
laws of nature. 320, 1. 

3 JBenef. iv. 25, 1: Proposi- * Ep. 31, 11 ; T r . JBe. 20, 5 ; 
tf est noUs seeundum rerum De Otio, 4, 1 ; PMl d, 6V. III. 
naturam mere et Deorum ex- i. p. 302, 2 j 296, 3. 


he pressingly insists on a willing and joyful ac- CHAP. 

quiescence in the decrees of Providence, and sees in 

this disposition the most secure foundation for the 
freedom and peace of mind of the wise man ; l but, 
at the same time, he would leave open to us as a 
last refuge the voluntary departure from life, 2 and 
would have us accustom ourselves above all to a 
contempt for death, without which, he says, no 
happiness is possible. 3 In all these utterances there 
is nothing which does not flow from the true spirit 
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 
he claims is no supernatural aid, but coincides with 
the use of our reason and its natural powers. 4 If, 

1 Cf.ibid. III. I. p. 304:,!; test aliqms supra fortunam nisi 
305, 1. ab illo adjutiis exsurgere ? Hie 

2 Ibid. HL i. p. 306, 1. clai concilia magiiifica et erecta. 

3 Nat. Qw. vi. 32, 5 : Si vo- In, itnoquoque virorvan "bonoruwi 
litmus esse felices, si nee Iw- (quis Deus incertum esf) Jiabitat 
minum nee Deorum nee renmi Deus. Similarly, JEJp. 73, 15 : 
timore veseari, si despicere for- Non sunt Dl fastidiosi 'non in- 
tunam.swpervacKapromittentem, vidi: admittunt et adscendent- 
levia, minitantem, si whimus i"bm manum porrigunt. Miraris 
tranqnille degere et ipsis Dls de Iwmin&m ad Deos ire (through 
felicitate controversiam agere, the elevation of the mind and 
anima in expedito est kabenda, will) ? D&us ad homines renit, 
&c. immo, quod est propius, in Jio- 

4 This plainly results from a mines venit : nulla sine Deo 
comparison of the passages in mem ~bona est* Semina in cor- 
which this proposition is ad- poribus Jiumanis divina dispersa 
vanced. In JSp. 41, 2, after he sunt, gii<B si "bonus eultor ess- 
has said that there dwells in tipit, mmilia origini prodeunt 
us a divine spirit (by which et paria Ms, ex quibus orta, sunt, 
nothing else is meant but sivrgunt, &c. The help of God 
reason and man's conscience), must, therefore, consist in this : 
he thus proceeds : JBoniis vero that an effluence of the Deity 
mr sine Deo nemo est : an po- as \6yos (nrpfiaTucbs is combined 

B 2 


CHAP, 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 
thereby carried into radical deviations from the Stoic 
system, but only that the importance assumed by 
the religious element in relation to the philosophical 
is peculiarly characteristic of him ; his distinction 
from the 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 (rod and his guiding 
power in the world, and in the human spirit. How 
pure, moreover, is Seneca's conception of religion ; 
how he keeps clear, not only of the belief of the 
people, but of the fallacies of Stoic orthodoxy; how 
the plurality of gods is cancelled in the unity 
of the divine nature, and external worship in the 
spiritual cultus of the knowledge of Grod, and the 
imitation of his moral perfection, have already been 
shown. 1 Here also Seneca appears as a worthy re- 
presentative of Roman Stoicism, in which a purer 

with a human body in the the power of atonements are 

spiritual nature of man. only defended very condition- 

1 PMl.d. <9r.III.lp. 312$#. ; ally; and Seneca elsewhere 

315, 5 ; 324, 1 ; 326, 1 ; 337, 3 ; treats such things simply as 

340 2. Even in the passages absurdities (Nat. Qu. iv. 4, 6). 
last quoted, soothsaying and 


and freer view of religion had been implanted by CHAP. 

Pansetius in its very commencement, and which it ' 

had constantly maintained, as is seen by the example 
of a Scsevola, a Varro, and a Cicero. 1 To Pansetius, 
Seneca bears great resemblance in his whole mode 
of thought. Both postpone the theoretical doc- 
trines 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 
to individual details : and in this endeavour they 
have no scruple about recurring to other than Stoic 
predecessors, or departing from the Stoic tradition 
on certain points. But these departures are far 
more considerable with Pansetius than with Seneca ; 
and on the other hand, with Seneca the ethical 
base of the earlier Stoicism, confidence in the 
moral power of man, is much more deeply shaken, 
and the feeling of human weakness and defec- 
tiveness more vivid than seems to have been 
the case with Pansetius ; and while the healing 
of the morally diseased human race is regarded as 
the chief task of philosophy, there arises the fusion 
of philosophy with religion and the reaction of 
ethical dualism on metaphysics, by which the later 
Stoicism approximated more and more to Platonism. 

1 Cf . PMl. d. &r. HI. i. p. 340, partly by Ms exposition of the 

1, and sup. p. 49, 2 j 170 syr. ; 176 Stoic theology in the second 

. If in the above sentences I book of the treatise De Natwa 

name Cicero beside Scsevola and Deonm, from which some strik- 

Varro, this is justified partly ing passages are quoted, Phil. 

by his particular connection d, 6fr* III. i. 811, 1; 314, 2. 
with the Stoic school, and 





The Stoic 
school con- 



STOICISM maintained on the whole the same charac- 
ter during the entire course of its further history, 
except that the traits by which Seneca had already 
diverged from the original direction of his school, 
ultimately asserted themselves more strongly. The 
rest of the Stoic philosophy known to us may there- 
fore, be discussed more concisely. 

A younger contemporary of Seneca's, Musonius 
Rufus, 1 who resided in Eome in the reigns of Nero 
and Vespasian, 2 was a distinguished teacher of philo- 
sophy, 3 and was held in the highest estimation on 

sonius of whom Pliny (JEp. iii. 
11, 5, 7) makes honourable 
mention. He was of good 
family, originally from Etruria 
(Tac. Ann. xiv. 59; Hist. iii. 
81 ; Philostr. Apollon. vii, 16), 
and more especially Volsinii 
(Suid. cf. the epigram AnthoL 
Lat. i. 79 ; vol i. 57, Burm). 
The year of his birth is un- 
known, but as he had already 
in 65 A.D. aroused the jealousy 
of Nero by his fame as a 
teacher of philosophy (Tac. 
Ann. xv. 71) and according to 

1 C. Musonii Hufi 
etApophthegwiata c.Annot. Edid. 
J. Venhuizen Peerlkamp (Har- 
lem, 1822) ; the first 137 pages 
are taken from Petri Nieuw- 
landii Dimrtatio do Musonio 
Rufo (which appeared in 1783) ; 
also, Moser, in Studien von 
Da/iib und Creuzer, vi. 74 sg[q. 

2 Tac. Ann. xiv. 59 ; xv. 71, 
and elsewhere. Vide the fol- 
lowing note. 

3 Musonius' Rufus, son of 
Capito (Suidas), is apparently 
identical with the Cajus Mu- 



account of his personal character. TMs philosopher 
confined himself even more decidedly than Seneca 



Julian, ap. Suid. then filled a 
public office, it can hardly be 
supposed later than 20-30 A.r>. 
An adherent of the Stoic school, 
the friend of Eubellius Plautus, 
with whom we find him in Asia 
Minor in. the year 53 A.D. 
Thrasea Psetus and Soranus, 
whose death he afterwards 
revenged by the judicial prose- 
cution of his accuser, the 
miserable Bgnatius Celer (Tac. 
Ann. xiv. 59 ; Hizt. iii. 81 ; iv. 
10, 40 ; Epict. Diss. L 1, 26) 
was banished by Nero, 65 (Tac. 
Ann. xv. 71 ; Dio Cass. Mi: 27 ; 
Huson. ap Stob. Floril. 40, 9, 
p. 75 ; Themist. Or. vi. 72, d. ; 
vii. 94, a\ Suid., Movcr&j/ and 
Kopvovros, instead of this, re- 
presents him as put to death, 
but this is a palpable error, 
arising perhaps from Justin. 
(Apol. ii. 8)j according to 
Philostratus, I. o. t his place of 
banishment was Gyara, which 
was visited from all sides on 
his account. The same author 
(ApoL v. 19) and the pseudo- 
Lucian in his Nero, mention 
that one Musonius was em- 
ployed in penal labour in the 
proposed cutting of the isthmus. 
Philostratus also (I. c. iv. 35, 
46) mentions a Babylonian 
Musonius, a wonderful philo- 
sopher, whom Nero threw into 
prison. But whether our Mu- 
sonius is here meant, and 
the 'Bafti>\cbj'io$ of Philostratus 
should be altered to Boi/Tur^oy, 
or discarded (vide JNieuwland, 
p. 30 sgq.") seems the more im- 
material since these statements 
are as valueless as the absurd 

letters which Musonius is said 
to have exchanged with Apol- 
lonius. How the * Tyrian ' Mu- 
sonius is related 1 o 'our philo- 
sopher cannot be clearly ascer- 
tained, as we have seen (sup. 
p. 199) ; but they seem to be 
identical. He was probably 
recalled from exile by Galba 
(cf . Epict. Diss. iii. 15, 14 ; Tac. 
Hist. iii. 81); and when the 
philosophers were ordered to 
leave Borne by Vespasian he 
alone was excepted (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 
mentioned by Pliny he must 
have survived the reign of 
Trajan. Nothing is related as 
to any writings by him ; that 
which Stobseus communicates 
from him seems like an account 
given of his lectures by a dis- 
ciple, and indicates the exis- 
tence of Memorabilia, such as 
those of Xenophon, or Arrian 
concerning Epictetus. Suidas 
(TLcaXicayy ascribes Such airopvrj- 
fioyevfiaTa Wtovcrccviov to Asi- 
nius Pollio, a contemporary of 
Pompey. Eidiculous as this is, 
it is probable that one Pollio 
had composed them ; but he is 
not to be identified (as has 
been done by ancient and mo- 
dern writers) with Claudius 
Pollio, who according to Pliny 
(^Ep. vii. 31, 5) had written a 
Liber de Vita Anni (older read- 
ing Mus&mi) JBassi, but rather 
with the grammarian Valerius 
Pollio, who (Suid. I. e.) lived 



CHAP, to moral problems. He too starts from the general 

' bases of the Stoic system, and even its theoretic por- 

Practical tions were not neglected by him. Epictetus relates 

& oflispU- that he P ractised M S scholars in the use of logical 

,losoj)7iy. forms, and demanded scrupulous accuracy with 

regard to them ; ! a remark as to the origin of moral 

conceptions points to the Stoic theory of knowledge 

and its empiricism. 2 He mentions in a similar 

manner certain physical doctrines; speaks of the 

unchangeable necessity of the universe, of the 

ceaseless change of all things to which everything, 

both in heaven and earth, is subject ; of the regular 

transition of the four elements one into another, 3 

fulfilling itself through the same stages upward and 

downward ; of the divine nature of the heavenly 

under Hadrian, and was called 
a philosopher. According to 
the description of the younger 
Pliny (J3p. iii. 11) his son-in- 
law, the Artemidorus whom 
Pliny so enthusiastically praises, 
is to be considered his disciple. 
1 Diss. i. 7, 32. When Bufus 
blamed him for not knowing 
how to find what was wanting 
in a syllogism, he excused him- 
self thus : fdj y&p rb KaTnrdJAiov 
6^eVp?7<ra, to which the other 
replied, av&pcbro&oj', eV0a5e rb 

avrobs Oeiovs Kal Qeocitie'ts ajv6- 
paoj/. There is a similar de- 
claration of Beneca, Ej), 120, 4 ,* 
cf. Ep. 120, 11. 

3 Stob. Flaril. 108, 60. This 
fragment bears with some others 
(FLoril. 19, 13: 20, 60, 61; 
JBcl. ii. 356) the inscription: 

(* here is what you have over- 
looked, the chief thing '), 

2 Ap. Stob. Ftoril. 117, 8, 89 
(Mein.) : Man can attain to 
virtue : ov ycip eTf-pcodw 

Opwiretas (^TLXTCCDS, svrv^VTGS av- 
s roioZcrSe ncriy, o'/ovs $VTOLS 

<pt\ia.$. That nothing more, 
however, is meant by this than 
an account taken from Epic- 
tetus (i. e. from a lost portion 
of Arrian's dissertations) con- 
cerning an utterance of Mu- 
sonius (cf. Schweighauser on 
Epictet. iii. 195) is the less 
open to doubt, since Musonius 
is always Euf us in Epictetus ; 
and a comparison of Diss. iii. 
23, 29, with (Ml. JV". 4. v. 1, 
shows that he is the person 


bodies"; l and as these are nourished by vapours, so CHAP. 
(in agreement with the Stoics and Heracleitus) the Ix y 
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 Grod, the natural kinship of man with 
(rod, 3 the divine omniscience, 4 the divine law, the 
effluence of which is moral duty, 5 or virtue as an 
imitation of Grod 6 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 religion he also accorded 
the recognition allowed by the Stoic principles, 

1 These are the gods for such as we conceive Him (Phil. 
whose nourishment the evapo- d. Gr. III. i. p. 140), so also for 
ration from the earth and from man, virtuous conduct alone is 
the waters is sufficient. according to nature. 

2 Stob. L e. Concerning the * Stob. Floril. Exc. Jo. Dam. 
corresponding Stoic doctrines ii. 13, 125 ; J3d. iv. 218 (Mein). 
vide Phil. d. Br. III. i. 189. 4 and Musonius here infers from the 
196, 2. The observation (Floril. omniscience of the gods that 
79, 51, p. 94) that God has as- they require no demonstrative 
signed the faculty of thought to proof; and he applies this in 
the best protected place in the the manner discussed infra> 
body, is of little importance; this p. 252; but the thought of 
may mean either the header the the omniscience of God admits 
breast (cf . ibid. III. i. p. 197, 2). of very forcible application in 

3 Fl&ril. 117, 8, p. 88. Man the way of ethical admonition, 
alone is a /4u7?/Aa 0eou upon the 5 Loo. cit. 79, 51, p. 94. 
earth (similarly 17, 43, p. 286); as 6 Cf. note 1 and Pint. De 
there is nothing higher in God Aere Alieno, 7, 1, p. 830, where 
than virtue (Musonias expressly a capitalist says to Musonius, 
enumerates the four funda- who wishes to borrow money : 
mental virtues) as virtue alone <5 Zevs 6 a-cor^ bv <r& /UJMJ ical 
makes him the perfect being, fy\ois t ov Saj/effercu, and' the 
beneficent, friendly to man, and other laughingly replied, ouSe 
exalted above all weaknesses, Sam'fei. 




without apparently troubling himself with any 
speculative justification or interpretation of it. 1 But 
with scientific enquiry as such, with a knowledge 
that carries its end and purpose in itself, Musonius 
has no concern. We see this already from the fact 
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 superficial manner. But he has himself spoken 
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. 

the same way Musonius (JFloril. 
85, 20, end) argues against 
luxury that it hinders the ful- 
filment of our duties ; among 
others, the duties connected 
with service to the gods. 

2 There are in all, more than 
fifty of them and among these 
many of considerable length; 
inVenhuizen Peeiikamp's work 
they occupy 135 pages. 

3 Pint. Coll. Ira, 2, p. 453 : 
KCU uh\v &v ye [AejLLvfj/j.eda Moucrw- 
viov KU\$)V ev forty, & 2v\\a, rb 
SeTv ael depairevo/Jievovs fiiovv robs 
ffc&fecrdai. jji\\ovrcts. Gell. N. 
A. v. 1, 2, and infra p. 252, 3. 
This point of view, under which 
the Cynics first represented 
philosophy (vide Pliil. d. Gr. II. 
i. 285, 3) becomes strikingly 
prominent everywhere after the 
beginning of the first century 
A.B. j examples have already 
come before us (sup. p. 77, 3 ; 237, 
2) and we shall meet with others 
among Stoics, Platonists, and 

1 In this respect, however, 
there is little to be quoted 
from these fragments. The 
deity is called Zeus, and the 
divine law the law of Zeus 
(Wloril. 79, 51, p. 94); the 
stars are treated as gods (sup. 
p. 249, 1) ; and as Chrysippus had 
blamed the unmarried state as 
an offence against Zeus Grame- 
lios (PML d. Gr. III. i. 293, 2) so 
Musonius urges, among other 
things, against the exposure of 
children, that it is a crime 
against the TrarpQai Qeol and 
Zebs 6^6yvios (Floril. 75, 15) ; 
and in favour of marriage he 
says that Hera, Eros, and 
Aphrodite have it under their 
protection ; while the observa- 
tion : Qeol yap irirpOTrTi>ovo"w au- 
T&J', tcadb vo/jiifyvrat Trap' a,v&p<a~ 
irois, (teydhoi, even if we sub- 
stitute voftlfcrai and thus render 
the assertion less startling, still 
points the distinction between 
the popular and the philoso- 
phical notion of the gods. In 


Philosoplij is the only way to virtue, 1 and there- CHAP. 
fore occupation with it is necessary for every one, g ' 
even for women; 2 but conversely virtue is the 
only end and content of philosophy; to philo- 
sophise means to learn and to practise the principles 
of conduct according to duty. 3 A philosopher and 
a righteous man are therefore synonymous ; 4 virtue 
and philosophy are only different designations for 
the same thing. But whereas Socrates and Plato 
understood this proposition in the sense that virtue 
is merely the fruit of a real and fundamental know- 
ledge, Musonius, on the contrary, agrees with the 
Cynics that true wisdom can be attained without 
much knowledge by means of moral endeavour. 
Philosophy requires few doctrines, and may dispense 
with theorems in which the Sophists take such de- 
light ; what is necessary may well be learned even in 
the occupations of the spade and the plough. 5 Virtue 
is far more a thing of custom than of instruction, for 
the vicious habits of men are only to be overcome by 

1 Stob. Ftoril. 48, 67, where ireiv faus QiAtravrai /caAs, &Vep 
we read : St/caios- 5e TTCOS "av efy rb ^iXocro^etV etm ; Floril.Q7 t 20 
m fify eirKTTdfJLevos ^LKaiO(f6miv end : ov yap 5^ <$>iXcxro<piiiv ere' 
6voi6v rl effri ; but this is im- pov TI ^aiverai *ov % rb a vpeirei 
possible without philosophy. al fcirpoo-^/cei X6yq> pev bvafrretv 
Likewise in regard to Gca<$>po<r&vT} cpyij? 54 irpdrreiv. 

and the other virtues. There- 4 FkriL 79 3 51 : rj> 51 7 e etva* 

fore : TT&S Kal riva rp6irov 8u- ayaebv r$ ^iX6ffo^ov eB/cu raMv 

vaLTQ v rts j8a<n\6i;cr<zi ^ ftttavai earn. Similarly 48, 67 : the 

/coASs, el fj.^) <pi\o<rofyfiffcicif. good prince is necessarily a 

2 Floril. Jo. Damage, ii. 13, philosopher, and the philoso- 
123, 126 (iv. 212 s^. 220 *^. pher is necessarily fit to be a 
^ eil1 )- prince (?), (cf. sup. note 1). 

3 Loc. Git. ii. 13, 123, end, 5 LOG. tit. 56, 18, p. 338 &q. 
p. 216 : <j>L\oa-o<j>ia Ka^oKa-yadlas Musonius here shows that the 
cVrlv 7riT^5ewo-ts Kal ov$ev erepoy calling of a husbandman is 
(thus JfloriL 48, 67) ; 1. c. ii. best fitted for a philosopher 
13, 126, p. 221 : CIJTCIV Kal ovco- 


CHAP, opposite habits. 1 The disposition to virtue, the germ 
IX ' of virtue, is implanted in all men by nature ; 2 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 ; a few convincing proofs, indeed, 
are better than many ; the main point is that the 
conduct of the teacher should correspond with his 
principles, and that similarly the disciple should live 
according to his conviction. 3 To this practical end, 
then, according to Musonius, all instruction should 
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 
completely occupied with themselves and their con- 
science, with feelings of shame, repentance, and 
exaltation. 4 In this manner Musonius himself tried 
to work upon his disciples ; he spoke so forcibly to 
their hearts that each individual felt as if per- 
sonally struck ; 5 he made the entrance to his school 

1 LOG. oit. 29, 78, with which, from all, and all lay claim to 
the statement of Lucius (sup. the honour of it (of. Phil. d. 6h\ 
p. 199) in the Exo. e. Jo. Dam. III. i. 224, 2). 

i. 7, 46 (vol. iv. 169 *#. Mein.) 3 Stob. Floril. Exc. e Jo. 
entirely agrees. Dam. ii. 13, 125 (iv. 217 sq$. 

2 Tldvres <j>infet ireQvKa/JLev o#- M.) 

T(os cScrre Qv avafjLapT-fjTcas Kal 4 Grell. N. A. V. 1 ; Epict. 

&s . . . QvcriKfyv elvcu. inrofio- Diss. iii. 23, 29. 

ry rov avdp&irov ^u%^ vrpb* 5 Epict. I. c. : rotyapovy oifrcas 

oKwyaQiav Kal (nrepfjia aper^s \eyy } o5cr0' e'/catriw TJJLLCOJ/ /ca* 

Tjp.(av evewai, where this Q^psvov fftecrda.1. tin. ris irore aurbv 

is proved (ap. Stob. Ed. ii. 426 8ia/3ej8AT?/cey o^rccy ^TTTCTO r&v 

sq.) by the argument that the yivo^vtav, ofrreu 

laws demand moral conduct fridei rk. eKderov 


more difficult, in order to separate the stronger CHAP 
natures from the weaker and more effeminate ; l he IX < 
sought to brace their force of will by the thought of 
the difficulties life would bring to them ; 2 and we 
may well believe that the influence of such instruc- 
tion 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- 
dinated scientific problems to practical influence, 
should distinguish himself by originating new 
thoughts or even by the firmer establishment and 
logical development of a doctrine already existing. 
If, 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 find in them is merely an application 
of the recognised Stoical principles which sometimes 
becomes so minute that the philosopher, after the 
example of Chrysippus, does not even disdain to 
give precepts on the growth of the hair and beard. 3 
On certain 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 LOG. tit. iii. 6, 10. /caXcS (to treat this better) 

2 Loc. tit. i. 9, 29 : ovr(0 Kal crov avra Xafieiv Swduevos. 
*Pov$os ireipdfav fj. et<0et \&yeur s JFloril. 6, 62, where Muso- 
ffvfL^creral <roi rovro Kal rovro nms, like Chrysippus before Mm 
urrb rov $<nr6rov. irpbs (Athen. siii. 565, #), expresses 
cwrbv airoKptvafjievov, #rt av6p- himself strongly against the 
wtva- ri oSi/, &TJ, iicearov napa- cutting of the hair and beard. 


CHAP, and yet humane precepts as were not universal in 
IXt 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 of that which is in 
onr power, and (2) submission to that which is not 
in our power. In our power is the use we make 
of our ideas, and on this depends all virtue and 
happiness. All the rest is out of our power ; that we 
must, therefore, leave to the course of the universe, 
and must be satisfied and happy with whatever it 
brings us. 1 From this standpoint 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 ; 2 
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 
it; 3 that, for example, we should regard exile as no 
evil, but should feel ourselves at home in the whole 

1 Stob. Eel. ii. 356 : r&v $v- einrptyai r$ KScr/JLcp, Kal ere 

row ra psv e$ 3 ytuv 0ero 6 Bebs rcav TraiScev Secure) efrre rrjs va- 

Ta 8' oit;. e'4>' TI/JUV jj,ev rb KaX\iff- rptfios etre rov cn^uaros 1 cfrre 

TOV Kal (TTTQuScucW-aTOj', $> 5^ Kal drovovv, aar[jLvovs 7rapax&>peTj/. 

aMs evtiaifjLW ecrrl, TTJV Xpyffiv Of. Floril. 7, 23 (^ Svo-x^pa^e 

T(av tpavratriSiv. TOVTO yap opdajs rats Trepiffrdo-ecTLj/) ; I, c. 108, 60, 

yiyrfpevov eXevQepia $<rrlv etfpoia where from the thought of the 

evevfjila evo-rddeLa, TOVTO 8e Kal necessity of the course of the 

SiKr; Iffrl Kal v6pos Kal ffutypo- world and of the change of all 

<rvvn Kal |^7rao-a apeT^. ra 5' things, is deduced the moral 

&\\a trdvra OVK <!</>' fjfjuv eVoi^- application that the condition 

ffaTo. OVKOVV Kal Tjfjias crvfj^^)- of a harmonious life is the 

8ie\6vTas TO. irpdyuaTa r&v 2 Floril. 29, 78, p. 15; cf. 
(jt.v ty Tip.1v TfdvTa Tpfaov avTi- G-ell. 2V. A. xvi. 1. 
Ta 5e ^ *<!>' yjv 3 ^j?. p. 253, 2. 


world, 1 that we should neither seek death nor shun CHAP. 
it. 2 In order to attain this strength of mind, how- IXt 
ever, man needs not only the most continual moral 
practice and the most unremitting attention to 
himself, 3 but also bodily hardening. 4 Musonius, 
therefore, admonishes us to learn to endure bodily 
exertions, deprivations, and hardships ; 5 he desires 
to lead us back as much as possible, in regard to 
food, clothing, and domestic arrangements, to a 
state of nature ; 6 he goes further, and with Sextius 
and the Neo-Pythagoreans, counsels us to avoid the 
eating of flesh, because this is not according to 
nature for man, and because, as he thinks, it en- 
genders thick and cloudy evaporations which darken 
the soul and weaken the power of thought. 7 On 
the other hand he cannot agree with many of the 

1 Of. the lengthy discussion runt ' is also quite in accord- 
ap. Stob. Floril. 40, 9, which ance with his spirit that he 
finally comes to the conclusion prevented Rubellius Plautus 
that as banishment robs a man from escaping, by means of an 
of neither of the four principal insurrection, the death with 
virtues, it robs him of no real which Nero threatened him. 
good; it cannot injure the good 3 Cf. Stob. Floril. 29, 78, and 
man, and the bad man is in- the expression (ap. Gell. N. A. 
jured by his wickedness and zviii. 2, 1), remitters animunl 
not by banishment. quasi amittere est. 

2 Cf. Phil. d. Gr.HI. i. 306,4, 4 For the body, he says (ap. 
5. It is in entire agreement with Stob. I. #.), must be made the 
this that Musonius (ap. Epict. serviceable tool of the mind, 
Diss. i. 26 &7.) blames Thrasea and with it the soul also will 
because he desired death rather be strengthened. 

than exile ; for we should nei- 5 Stob. I. c. ; Pliny, Ep. iii. 

ther, he says, choose the harder 11, 6, praises in Artemidoms 

instead^ of the easier, nor the (st^.p.246,3,end),besidesother 

easier instead of the harder, excellences, Ms hardiness, mo- 

but regard it as a duty apKetcr- deration, and abstemiousness. 
0cu T$ SeSofiLevcp. The story 6 Stob. Floril. 1, 84 ; 18, 38 

which Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 59) 8, 20 ; 94, 23. 
relates with a qualifying * f e- 7 Zoc. tit. 17, 43, sup. 249, 2. 


CHAP. Stoics who carry the self-dependence of the wise 
__J_1__ man to the point of dissuading even from marriage ; 
he is 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 
subject. 1 He sets himself still more decidedly 
against the immoral courses which the elder Stoics 
had not unconditionally excluded, for he condemned 
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. The gentle disposition which guides 
him in all this is also shown in the proposition that 
it 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 onesided- 
ness of a standpoint where elevation above external 
things has become indifference to them, and has 
degenerated into a denial of their interconnection 
with things within. 

With Musonius is connected his famous disciple 

1 Loc. Git. 67, 20 ; 69, 23 ; 70, himself Mmoni sololes, lare 

14 ; cf . PMl d. Or. III. i. 293, 2, cretus Vokiniensi. 

and sup. p. 246, 3. He himself 2 Zoo. Git. 6, 61. 

was married, for Artemidorus 3 Zoo. tit. 75, 15 j 84, 21 ; 

was his son-in-law (sup. p. 246, cf. sup. p. 250, 1. 

3, end), and in the Program. 4 Zoo. Git. 19, 16 ; 40, 9 ; Sohl. 

Anthol. Lat. i. 79 (vol. i. 57, 20, 61. 
Burm.) Testus Avienus calls 



Epictetus, a Phrygian who lived in Some Tinder 
Nero and his successors, went in the reign of 
Domitian to Nicopolis, and seems to have died in 
that of Trajan. 1 In the discourses 2 of this philo- 


1 Epictetus' native city was 
Hierapolis in Phrygia (Said. 
'ETrOcr.). He himself was a 
slave of Epaphrodltus, the 
freedman of IN ero (Said., Epict. 
Diss. i. 19, 19: of. 1 1, 20; 
i. 26, 11 ; G-ellius, N. A. ii. 18, 
10; Macrob. Sat. i. 11, 45; 
Simpl. in JHjriet. EncJwrid. c. 9, 
p. 102, Heins.), weak in body 
and lame (Simpl. Z. c. ; cf. 
Epict. Emliir. 9; Celsus, ap. 
Orig. c. Cels. vii. 7 ; Suid. and 
others : according to Simplicius 
he was lame from his yonth ; 
according to Suidas he became 
so through sickness ; according 
to Celsus, through the ill- 
treatment of his master, who 
may indeed have used him 
harshly, judging from the quo- 
tation sup. 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. Diss. 
i. 7, 32; 9, 29: iii. 6, 10; 23, 
29). In the sequel he must 
have beeome free. Under Do- 
mitian he must have left Rome 
(sup. p. 190, 1, end) with the 
Qther philosophers (G-ell. If. A. 
xv. 11, 5 ; Lucian, Peregr. 18) : 
he betook himself to Mcopolis 
in Epirus (G-ell. I. c. Suidas), 
where Arrian heard him (Epict. 
Diss. ii. 6, 20 ; 1, Prcef. ; cf . iii. 
22, 52). According to Suidas 
and Themistocles (Or. v. 63, 
he lived until the reign of 
Marcus Aurelius : this, how- 
ever, is chronologically impos- 

sible. Even Spartian's state- 
ment (Hadr. 16), that Hadrian 
associated with him in summa 
familiaritate is somewhat sus- 
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 
Rome ; but the last years of 
his life may nevertheless have 
extended to the reign of Ha- 
drian, or this emperor may have 
become acquainted with him, 
before he came to the throne. 
He himself makes mention of 
Trajan (Dm. iv. 5, 17 ; cf. iii. 
13, 9). The consideration in 
which Epictetus was held by 
his contemporaries and later 
authorities is attested, among 
others, by Gellius, who calls 
him (ii. 18, 10) philosopJius 
nofiili$,&nd (in xviii. 194) maxi- 
inusphilosoplioTU'ni ; also by Mar- 
cus Aurelius (irp. laur. i. 7), who 
thanks Ms teacher, Rusticus, 
even in mature age, for having 
made him acquainted with 
the Memorabilia of Epictetus ; 
cf . likewise Lucian, Adv. Iiid. 
13 (who relates that an ad- 
mirer of Epictetus bought his 
earthenware candlestick for 
3,000 drachmas) ; Simpl. in 
JUncMr. Prof. p. 6 sq. and many 

2 These are the Aiarpipal and 
the s E7%/>5wy. Arrian wrote 
down the former, as he says in 
the preface, after Epictetus as 
faithfully as possible, in the 




The philosopher is a physician to whom the sick come, CHAP. 
and not the healthy ; l he must not only instruct _ 
his scholars, but help and cure them ; of what use and pro- 
is it to display his learning before them, to develop 
dogmas, however true they may be, or to provoke sop} 
their applause by proofs of his cleverness ? The 
most necessary and important thing is rather that 
he should speak to their consciences, that he should 
bring them to the feeling of their wretchedness and 
ignorance ; that he should call forth in them the 
first resolve of amendment ; that he should make 
them philosophers, not in their opinions, but in 
their behaviour ; 2 in a word, that he should produce 

a,irrojj.ivois avrvjs (TvvafoBiiffts TTJS 
avrov CLffQevdas Kal advvafj.ia$ 
ire pi TO. avayKOia. FT. 3 (Stob. 
Floril. 1, 48) : el jSouAei aya&ls 
elz/ai, Tr/oTeuow fin KctKbs e?. Cf. 
Seneca, sup. p. 273, 2. 

1 Diss. iii. 23, 30 : iarpeTJi/ ecmv, 

Xeiav* ov 5e? ycrdevras JeA.0e?y, 
aAA* a,\yf}<ravras. px eor06 jfy 
oi>x vyteis, &c. Of. Fr. 17 (Stob. 
Mor. Iv. 9i), and JLtusonius, 
sitp-P- 733,2; 734,5 ^ 

2 Ittss. iii. 23, 31, Epicfcetus 
continues : You come, not as 
healthy people, a\.x* & fi*v 
^/cjSejSA^/ccbs, <5 S 3 amJc 
& 5e a-hpt-vya. e%y, 6 
elr' y& Kadicras 

TjTe, 6 

&c. And shall the 
young men make long journeys, 
leave their parents and belong- 
ings, and spend their property, 

ie'iS eiraLVecravres pe 

only in order to applaud thy 
fine oratory ? (Similarly iii. 21, 
8.) TOVTO 2aj/cpcr^s eiroiei; TOVTO 
Z^vcuv", rovro KXedvQqs. And also 
("passing over other utterances), 
ii. 19. Bpictetus is here asked 
what he thinks of the Kvpietccy 
(Phil. d. Gr. H. i. 230, 4), and he 
replies that he has as yet come 
to no opinion thereupon ; but he 
knows that very much 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 ? 
pdrepos eorrat Kal a 
^ vvv Icrrt. Such things "are 
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 
Chrysippus and a Cleanthes, as 
they relate a history from Hel- 

s 2 



CHAP, on them the deep moral impression which Epictetus 
himself had received from Musonius, and his 
scholars in like manner received from Epictetus. 1 
Inferior From this point of view Epictetus could of 

theoretical course ascribe to theoretical knowledge, as such, only 
a very subordinate value ; and this must especially 
hold good of that part of philosophy which mani- 
festly stood in the most distant connection with 
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 ; but if somebody were 
to remind one of these disciples 
of 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 1 Deeds must 
show to what school a man 
"belongs. But most of those 
who call themselves Stoics 
prove themselves to be rather 
Epicureans, or, at the most, 
Peripatetics of the laxest sort. 
"SrcatKbv 5e Sei^are poi, ef TLVOL 




. . . Qzbv l avQp&irov 
fiovvra yevecrQai . . . 5|are. 
aAA.' OVK e^cre. ri ofiv atrdis 
j &c. Kal vvv 

ira/> e/jLo Trateea'de. My pur- 
pose is, cttroreAeVcu vfMcis 

TOVS, GXevOepovs, eupoowray, eu- 
$aifj.ovovvTa5, els rbv Qebv a<po~ 
puvras & iravrl /u.LKp$ Kal fJLeydty. 
Your purpose is to learn this. 
5i& ri ofiv OVK biderai; tfirare 
fjLot rV cdriav. It can only lie 
in you, or in me, or in both. 
ri ovv] OeXere a.p^ff>fjL8d wore 

v, Tntrrccrare /U.QL 
1fyff6e. A further example 
of the manner in which Epic- 
tetus admonished his pupils is 
given in Diss. L 9, 10-21. 

1 Concerning Musonius, vide 
sup. p. 252; concerning Epic- 
tetus, Arrian, Dm. Prcef. 8 sg. : 

s rtav a.KOv6vT(av 
irpbs rh fieXTLcrra. If his dis- 
courses, as reported by Arrian, 
did not accomplish this, 
Ttocrav ot 


aurov, ftirep 

LOGIC. 261 

the doctrine of proof, the scientific methods for that CHAP. 

is only necessary on account of the proof, and proofs ' 

are only necessary on account of their application. 1 
However useful and indispensable, therefore, logic 
may be in order to protect us from fallacies, and 
though accuracy and thoroughness are undoubtedly 
necessary in its pursuit, 2 yet logic cannot be an end 
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, 4 the art of 
speech is merely a subordinate help, which has 
nothing to do with philosophy as such. 5 In accord- 
ance with these principles, Epictetus seems to have 
occupied himself very little with dialectic questions ; 
at any rate the written records of his doctrine con- 
tain not a single logical or dialectical discussion. 
Even the refutation of scepticism gives him little 
concern ; he declares it to be the greatest stubborn- 
ness to deny self-evident things ; he says he has not 

1 Man. c. 52. Epictetus else- trouble ourselves about this last 

where (Zfe. iii. 2 ; ii. 17; 15 point unless we are clear about 

sq. 29 s.) distinguishes three the two first, 

problems of philosophy: the 2 Zto. 1 7; c. 17; ii. 25; 

first and most necessary is that vide sup. p. 248, 1. 

it should set us free from 3 2>i$s. I 4, 5 &qq. : ii. 17, 27 

our passions ; the second, that sqg. ; iii. 2 ; c.^21, 1 sgg.i ii. 19 

it should make us acquainted $%%* (vide previous note) ; c. 18, 

with our duties ; the third that 17 sg[. ; Man. 46. 

it should strengthen ourconvic- 4 2Hss. i 7, 1 ; Jf<m._52. 

tions with irrefragable proofs ,* 5 Diss. i. 8, 4 &g_g/. ; ii. 23. 
and he insists that we should not 


CHAP, time to contend with such objections; for his 
' part he has never taken hold of a broom when he 
wished to take up a loaf of bread ; he finds that 
the sceptics themselves act in the same way, 
and put food into the mouth and not into the eye ; 1 
finally he encounters them with the old reproach 
that they cannot deny the possibility of know- 
ledge without maintaining its impossibility. 2 Of 
the proper signification of scepticism and of the 
necessity of its scientific refutation he has no idea. 
He is just as little concerned about the investiga- 
tions of natural philosophy; indeed, he expressly 
agrees with the saying of Socrates, that enquiry 
into the ultimate constituents and causes of things 
passes our understanding, and could have no value 
in any case. 3 If, therefore, he generally presup- 
poses the Stoic theory of the universe, he not only 
institutes no independent inquiries in that sphere, 
but even in the doctrines of his school there are 
very few points only the universal bases of the 
Stoic conception of the world, and especially the 
theological definitions which attract his attention. 
He is full of the thought of God, who knows our 

1 Diss. 1 5 ; 27, 15 sq$. ; ii. Gpcairivr) yvc&w el 5e Kal ra pd- 
20, 28. ^ Xiffra flefy TIS etviu Kara\yirra, 

2 Diss. ii. 20, 1 sqq. aAA' ovv ri 8(j>\o$ KaraX-qfyBw- 
8 Fv. 75 (Stob. Flov. 80, 14) : rw, &c. This discussion pro- 

rl fj.oL /te\H, 077<rl, ir6rcpQv e' fesses to be a commentary on 

e <5/iot(yiepwi>, $ &c the Socratic theory, as we see 

^yys^ ffvve<rrr]Ke r& fora; by the word <j>T)a-l, which is 

^ apjce'i /*a0e?j> rty ovcriav afterwards repeated; but it is 

rov ayaeov Kal KO.KOV, &c. ra 5' nevertheless unmistakable that 

s ^ xalpew e$v ; arwa Epictetus adopts the same 

aKardKirn-rd forty av- standpoint himself, 


words and intentions, from whom comes all good, CHAP. 
in whose service the philosopher stands, without ' 

whose commission he may not go to his work, whom 
he should have always before his eyes. 1 He proves 
the guidance of Providence by the unity, order, and 
interconnection of the universe; 2 he praises the 
paternal care of Grod for men, the moral perfection 
which makes Him a pattern for us. 3 He recognises 
in the world the work of Grod, who has ordered all 
for the best : has made the whole perfect and fault- 
less and formed all its parts to correspond with the 
necessity of the whole, has destined all men to happi- 
ness and furnished them with the conditions of it ; 4 
he extols, in the spirit of his school, the adaptation 
of means to ends in the universe, which he says 
meets us so clearly at every step that our whole life 
should be an unceasing song of praise to the Deity ; 5 
and, like his school, he condescends to point out 
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 
injustices in the world, having learned from the 
Stoa to reconcile these also with the perfection of 
Grod and his works. 7 This belief in Providence, 
however, Epictetus, in the true fashion of the 
Stoics, always refers primarily to the universe, 

1 I shall recur to this later 4 Mss. iv. 7, 6 ; iii. 24, 2 sq. 
on Meanwhile, cl JHss. 22, 5 JDiss. i. 16. 

2* 23, 53; 21, 18; ii. 14, 11, 6 Of. ZHss. i. 16,9 *$g. and 

18, 19 ; 19, 29 ; i. 16. PMl. d. Gr. HI. i. 172, end. 

2 Diss. i. 14, 16 ; Man. 31, 1. 7 lUd. III. i. 175, 4; 178, 2; 

3 Zto. i. 6, 40 ; 9, 7 ; ii. 14, and infra, p. 271, 1. 


CHAP, and to the individual only so far as is determined 
_____ by the interdependence of the whole ; when he 
counsels submission to the will of (rod, this coin- 
cides, in his sense with the demand that man 
should conform to the order of nature. 1 Things, he 
says, with Musonius, cannot happen otherwise than 
as they do happen ; we cannot withdraw ourselves 
from under the law of change to which the heavenly 
bodies and the elements are subject ; 2 against the 
universal order which all things serve and obey we 
ought not to rebel. 3 So also he expressly mentions 
the doctrine which most strongly asserts that 
nothing individual is more than a transient moment 
in the flux of the whole the doctrine of the con- 
flagration of the world. 4 And as the religious 
conviction of Epictetus allies itself on this side 
to physics, so on the other side it allies itself, 
like Stoicism, to the popular religion. Stoic 
pantheism with him also includes polytheism ; 
the derived divine natures are to be distinguished 
from the primal divine nature ; 5 and if all things 

1 Diss. i. 12, 15 S$. 28 $.; Kala^tvov virep 

1L 5, 24 sgrg. ; 6, 9 s$q. rat, pera r&v 8\cw Kal T) vvv- 

2 In the fragment mentioned $LOLK$>V. With Epictetus also, 
sup. p. 248, 3, which begins thus: as with his whole school, Grod 
#ri rota^TT? y rov K6<T/j.ov <pTLJ<rt$ coincides with the universe. 
Kal %crri Kal ecrrai.- Kal ou% oUv 4 Diss. iii. 13, 4 sgg., where, 
re &KXca$ yiyvecr6ai ra yiyri/Meva, as in Sen. Ep. 9, 16, the con- 
^ &s vvv %x l - dition of Zeus after the 

8 Fr. 136 (Stob. Moril. 108, universal conflagration is de- 

66 : ifdvra. viraKovei rqi K6(r^cp scribed. 


Kal vTrrjpere? earth, sea, stars, 5 Hence he says in Diss. iv. - 
plants, animals, our own bodies. 12,11: y& 5' %&> rivt ju. 5et 
Our judgment alone cannot apeV/cetp, T(VI viroreraxQai, rivt 
be set up in opposition to it. 7re0e<r0ar r$ 6e$ Kal rots psr* 
Kal yap Iffyvptis ecrriKal Kpetcrffow, ^KCIVOJ/ (ii. 17, 25) : rep Ait , . , 


are full of divine powers, so are they full of gods CHAP. 
and daemons. 1 The beneficence of these gods we con- __H_ 
tinually enjoy in all that we receive from nature and 
from other men j to deny them is the more unjusti- 
fiable, the, greater is the injury that we thereby 
cause to so many, 2 Yet the relation of Epictetus 
to the popular religion is, on the whole, very in- 
dependent ; accordingly he seldom mentions the 
popular gods, and then only casually, without further 
committing himself to the allegorical interpretations 
of his school, but prefers to speak in a general 
manner of the gods or the deity, or even of Zeus ; 
he retains indeed, with Socrates, the principle of 
honouring the gods according to our power, after 
the manner of antiquity, 3 but he also knows very 
well that the true service of God consists in know- 
ledge and virtue ; 4 the fables about the underworld, 
the worship of hostile beings he blames ; 5 and if 
he does not attack the belief in soothsaying, he 
demands that men should be able to dispense with 
prophecy, that they should make use of it without 
fear and desire, being previously in harmony 
with the result, and should not first enquire of the 

rots &\Aois 0eo?s, and iii. 13, 4 Pluto are named ; but the Stoic 

&?.), besides Zeus, Here, Athene, unmistakably- reserves to him- 

Apollo, and, generally speaking, self the traditional interpreta- 

the gods, who do not survive tion of these gods in the <>v- 

the conflagration of the world, (ruths \6yos. 

1 JHss. iii. 13, 15 : irdyra Qf-cav s Man. 31, 5. 

petfra /col Scufj,6vc0v. 4 Man. 31, 1 ; cf. Dfas. ii. 18, 

2 LOG. tit. ii. 20, 32 *#., 19 ; PML d. Gr. Ill, I. 311, 1. 
where, as examples of gods the 5 Diss. iii. 13, 15 ; i. 19, 6 ; 
denial of whom is censured by 22, 16. 

Euripides, Demeter, Kore, and 


CHAP soothsayer, where the fulfilment of a duty is in 
' question. 1 

Man an To Epictetus the belief in the kinship of the 

emanation -i . .. . ~ _ . rt * 

from God. ataman spirit to God is of the highest value ; man 

should be aware of his higher nature ; he should 
regard himself as a son of God, as a part and 
emanation of the deity, in order to gain from this 
thought the feeling of his dignity, of his moral 
responsibility, his independence of all things ex- 
ternal, brotherly love to his fellow men, and the 
consciousness of his citizenship in the universe; 2 
and in the same sense Epictetus, after the manner 
of his school, elso employs the conception of daemons, 
understanding by them merely the divine in man. 3 
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. 4 Nor is the question of the 

1 Diss. ii. 7; Man. 32. from the commencement, alien 

2 Diss. i. 3 j c. 9 ; c. 12, 26 to the body, longs to leave it 
syg. ; c. 13, 3 ; c. 14, 5 sqqr. ; ii. and to return to its original 
8, 11 s%q. ; iv. 7, 7 s%. j cf. Phil, state. Thus in Jfy. 176 (ap M. 
d. Gr. III. i. p. 200, 2. Aurel. iv. 41) : ^VX^PLOV I, fa 

3 Diss. i. 14, 12 sqq. ; cf. Phil, (rrafoy vutptv ; cf. Diss. ii. 19, 
d. Gr. III. i. p. 319, 2. 27 : & T <rw parly ro^ry T$ 

4 Epictetus' view of the des- veicpQ, 1. c. i. 19, 9 ; but espe- 
tiny of the soul after death is cially Diss. i. 9, 10 sgg. He 
not easy to state. On the one thought that they (he here says 
hand he treats the soul (this to his disciples) ^inyv6vres rfy 
aspect will be spoken of again irpbsrov? 6eobs a-vyyevetav, nal e 6ri 
later on) as an essence which is, 5ecr/xc TIVOL ravra ' " 



freedom of the will discussed with, any exactitude ; 
it seems, however, probable that Epictetus did not 
depart from the fatalism of his school 1 since he 
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 ff&fjia Kal rty Krrjffiv avrov 
. . . would wish to shake off 
this burden, Kal aireXBe'iv Trpbs 
robs ffvyyevets, that they would 
say to him, OVK&TL avex6jJ-e8a perk 
rov crcafJLariov rovrov Se<Je/-ceyoi 
. . . OVK . , . ffvyyeve'is rives rov 
6eov ecrp-ev Kaicetdev eA^Avfla/zey, 
&<j)S yuMS aireXdeiv o6ev eATjAv- 
crafjisv &tpes \v87jvai irore rcav Secr- 
P.&V rovruv, that he, for Ms 
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, r6r' cmoXveffde irpbs avr6v. 
According to these utterances 
we should have supposed that 
Epictetns believed with Plato 
and the majority of the Stoics, 
that the soul after death was 
transferred to a better life 
with God. Other passages, how- 
ever, render it doubtful whether 
he meant by this a personal 
existence. He says (JHss. 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 "hrm to come ; and to 
the question ' whither ? ' this is 
the answer : els ovftev SetvSv, oAA 1 
86ev eyevov, els ret, (f>i\a Kal orvyye- 
vfi, els rot. crroi%eTa. '6<rov "f\v Iv <rol 
irvpbs, els vvp fareurur 8crov %v 77?- 
5tou, els yjjtiiov %(rov irvevfiariov, 
els irvvfj,driov 8<rov iffiarlov, els 

vSdriov. What becomes of the 
soul we do not learn ; 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- 
ma or as fire, and Epictetus 
would not herein have diverged 
from his school ; the faculty of 
sight, according to the Stoic 
doctrine an emanation of the 
TjyefjLovLKbv, is expressly de- 
scribed in Diss. ii. 23, 3, as a 
Pneuma inherent in the eye. 
The same theory results from 
Diss. iii. 24, 93 : rovro Bdyaros, 
/xerajSoA^ juei&jy, OVK i/c rov vvv 
ftvros els rb ^ ftp, aAA' els rb 
fry. ovKert o$v 

OVK. eo"7)j aAA* &AAo TI, ov vvv 5 
Kofffjios xp e ' iay *X L - Here the 
continued existence of man is 
certainly asserted, but it is 
not a personal existence ; it is 
merely a continuance of his 
substance ; he becomes SAAo n t 
another individual. 

1 It is also plain from this 
that Epictetus places the su- 
periority of man over the 
animals not in free will but in 
consciousness (the 5tW/us irapa- 
jcoAov0?7Ti/c7?) j Diss. i. 6, 
ii. 8, 4 *. 


CHAP, to be a good. 1 How this fatalism is to be combined 

U with moral precepts and exigencies is nowhere 

indicated by our philosopher. 

But even in ethics we must not expect from 
Epictetus any more searching investigation. He 
who confines himself in philosophy to the practically 
useful, and carries on theoretic enquiry only as an 
accessory and means to this, is necessarily, even in 
his moral doctrine, devoid of any proper scientific 
foundation and mode of treatment ; it only remains 
for him, therefore, to found that doctrine, in the 
last resort, upon immediate consciousness. Thus 
Epictetus, like his teacher Musonius, assures us that 
the universal moral conceptions and principles are 
innate in all men, and that all are agreed about them ; 
the strife relates merely to their application in 
given cases. Philosophy has only to develop 
these 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 
or riches, and so forth. Here it is indeed acknow- 
ledged that the innate ideas do not suffice for 
themselves alone ; and that in their application 
deceptive opinion is intermingled; 2 but since, as 
Epictetus believes, there is no strife concerning 
the universal conceptions, he hopes to put an end 

1 Dm. i 18, 1-7 ; 28, 1-10 ; of our free will ; for the Stoics, 

ii. 26 ; iii. 3, 2 ; iii. 7, 15. It notwithstanding their fatalism, 

forms no contradiction to the maintained the same, 

above when Epictetus says 3 Hiss. i. 22, 1 sg. 9 ; ii. 11 

again (.#>. 180 ; ap. Gell. xix. c. 17, 1-13. 
1) that acquiescence is an affair 


to the discord of moral presentations in the simple CFAP. 
Socratie manner, starting from that which is IK " 
universally acknowledged, by means of short dia- 
lectic discussions ; l the scholastic argumentations, 
the systematic treatment of ethics, seem to him, 
not, indeed, worthless, so far as they serve to 
confirm our conviction, but at the same time not 

If we would enter somewhat more closely into Inde~ 
the content of Epictetus' ethical doctrine, we may 
point out, as its fundamental feature, the endeavour 
to make man free and happy by restriction to his 
moral nature; from which proceeds the double 
demand to bear all external events with unconditional 
submission, and to renounce all appetites and wishes 
directed towards the external. This, according to 
Epictetus, is the commencement and sum of all 
wisdom that we should know how to discriminate 
what is in our power and what is not in our 
power ; 2 he is a born 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 ; everything else, whatever it may be called, 
is for us an external, a thing that is not in our 
power. 4 Only this should have, therefore, any 

1 LOG. (M. especially ii. 11, quoted by Mnsonius from the 
and Ii. 12, 5 sg. mouth of Epictetus, mp. p. 

2 Of. sup. p. 261, 1. 254, 1. 

3 Man. i. 1 ; 48, 1 3 JMss. i. * JHss. ii. 17, 29; cf. 1, 4, 18. 
1 ; 21, 22, *#. ; cf. what is Cf. sup. note 3, and Man. 


CHAP, value for us, only in it should we seek goods and 

! evils, happiness and unhappiness ; l and this we can 

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- 
tions of things ; and the question is not how our 
external circumstances are shaped, but whether we 
know how to govern and employ our notions. 4 So 
long as we desire or avoid anything external to our- 
selves we depend upon fortune ; if we have per- 
ceived what is ours and what is not, we restrict 
ourselves with our wishes to our own rational nature 
we direct our efforts and counter efforts, 5 to nothing 
which does not depend on ourselves : then we are 
free and happy, and no fate can have any hold upon 
us; happen what will, it can never affect us and 
that on which our well-being depends. 6 And the 
more completely we have made ourselves thus 
independent in our minds of the external, the 

6 ; Piss. i. 25, 1 ; 12, 34 ; ii. 5, 6 Mm. 1, 2, 19 Mss. i. 1, 7 

*$.; 111. 3, 1; 14 sgg.; iv. 1, sqg.-, 21 sgg.; c. 18, 17; 19, 7: 

10 ?> c : ,. 22, 10 m . ; 25, 1 m . . ii. l, 4 

1 V'tde preceding note and 5, 4; 23, 16 sqq.\ iii. 22, 38* 
Mew. 19 ; Diss. iii. 22, 38 sgg. ; iv. 4, 23 et pass, ; Gell N. A 
ii. 1, 4; i. 20, 7 &c. xvii. 19, 5, where there is a 

2 Dis$. i. 1, 21 sgq. ; c. 18, 17 ; quotation from Epictetus to the 
29, 24 ; ii. 5, 4 ; Man. c. 9, and effect that the worst vices are 
elsewhere. impatience towards the faults 

3 Diss. i. 1, 23; 17, 27; ii. .of others, and intemperance in 
23, 19 ; in. 3, 10. enjoyments and in all things - 

4 Man. 5, 16, 20 ; Diss. i. 1, the art of living happily and 
7 sgg. ; ii. 1, 4; c. 16, 24: iii. without faults is contained in 
3, 18; 26, 34 s$. and elsewhere, two words, aWvou and 

PUl. d. Or. III. i. p. 224, 1. 


clearer it will become that all that happens is 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 Grod 
wills to be better than what we will, and feel 
ourselves free precisely herein, that we are satisfied 
with all as it is and happens ; the course of the 
universe will correspond with our wishes, because we 
have received it unaltered into our wills. 1 Even 
the hardest experiences will not disturb the wise 
man in this temper; not only Ms property, his 
person, his health, and life, but even his friends, his 
belongings, his fatherland, he wiE consider as some- 
thing that is merely lent, and not given, to him, 
and the loss of which does not affect his inner 
nature ; 2 and as little will he permit himself to be 
troubled by the faults of others in his peace of 
mind ; he will not expect that those belonging to 
him should be free from faults ; 3 he will not require 

1 PHI. d. Gr. III. i. p. 303, 1 ; ii. 15, 4 sg$. ; 6, 22 ; iii. 24, 95 

304, 1 ; Man. 8, 10, 53 ; Diss. i. 6, $%%. 

37 sqt[. ; 12, 4 sqq. ; 24, 1 ; ii. 5, 2 Man. 1 1 ; c. 3 ; c. 11 ; c. 
24 sq$. ; 6, 10 ; 10, 4 sq. ; 16, 42 14 ; Digs, i. 15 ; 22, 10 ; iii. 3, 
*gtg[. ; iii. 20 ; IV. i. 99, 131 j 7, 20, 5, and elsewhere, 
and elsewhere. It is consistent * Mtm. 12 ; 1, 14. Still less 
with this principle that Epic- can natural compassion as to the 
tetns, who with Ms school re- external misfortunes of other 
garded suicide as the refnge men be permitted, though Epic- 
kept open in the last resort, tetus is hnman and incon- 
only allows it when circum- sistent enough to allow the ex- 
stances unequivocally demand pression of sympathy {Man. 
it (vide Diss. i. 24, 20 ; 9, 16 ; 16). 




tion of 
to Cyni- 

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, 1 for he finds that all about which most men 
excite themselves, is grounded in the nature of things. 
Thus does man win freedom here by withdrawing 
with his will and endeavour absolutely into himself, 
while he accepts on the contrary all external events 
with perfect resignation as an unavoidable destiny. 

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 according to nature 
and contrary to it, that which is desirable and ob- 
jectionable which was the doctrine chiefly dis- 
tinguishing the Stoic morality from the Cynic for 
him almost entirely loses its meaning ; 2 when he 

1 Diss. i. 18 ; c. 28. 

2 That distinction, be says in 
Diss. ii. 5, 24 $([., only holds 
good so far as man is regarded 
for himself irrespective of his 
place in the interconnection of 
nature ; rt el j &vQp(airos. et (j.ev 
&s &ir6\vTov a'Koire'is, Karh fyvffiv 
<rrl (rjcrat pexptyfjpas, irXovreiv, 
vyialveiv el 5' &s &v6po)irov <ro- 
ircTs Kal fiepos tt\ov nvbs, 5i' 

i *6\ov vvv (j,ev ffoi vocrricrai 
, vvv $ Tr\v<rai KCU KLV$V- 
vevcrcu, vvv 5* airopTjQrlvcLi, 7rp5 
&pas 5' Zarrtv #re atroQavetv. ri 
ofiv ayavaKreis ; . . . afivvarov 
yap ev roiovrcf crc&fjiaTL, r rovrcp 
rq> irepLe-^ovrtj rovrois TOLS cfv- 

rotavra. ffbv ofiv epyov, lA.- 
66vra eliretv & 5eT, ^laQecrBai ravra 
&s, brt0d\\i. What falls to a 



finds it dignified to disdain even those external 
goods which fate offers us without our co-operation ; * 
when in his exaltation above mental emotions he 
advances to insensibility ; 2 when he forbids us to 
feel compassion and sympathy for onr 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 for 
a teacher of humanity, as compared with his 



man as his lot (as was said in 
c, 3 ; cf. c. 6, 1) is immaterial : 

' iriJJ,zXca$ KO.I T6^- 

rovro Sr) efibv 
v. In such observations 
Epictetus to a certain extent is 
anticipated by Chrysippus, from 
whom he quotes these words 
(Dm. ii. 6, 9) : fJ-*xP LS & v a^Xa 
P.OL % ra %rjs, ael r&v v<pvffT- 
ptav e^ofiat irpbs T?> Tvy)(a.Viv 
rcav Kara tyvcriv" airrbs yap \L 6 
6ebs T&V TOLofirav 

6i 5e ye rjSeiv $TI vo- 
/xoi KaOeifMaprai vvv, Kal 
ITT* avr6. Kal yap 6 
nobs, i <j>pevas elxey, &p/J.a "ay 
eirl rb TryXova-Oat. In a system 
so strictly fatalistic as that of 
the Stoics, only a relative valne 
could be allowed to the oppo- 
sition of * contrary to nature 3 
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 

not deterred from action by 
their fatalism, neither did they 
allow it to interfere with tbeir 
conviction of the different rela- 
tive values of things ; without 
which no choice among them, 
and consequently no action, 
would be possible (Cic. Fin. Mi. 
15, 50). If that conclusion is 
more prominent in Bpictetus, so 
that he approximates to the 
complete indifference of Aristo 
and the Cynics, this only shows 
the whole character of Ms ethi- 
cal theory of life, in which the 
Stoic withdrawal from the ex- 
ternal world becomes total in- 
difference to that world, and 
submission to destiny becomes 
inactive sufferance, or tends to it. 

1 Man. 15. 

2 ZH$s. iu. 12, 10. Accustom 
thyself to bear injuries: eW 
ofira} irpoj8^<n7, tva KOV wA^r? ere 
ns e^Tnjs avrlts irpbs avr6v 8rf 
$6}-ov avdpidyras irepieiXqQevai. 

8 Vide my. p. 271, 3. 


CHAP, spiritual posterity ; l when he dissuades us from 
taking part in political life, because for him every 

His gentle human community in comparison with the great 
state of the universe is too small ; 2 when, finally, he 
develops his philosophic ideal under the name and 
in the form of Cynicism. 3 But, on the other hand, 
there unquestionably reigns in Epictetus a milder 
and gentler temper than in the older Stoa : the 
philosopher does not oppose himself to the unphilo- 
sophical world with that haughty self-confidence 
which challenges it to battle; resignation to the un- 
avoidable is his first principle. He comes forward 
not as the angry preacher of morals who reproves 
the 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 Diss. lit 22, 67 sg. ; cf . PMl. of life according to nature and 

d. 6rr.IlLi.2QQ. Epictetus him- the necessity of human society 

self was unmarried (Lucian, demand feimily life ; the inde- 

Detnon. 55 ; cf . Simpl. in JEpiet. pendence and self-sufficingness 

Jfo<5Mr.c.33,7,p.272). Iniii.7, of the wise man forbid it. 

19 ; i. 23, 4 sgr. he reproaches the With Epictetus, however, the 

Epicureans that their repudia- latter point of view manifestly 

tion of marriage and of po- predominates, and thus there 

litical life undermines human results a doctrine similar to 

society, and in Lucian (L 0.) he that which prevailed at this 

admonishes Demonax the Cynic time, and subsquently in the 

to found a family, tr^i^iv jap Catholic Church : marriage is 

teal TOVTO <pL\off6<i>tp avSpl erepov recommended, but celibacy is 

avB" avrov ttwraXiireiv rrj Qtarei, considered better and higher, 

(to which Demonax replied : and is advised for all those who 

' Very good! G-iveme then one profess to be teachers in the 

of your daughters 1 '). But this service of God. 

is only the same contradiction 2 PMl. d. 6r. III. i. 296, 3. 

which we might everywhere s Vide Dm. iii. 22 : iv. 8, 30: 

find in the Stoic treatment of i. 24, 6. 
these questions. The principle 



accuses them, who is not irritated even by the CHAP. 

greatest wrong, but prefers to excuse it as an invo- '. 

luntary error. 1 When our connection with other Universal 
men and the duties arising from it is in question, 
Epictetus represents these relations chiefly from 
the emotional side, as an affair of the affectionate 
temperament: we should fulfil our duties to the 
gods, to those belonging to us, and to our fellow- 
citizens, for we ought not to be without feeling, 
as if we were made of stone ; 2 we should treat all 
men, even if they are our slaves, as brothers, for 
they all descend equally from Grod ; 3 even to those 
who ill-treat us we ought not to refuse the love of 

1 Vide, besides the passages 
quoted sup. p. 259, 1, the quota- 
tions p. 268, 1 ; for example 
(i. 18, 3) : ri ert iroT^o'is x a ^ e ~ 
ircdvopev ; K\eirrai, (pijcrlv, elcrl Kal 
XcairoSvrcu. ri Herri rb KXcirrai 
Kal \OTTO$vrai j TreTrXdvyyTaL irpl 
ayaQSov Kal KaKtay. xaXeiraiveiv 
o$v 5eT avrols 3} \eeij/ avrovs ; 
There is no greater unhappiness 
than to be in error concerning 
the most important questions, 
and not to have a rightly con- 
stituted will ,* why be angry 
with those who have this un- 
happiness? We should rather 
compassionate them. And 
finally, we are only angry with 
them because we cannot free 
ourselves from dependence 
on the things of which they 
deprive us : fi^j 6avfj,ae o~ov ret, 
Ifidna Kal rqi tcXeirrr) ov ^aAexa- 
j/e7r fjt.^ Oavjj,a( rb uraAAos rrjs 
yvvaiKbs real 

, (Tavrtj> 
Kov fy fKeivois. 

2 Diss. iii. 2, 4. The first is 
being without passions or affec- 
tions ; the second is the fulfil- 
ment of duty : ov 5 ydp pe 
elvat airaBrj &s avSpidvra, &c. 

3 Diss. i. 13, where Epictetus 
exclaims to the master who is 
violent towards Ms slaves : av- 
SpdiroSojr, OVK ave^y rov a8e\<f>ov 
rov (ravrov tts %X i T ^ y ^ a ^P^' 
yovov, &<nrp vibs CK rSav avrSiv 
crirepfjLar&v yeyove Kal ry$ avrTJs 
&vo*&V KarafioXys ; . . . ov yue/t- 

rls el Kal riv&v &p%ts ; fin 


irov $\TreLs ; %n eh TOVS raXat- 
v&povs rovrovs v6[JLovs TOVS rSov 
VKpS>v ; els 5e rovs r&v QeSav ov 
0\eireis ; cf. Sen. JBenef. iii. 18- 
28 ; De Clement. 1 18, 2 ; JEJp. 
31, 11 ; Vvt. Beat. 24, 3 ; Mu- 
sonius ap. Stob. Fl&ril. 40, 9 ; 
jEIp. 44 ; ZHss. iii. 22, 83 ; i. 9. 

T 2 





a father or a brother. 1 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 

The greatest admirer of Epictetus was Marcus 


Antoninus Aurelius Antoninus, 2 and in his apprehension of 

lonius; cf. sup. p. 197, note). 
The philosophers whose in- 
structions he attended were, 
besides the above mentioned, 
Stoics (/. <?.) ; Sextus, the Pla- 
tonist, of Chaeronea, nephew of 
Plutarch (M.Aurel.i. 9; Capitol. 
3 ; Dio and Philostr. 1. c. ; Eu- 
trop. viii. 12; Suid. Mcp/c.); 
Alexander (M. Aurel. i. 12 ; 
Philostr. V. Soph. ii. 5, 2 s#.), 
but this last only at a later 
period; and Claudius Sevems, 
the Peripatetic (Capitol. 3). 
Among the earlier philosophers 
none made a deeper impression 
upon him than Epictetus, as 
we have already seen (sup. p. 
738, 1 ; according to M. Aur. i. 
7. Adopted by order of Hadrian 
(concerning his predilection for 
him, vide Capitol, i. 4 ; Dio 
Cass. MX. 15) by Antoninus 
Pius, he took the name of Mar- 
cus Aurelius after he had borne 
that of his maternal grand- 
father Catilius for a while. On 
his accession to the throne the 
surname of Antoninus was also 
added (Capitol, i. 5, 7 ; Dio 
Cass. I. <?.). His later life be- 
longs to Roman imperial his- 
tory, which exhibits to us on 
the throne of the Caesars many 
more powerful princes, but 

iii. 22, 54 : 
5e? avrbv (the Cynic, the truly 
wise man) &s ftvov Kal Saip6- 
}j.vov <pi\iv avrovs TOVS fiaipov- 
ras, &$ irarepa irdvrcav, us a5eA<>oz/ ; 
cf . Fr. 70 ; ap. Stob. Moril 20, 
61 ; and concerning other Cy- 
nics who express themselves in 
the same manner, PMl. d. Gr. 
III. i. 299, 4. 

2 M. Annius Verus (for so he 
was originally called) was born 
on the 25th of April, 121 A.D., 
inEome(Capitolin. Ant. PMlos. 
1), where his family, which had 
emigrated with his great grand- 
father out of Spain, had at- 
tained a high rank (I. <?.). 
His careful education was for- 
warded by his own anxiety to 
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. c. 
c. 2). His teachers he loaded 
with proofs of his gratitude 
and respect, even when he 
became Emperor (I. o. c. 3 ; cf, 
Ant. Pi. 10; Philostr. V. Soph. 
ii. 9 ; and Dio Cass. Ixxi. 1, 
who relate the same of Sextus 
as Capitolinus relates of Apol- 



Stoicism, as well as in his whole mode of thought, 
he approximates very closely to him. Like Epic- 
tetus he generally presupposes the Stoic doctrine, 
but only those determinations of it which stand in 
close relation to the moral and religious life possess 
any interest for him. He does not feel called upon 
to be a dialectician or a physicist; l and though he 
admits the value of these sciences in general, 2 he is 




in his 


vien" of 



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. IxxL), Capitolinus (Ant. 
Philos. -, Ant. Pius. Ver. Imp.}, 
Vulcatius (Avid. Cass,) 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 Aure- 
lius as Caesar and actual co- 
regent stood to his equally 
excellent father-in law and 
adopted father (136-161), to 
whom he himself (i. 16 ; vi. 30) 
in his meditations has raised so 
beautiful a monument. His 
own reign was disturbed by 
great public misfortunes (fa- 
mine and plague in Eome, 165, 
6 A.D.), difficult wars (with the 
Parthians in 162 A.D., the Mar- 
comanni, 166 syq. and 178 S$Y.)> 
dangerous insurrections (the 
Bucoli in Egypt in 170 ; Avidius 
Cassius in Syria, 175) ; and em- 
bittered by the indolence of his 
colleague Verus(died 172 A.D.), 
the immorality of his wife 
Faustina, and the wickedness 
and excesses of his son Corn- 
modus. On the 17th of March 

180 A.D. Marcus Aurelius died 
at Tienna 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 eavrbv or KO.& 
tavrbv, but are also quoted 
under other designations (Bach, 
p. 6). More recent monographs 
concerning him are the follow- 
ing : N. Bach, De Mare. Avr. 
Anton. Leipzig, 1826 ; Dorgens, 
i-ide sup. p. 202, 1 ; Zeller, Vortr, 
uncL Abliandl. i. 89 $g. ; Cless 
M. Aurelius Selbstyesprciche 
ubers. imd erlaut. Stuttgard, 
1866, And others in Ueberweg, 
Qrunfo. i. 228. 

1 vii. 67 : Kal ^ y %TL cnr^tan- 
Kas SioAe/CTi/cbs Kal (pwiicbs eirecr- 
8ai, Sia TOVTO aTroyvys, Kal A.etJ- 

$pOS Kal al^fLtaV Kal KOlV&VlKbs 

Kal euTrei^s 1 6eq>. 

2 So he says in viit 13, in 
agreement with the Stoic triple 
division of philosophy : 

VKU)S Kal 7Ti 


CHAP, nevertheless of opinion that a man may attain his 
' proper destination without much knowledge. 1 The 
important thing is not that he should search out all 
things above and beneath the earth, but that he 
should commune with the daemon within him and 
serve him in sincerity; 2 the greater are the diffi- 
culties which oppose themselves to the investigation 
of the Keal, the more should a man hold to that 
which in the changefulness of things and of opinions 
can alone give us calm to the conviction that 
nothing can happen to us which is not according to 
the nature of the universe, and that none can oblige 
us to act against our conscience. 3 It is only with 
these practical convictions, therefore, that he is 
concerned in his study of philosophy. Philosophy 
must give us a fixed support in the flux of pheno- 

1 Vide 277, 1 ; cf. i. 17, where Svo-KardXyirra 5o/ce? Kal iraa-a TJ 

he reckons among the bene- ^/zerepa <ruy/caTc0e<m fj-eraTrrarTj' 

tits of the gods that he did TTOV yap 6 aperdTrraros ; If we 

not make greater progress in go further with external things, 

oratory and poetry and such they are all transitory and 

studies which otherwise might worthless ; if we consider men, 

have exclusively occupied him, even the best are scarcely en- 

and that when he applied him- durable : eV row^ry o$v fy$y 

self to philosophy he refrained Kal frvTrq Kal rocra^rrj fiixrei . . 

from aTTOKaBifrai eirl rovs crvy- ri iror e<rrl rb eKTLfjLyBijvai, fy rb 

ypatyets, ^ ffvKKoyLff^ovs aya- 8Xcos ffTrovSacrdTJvat ^vvd^vov eiu- 

\6etv, ^ irepl ra /j,Ta)po\oyiKa you. It only remains to await 

KaraylvearBat. in peace his natural dissolu- 

ii. 13 ; cf. ii. 2, 3 : a^es ra tion, but until then rovrois 

iravecrOar evl /xey 

^ ^ 

3 V. 10 : TO; fjiey irpdy/jiara v ot%i Kara rfyv r>v 

oLavry rptirov nva tyKaXfyei. i<rrtv erepcp 5e, $n |<TT/ JULOI 

arly, fto-re <j>i\ocr6<t>ot$ OVK 6\l- pijtev vpd<r<rLv irapa rbv ijj&v 

oLs, ov5e TO?S- rvxova-tv, eSo^e 6(-bv Kal Salpova. ovSels yap 4 

iv aKaraXTjirra elvai. avayKdcrcay rovrov 
auroTs ye rots 2ro)iKo?$ 


mena, and supply a defence against the vanity of CHAP. 
all finite things. 'What is human life? 5 he asks. IX - 
A dream and an exhalation, a strife and a wandering 
in a strange land. Only one thing can guide us 
through it namely, philosophy. This consists in 
our keeping the daemon within us pure and clear, 
exalted above pleasure and pain, independent of the 
conduct of others ; in our receiving all that happens 
to us as sent by (rod, and awaiting the natural end 
of our existence with cheerfulness and courage. 1 
The problem of philosophy lies, therefore, in the 
forming of a man's character and the calming of 
his mind ; only according to their relation to this 
problem is the value of scientific enquiries and 
dogmas to be estimated. 

For this purpose there are three points in the HU o^- 
theoretical portion of the Stoic system which are reti< ! eon ' 
chiefly important in the eyes of our philosopher, ^xtf 
First, the doctrine of the flux of all things, of the all things. 
decay of all existence, of the rotation of becoming 
and passing away, in which nothing individual has 

1 ii. 17 : rov avBpuvtvov fttov &s cKeiBev Tro6ev , 

& f V*v Xpfoos ffrrypfi' % 5e ovffta aMs fafcir eVl iran 5e rbv 0a- 

peoutra, &c. crvvsXtwri. <5e elireiv, varov ?\eq> ry yvt&fjiri Treptpevovra, 

ic&VTO) ra jitej/ rov <rdfjc.aro$ fro- <fo ou5y 2UAo fy Xvtrtv rtev 

ra/iJi^ ra 5c TT}S <pv%ris foeipos aroixel&v, e| wv tKaffrov ($oy 

Kal Tvtyas. d- 5e jSfas- Tr6Xfio$ a-vyKpiverai. SimHar utterances 

Kal %4vov briSiipia' TJ vffrepoQyfjLfa concerning the vanity and. 

5e X'fiBif]. ri^ ovv rb irapair^at transitoriness of life and 

SwdfjiGvov ; ev Kal pivots, (piXoa-o- the worthlessness of every- 

fa. rovro Se ev r rt\p<iiv rbv thing external are to found in 

j/5oy Salpom a,j>6ftpi<rrov /col ii. 12, 15 ; iv. 3 (d K6ffpos d\- 

affunj, &c. ^ri 5e ra ovfifiai- Xoieacrir d 0los fa6\i$is) ; iv. 

vovra Kal airovefjttfjLeva lex^ei/ov, 48 ; v. 33 ; vl 36 ft 


CHAP, permanence, 1 but all returns in course of time ; 2 of 
' the ceaseless transmutation to which even the ele- 
ments are subject ; 3 of the change which conducts 
even the universe to its future dissolution. 4 With 
these doctrines he couples these reflections : what an 
unimportant part of the whole, what a transitory 
phenomenon in the stream of universal life, is each 
individual ; 5 how wrong it is to set our hearts upon 
the perishable, to desire it as a good, or to fear it 
as an evil ; 6 how little we ought to disturb ourselves 
if we form no exception to the law which holds 
good, and must hold good, for all parts of the 
world, if we 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 
this change is governed by a higher law and sub- 
serves the end of the highest reason ; and this is 
the conclusion of those propositions on the deity 
and providence, and on the unity and perfection of 
the world, to which Marcus Aurelius so often recurs. 
The belief in the gods is so 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 

1 iv. 36, 43 ; v. 13, 23 ; viii. know of the existence of the 
6 ; ix. 19, 28 et pass. gods whom we do not see, 

2 ii. 14: ; viii. 6. Marcus Aurelius answers (xii. 

3 ii. 17, end; iv. 46. 28): We believe in them be- 

4 v. 13, 32. cause we experience the effects 

5 v, 23 ; ix. 32. of their power ; but that we 

6 iv. 42 j v. 23 ; vi. 15 ; ix. 28. do not see them is not quite 
* ii. 17, end; viii. 18; x. 7, true, for they (i.e. a portion 

31 ; xii. 21. of them, the stars) are visible ; 

8 ii. 11. If we ask how we and we believe in our souls 


the Divine Providence embraces all things and has CHAP. 
ordered all things in the most perfect and beneficent IX ' 

manner ; l whether this care extends to the indi- Belief i 
vidual immediately as such, or is related to him by 
means of the general interdependence of nature. 2 
The same divine spirit permeates all things ; as the t?ie uni ~ 
substance of the world is one, so is its soul ; 3 it is 
one rational and efficient force which goes through all 
things, bears in itself the germs of all things, and 
brings forth all things in fixed and regular succes- 
sion. 4 The world, therefore, forms a well-ordered 
living whole, the parts of which are maintained in 
harmony and interconnection by an internal bond, 5 
and all in it is regulated for the best, the fairest 
and the most appropriate ends ; the worse is made 
for the sake of the better, and the irrational for the 

without seeing them (cf. iraKo\ov8r}(ny . . . rb 5e 

Xenoph. Mem. 8, 14). #re 0ebs, eS e^ei vdvra tfre 

1 ii. 3 : ra r>v BeSsv irpovoias eiKTJ, p)j KCU <rv titty. Therefore, 
fJL<rrd (xii. 5) ; irdvra KaXws KOL iii. 11, 8*5 i e<p 3 ettd(rrov Ae- 
(pLXavQp&iras dtard^avres ot Qeoi yetv rovro pzv irapa 8eov 7jKi. 
(ii. 4,11 ; vi. 4:4:, &C.). rovro 5e Kara r^jv <TV\XTI%IV /col 

2 Marcus Aurelius allows us T^\V ffv{jLfjL7jpvo/j.evT]v (firyKXoxriv^ 
to choose between these two &c. The same distinction be- 
theories, whereas he repudiates tween indirect and direct di- 
the third that the gods do vine causation, between G-od 
not trouble themselves about and destiny, we find PMl.d.&r. 
anything as wicked and sub- HI. i. 143, 2 ; 339, 1. 

versive of all religion ; though 3 xii. 30 ; ix. 8 ; iv. 40 ; Phil. 

even were it the case he holds d. 6fr. III. i. 200, 2 ; 140. 

that man could still take care 4 Ibid. in. i. 159, 2, 3 ; v. 32 : 

of himself and his true welfare rbv 5ia TTJS obcrias S^/coj/ra \6yov 

(vi. 44 ; vide Phil. d. Grr. III. i. ical 5f^ vavr'bs rov ai&vos Karci 

163,3. Similarly ix. 28: %roi icepi6$ovsT'raryfjLyasoiKovofJLovvra 

(j? Ka<rrov 6pfj.% TJ rov cfAou did- ri> Tray. 

vota, then be satisfied with it : 5 iv. 40 ; Phil. d. Gfr. III. i. 

$ cwra 8pjLty(r, ra 5e Xonra KO.T p. 140 j 169, 1, 2. 


CHAP, sake of the rational. 1 Even that which seems to us 
IX - 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 
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 
And 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 
even the extraordinary revelations of God in dreamst 
and auguries, 3 of which he believes himself to have 
had experience ; 4 on the relation of these revela- 
tions to the course and connection of nature 5 he 
says, however, little as concerning the relation of 
his gods to the popular deities ; 6 and in other pas- 

1 Loo. cit. 170, 1 ,* v. 16, 30 old Stoics so greatly (PJiil. d. 
and elsewhere. 6V. III. i. 339 $#.) 

2 Phil. d. 6V. III. i. p. 174, 2; 6 Marcus Aurelius always 
175, 2 ; 176, 3 j 177, 1 ; 178, 1, 2 ; speaks in a general manner of 
ii. 11 : ro'is p.ev /car* aA4)0eicw the 6 col or the 6eb$, for whom 
KaKo'ts Tva fj&i TrcpmiirTr} d fydpv- he often substitutes * Zeus ' ; 
TTOS, in* wry rb irw edevro' T&V in regard to the popular deities 
8e Xonroov ef ri Kaicbv fy Kal he doubtless followed, as Epic- 
TOI/TO &v wpo'foovro, "iva. en-f? tetus did, the universal theories 
Trdvrfi rb /JL^J irspnrLirTSiv ctirtp' & of his school, but held to the 
Se %efy>ftj fj.)) iroii faQpuirov, ircas existing public worship the 
&v rovro frlov av6pc^irov xelpca more steadily, since for him as 
iTQLT}ffiev ; xii. 5, and elsewhere, head of the Roman state it was 

3 ix. 27. Even to the wicked a political necessity ; and thus 
we must be friendly : Kal ot we can understand how Chris- 
6eol $e iravrolco? avrots ftoyQovcri, tianity appeared to him as re- 
Si* bvelpwv, 5i& fjLavTi5>v. bellion against the laws of the 

4 i. 17, where the ^o-nQ^aTa State, and the constancy of 
5i } oyeip ca v are mentioned which the Christian martyrs as a 
were imparted to himself, wanton defiance (^tX?) napd- 
among other things, against ra^is, xi. 3), which must be 
blood-spitting and giddiness. crushed by severity. Under his 

5 Which had occupied the reign, as is well known, great 




sages lie altogether repudiates the superstition of 
his age. 1 The primal revelation of God he con- 
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 
depends ; and this doctrine of the kinship of man 
to Grod is the third of the points which determine 
his view of the universe. 2 He diverges, however, Kin*Up 
from the Stoic doctrine of man's existence after death @j, an to 
by the theory that the souls, some time after the se- 
paration from the body, return into the world soul or 
the Deity, as the body returns into the elements. 3 
The central point, however, of the philosophy of 

persecutions of the Christians 
took place (Zeller, Vortr. und 
AJbh&ndl. i. 106 s^.) 

1 In i. 6, he says in praise of 
Diognetus that he owes to him 

ttbv TOLS Vlib TU>V T6- 
KO.I yQ'flT&V irepl 

irepl fiaifJi6vMV OTTO- 
rrijs Kal r&v roio-inrfav Xeyofj.4- 

2 Of. on this subject, to 
which he often recurs, the 
quotations, Phil, d, Gr. III. i. 
p. 200, 2 ; 319, 2. 

3 Marc. Aur. ii. 1 7 ; iii. 3 ; iv. 14, 
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, ovrws at eh rbv 
aide pa fiedLffrdu-evai $v%al, H-iii 
Tfoffbv crvfjifieivacratj [j.era&dXXova'i 
Kal xeovrai Kal e^dirrovrai, els 
rbv TV*V ftXtav cnrepfiariKby \6yov 
ava\afji^av6fj,vai, l Kal rovrov rbv 
TpoTfov "ywpav Tats irpoffffwoiKt^o- 

r irapexovffi. The same is 

referred to in iv. 14 : 
( = ev T(p 5X 

es TOV 

\6yov OVTOV rbv cnrep/jLariK^v 
Kara juerajSoA^j/ ; v. 13 : % al- 
Kal vXtKov a"vvea'T7jKa' 
5e TOVTCOV els 

ovros inrearTi, &c. Of. further 
xii. 5 ; how is it consistent 
with the divine justice that 
even the most pious persons 
die, in order not to return 

aldts yveffat, aX\ es r> vav- 
T\es aweo'&TjKevai) 1 to which 
the answer is not that the pre- 
supposition is false, but rather 
rovro 5e eftre/? Kal ovroos ^X l ? ^ 
laBi #T, el &$ (this is to be 
omitted, or else to be replaced 
by Trojy) erepcos e^eiy e5et, ^iroirj- 
<rav &v. Also ii. 17, end j v. 33 ; 
viii. 18; iz. 32 j x. 7, 31; xi. 
3 ; xii. 1, 21, 31. 


CHAP. Antoninus lies, as has been said, in the moral life of 
' man, and here his likeness to Epictetus comes out most 

MMcs. strongly ; but the difference of their nationality and 
social position made it inevitable that the Eoman 
emperor should display in his theory of the world a 
stronger character and maintain the duties of the 
individual towards society more emphatically than 
the Phrygian freedman. For the rest, we find with 
him also that the fundamental determinations of 
his ethics are the dependence of man upon himself, 
resignation to the will of Grod, and the warmest and 
most boundless love of man. 1 ' Why dost thou dis- 
turb thyself about others ? ' he says to man ; retire 
into thyself ; only within dost thou find rest and 

into 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 futile, that only within thee streams 

1 Marcus Aurelius himself in effect asserted in v. 33 ; the 

often brings forward these essential thing is 0eota fj.ev {re- 

virtues, sometimes all three, j8eu> Kal ev^petv, avdptiirovs 8e 

sometimes only two of them, as e3 voieiv, /cal aye'xe<r0cu avr&v 

the chief point. So in the pas- oi a-7re'xe<r0at (of. p. 270, 6). 

sage quoted sup. p. 278, 3 j 279,1, oVa 8 e'/crta gpajz/ rov KpeaSiov 

he mentions purity and freedom Kal rov irvevfAartov, ravra ^ueu- 

of the inner life, and submis- vrjo-dai p^re <r& Svra, ^re M 

sion to the course of the uni- <roL But as he does not at- 

verse, iii. 4 ; and together with tempt any systematic enume- 

these a recollection of the kin- ration, we cannot expect any 

ship of all men and the duty consistency from him in this 

of caring for all. The same is respect. 


an inexhaustible fountain of happiness, that the CHAP. 
passionless reason is the only citadel in which man ' 

must take refuge if he would be invincible. 1 His 
rational activity is the only thing in which a being 
endowed with reason has to seek his happiness and 
his goods ; 2 everything else, all that does not stand 
in connection with the moral constitution of man, 
is neither a good nor an evil. 3 He who confines 
himself to his internal nature, and has freed him- 
self from all things external, in him every wish and 
every appetite is extinguished, he is every moment 
satisfied with the present, he accommodates himself 
with unconditional submission to the course of the 
universe ; he believes that nothing happens except ^ O f ie 
the will of Grod ; that that which advantages the &<>& 
whole and lies in its nature must be the best for 
him also; that nothing can happen to a man 
which he cannot make into material for a rational 
activity. 4 For himself he knows no higher task 
than to follow the law of the whole, to honour the 
god in his bosom by strict morality, to fill his place 5 
at every moment as a man (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 

1 ii. 13 ; iii. 4, 12 ; Iv. 3, 7, i. p. 177, 2 ; 178, 1. Hence the 
8, 18 ; v. 19, 34 ; vii. 28, 59 ; principle (x. 40 ; cf. v. 7) that 
Tiii. 48 ; xii. 3 et passim. men should not ask external 

2 Phil. d. Or. III. i. p. 210, prosperity from God, but only 
2, 3 ; 212, 4. the disposition which neither 

3 Ib. HI. i. 216, 1 ; 218, 1 ; desires nor fears what is ex- 
viii. 10 ; iv. 39. ternal. 

4 x. 1 ; iii. 12 ; ii. 3, 16 ; iv. 5 ii. 5, 6, 13, 16, 17 ; iii. 5, 
23, 49 ; vi. 45 ; x. 6 ; viii. 7, 35 16. &c. 

et passim. Cf. PML d. ffr. III. 


CHAP, cheerfulness which is simply content with the 
IX " thought of that which is according to nature. 1 But 
how can man feel himself part of the world, and 
subordinate himself to the law of the universe 
without at the same time regarding himself as a 
member of humanity and finding in work for hu- 
manity his worthiest task ? 2 and how can he do this 
if he does not bestow upon his more immediate 
fatherland all the attention which his position 
Lore to demands of him ? 3 Not even the unworthy mem- 
m n ' bers of human society are excluded by Antoninus 
from his love. He reminds us that it befits man to 
love even the weak and erring, to take interest even 
in the ungrateful and hostile ; he bids us consider 
that all men are our kindred, that in all the same 
divine spirit dwells ; that we cannot expect to find 
no wickedness in the world, but that even the 
sinning sin only involuntarily and because they do 
not perceive what is really best for them ; that he 
who does wrong harms only himself; our own 
essential nature can be harmed by no action of 
another's wrongdoing ; he requires, therefore, that 
we should be hindered by nothing in doing good, 
that we should either teach men or bear with them, 
and instead of being angry or surprised at their 
faults, should only compassionate and forgive them. 4 
We know how consistently Antoninus himself acted 

1 For further details cf . Phil. (pi\7v Kal robs irralovras, &c. ; 
d. @r. III. i. p. 286, p. 301 sg. I o. c. 26 ; ii. 1, 16 ; lit 11, 

2 ./&. p. 297, 2, 3. &c.; iv. 3; v. 25; viii. 8, 14, 

3 Ib : III. i. 297, 2, 3. 59 j ix. 4, 42; xi. 18; xii. 12, 

4 vii. 22 : ffiiov av6p<&irov ri> et passim,. 


Tip to these precepts. 1 From "his life, as from Ms CHAP. 
words, there comes to us a nobility of soul, a purity ' 

of mind, a conscientiousness, a loyalty to duty, 2 a 
mildness, a piety, and love of man which in that cen- 
tury, and on the Koman imperial throne, we must 
doubly admire. That the Stoic philosophy in times 
of the deepest degradation of morals could form a 
Musonius, an Epictetus, a Marcus Aurelius, will 
always redound to its imperishable glory. But it 
made no scientific progress 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, Vovtr. und Abhandl. mand for strict self-examina- 
i. 96 sgr. ; 98 sq. : 101 s%. tion. 

2 As is seen, for example, in 3 In regard to the anthropo- 
ids repeated expressions of dis- logy and theology of Marcus 
satisfaction with himself (iv. Aurelius, something further 
37 j v. 5 ; x. 8) and in his de- will be said later on. 




FROM this later Stoicism the contemporary Cynicism 
is only distinguished by the onesidedness and 
B. The thoroughness with which it followed the same 
direction. Stoicism had originally formed itself out 
of Cynicism, for the Cynic doctrine of the independ- 
ence of the virtuous will had furnished the basis 
of a more comprehensive and scientific view of 
the world, and in consequence of this was itself 
placed in a truer relation with the claims of 
nature and of human life. If this theoretic basis 
of 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 


at strife with general custom and even with legiti- CHAP. 
mate moral claims. We may observe this tendency x 
of Stoicism towards Cynicism in the later Stoics, 
especially in Musonius and Epictetus ; indeed, the 
latter expressly designates and describes the true 
philosopher as a Cynic. On the same road we also 
encounter the school of the Sextii, though these, 
so far as we know, did not call themselves Cynics ; 
and it is undeniable . that the conditions which dis- 
tinguish the last century of the Eoman Republic 
and the first of the Imperial Government the 
universal immorality and luxury, and the pressure 
weighing upon all gave a sufficient opening for 
meeting the distress and corruption of the time in 
the same way as had been done under analogous but 
much more mitigated circumstances by Diogenes 
and Crates. 1 Soon after the beginning of the Revival of 
Christian era we again hear of the Cynics, and ^ ni ^ m 

J 3 won Gjjt&r 

under that name is united a numerous host, partly the &?- 
of genuine, partly of merely nominal philosophers, t^Ckril 
who, with open contempt for all purely scientific tia>lfl &ra - 
activity, set before them as their only task the 
liberation of man from unnecessary wants, idle 
endeavours, and disturbing mental emotions; who 
herein far more than the Stoics set themselves 
definitely in opposition, even by their dress and 
mode of life, to the mass of men and their customs, 
and came forward as professed preachers of morals 
and moral overseers over the rest. That under this 
mask a number of impure elements were hidden, 

3 Cf, Bernays, Litcian und die Kymker, 27 *g. 



x ' 

its adhe- 

that a great part, perhaps the greater part, of these 
ancient mendicant monks, through their obtrusive- 
ness, shamelessness, and charlatanism, through their 
coarse and rude behaviour, through their extortions 
and impositions, and, despite their beggarly life, even 
through their covetousness, brought the name of 
philosophy into contempt, is undeniable, and may be 
proved from Lucian alone; l but we shall find that the 
new Cynical school, like its predecessor, had never- 
theless a nucleus worthy of esteem. But even the 
better Cynics are of little importance in a scientific 
point of view. 

1 E.g. De inorte Peregrini', 
Piscat. 44 sq. 48 ; Symp. il s%. ; 
Fugit. 16 ; also Nigr. 24. Simi- 
lar complaints had been raised 
by others. Seneca warns his 
Lucilius (JEp. 5, 1) against the 
strange manner of life of those 
qui non proficere sed conspici 
cupiunt, against the cultus as- 
per, the mtonsum cajmt, the 
negligentior "ba/rba^ the indiotum 
argcnto odium, the ctibile Tiumi 
positum, et quicyuid aliitd am- 
"bitio perversa via, sequitur, all 
traits of the new Cynicism: 
and there is also reference to 
it, no doubt, in Up. 14, 14 (cf. 
103, 5): non contur"bal)it sapiens 
piiblieos mores nee populwn in 
se vitce novitate convertet. Kpic- 
tetus also (iii. 22, 50) sharply 
discriminates between the in- 
ner freedom and the outer 
moral qualities of the true 
Cynic; and that which many 
substitute for these : irv\pi$iov 
Kal i-v\ov Kal yvdBoi /u.eyd\ai' 
iray b av 8<s, ^ cwro- 
3} TO?S cLTravruffi Xot- 

, &c. ; and about the 
same period Dio Chrysost. (Or. 
34, p. 33 E.) says, with refe- 
. rence to the philosophic dress, 
he knows well that those who 
are seen in it call themselves 
Cynics and regard themselves 
as jMLiifOfjLevovs rivets avQp&Trovs 
Kal raXanr&povs. The com- 
plaints of Lucian are echoed 
by his contemporary Aristides, 
the rhetorician (De Quatuorv. 
p. 397 sqq. ; Bind, cf . Bernays, 
Lucian 'wnct, die Kyn. p. 38, 
100 ^.)- From these passages, 
to which may be added Lucian, 
Dial. Mort. 1, 1, 2 ; Galen, 
Dig ii. An. Peec. 3, vol. v. 7l, 
we see also wherein the external 
tokens of the Cynic life con- 
sisted : in the mantle, of ten very 
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. 


The first philosophers who assumed the Cynics' 
name and mode of life are to be met with about the 
middle, and before the middle, of the first Christian 
century, 1 and the most prominent man of the school 
at this date appears to have been Demetrius, the friend 
of Seneca and of Thrasea Psetus. 2 Greatly, how- 


1 Cicero always treats Cynic- 
Ism as a phenomenon belonging 
to the past ; yet the passage in 
Of. i. 41, 148 (Cynicorum vero 
ratio tota est ejitiefida, ; est 
enim inimica verecundice) seems 
to be aimed against panegy- 
rists of the Cynic life. Some- 
what later Brntns (Pint. JBrut. 
34) names M. Favonius (who 
is mentioned, sup. p. 74, foot, 
among the Stoics) with expres- 
sions descriptive of the Cynics 
(airXoKvuv and ^/evSo/nJojj/), 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 (SeJiol. in Luc. Piseat. 
26 ; Iv. 97 Jac.) and he is also 
said to have been identical 
with Menippus the Lycian, 
whose ad ventures with a Lamia 
are related by Philostratus 
(Apoll. iv. 25), while at the 
same time he calls him a dis- 
ciple of Demetrius the Cynic 
(Ibid. iv. 39 ; v. 43). Of these 
* statements not only is the 
second manifestly false (irre- 
spective of the Lamia); for 
Demetrius did not live in the 
reign of Augustus, even sup- 
posing that he had a disciple 
called Demetrius ; but the first 
is also untrue, though it was 
formerly universally accepted. 

The Menippus to whom Lucian 
In the Icaromenippm and a 
great portion of the Dialogues 
of the Dead has given the chief 
roles, is unmistakably the 
Cynic of the third century 
B.C., famous for Ms Satires, 
who had already written a 
Ne/cwa (Diog. vi. 101): Lucian 
(Accvs. 33) also calls him Mey- 
anr6s ris rtav itaXaitav KWCOV 
[j,d\a vKoLKTiKos ; treats him as 
a contemporary of the events 
of the third century (Icavomen. 
15), and mentions Ms having 
killed himself (Dial. Mart. 10, 
11), cf. Part II. a; 246, 3. 
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 Cynics capable of histori- 
cal proof will be named in the 
following note. 

2 This contemporary of Se- 
neca, who often mentions him, 
was, according to Benef, vii. 
11, already in Rome under 
Caligula, and was offered by 
the Emperor a gift of 200,000 
sesterces, which, however, he 
declined. We find Mm in Rome' 
under Nero (Sen. JSenef. vii 
1,3; 8, 2; ^.67, 14; 91,19). 
The utterances of Seneca on 

TJ 2 




ever, as this philosopher is admired by Seneca, 1 and 
advantageously as his freedom from wants contrasts 

his poverty and Ms manner of 
life (Vit. Beat. 183) date from 
this time QIOG pauperiorem, 
qua/m ceteros Cynicos, quod, cum 
siU interdixerit liabere, inter- 
dixit et posoere'), JEp. 20, 9 (ego 
certe aliter audio, qua (Licit 
Demetrius noster, cum ilium 
vidi nudum, quanta minus, 
quam in xtramentis, inciiban- 
tem), Hip. 62, 3 (he lives, nan 
tamquam contempserit omnia, 

the word of Epic- 
tetus (JDiss. i. 25, 22), and the 
anecdote in Lucian, Saltatory 
63. When Thrasea Psetus was 
put to death (67 A.D.), whose 
intimate friend he was, he 
raised Ms voice in opposition 
(Tac. Ann. xvi. 34 s#.)> anc ^ 
still more to his own disadvan- 
tage, after the accession of 
Vespasian undertook the de- 
fence of Egnatius Celer (Tac. 
Hist. iv. 40 ; cf . Ann. xvi. 32), 
On account of his injurious 
expressions concerning Ves- 
pasian he was banished (71 
A.D.) to an island, but his con- 
tinued insults were not further 
punished (Dio Cass. Ixvi. 13; 
Sueton. Vesp. 13). In Lucian, 
Adv. 2nd. 19, he appears in 
Corinth ; in Philostratus, ApolL 
iv. 25 ; v. 19, we meet with 
him in the reign of Nero at 
Athens and Corinth ; subse- 
quently he was recommended 
by Apollonius. of Tyana to 
Titus (vi. 31), and in the reign 
of Domitian was still in the 
company of that necromancer 
(vii. 42 ; viii. 10 s##.) ; but these 
statements are untrustworthy. 
He is described by most of those 

who mention him, as a Cynic. 
Nothing is known as to any 
writings left by him. Accord- 
ing to Eunap. V. Soph. Procem. 
p. 6, Musonius and Carneades 
were, as well as Menippus, 
contemporary with Demetrius. 
Two of these names, however 
(Menippus and Musonius), he 
doubtless merely takes from 
Philostratus (vide sup. pp. 291, 
1; 246, 3), and we know not 
how much of what Philostratus 
says has any historical founda- 
tion ; as to Carneades we can 
form no judgment, as he is 
mentioned nowhere else. But 
that there were other Cynics 
in Rome at the time of De- 
metrius is plain from the fore- 
going statements, and the 
quotations (p. 290, 1) from 
Seneca. One of these Cynics, 
by name Isodorus, who on ac- 
count of Ms biting words had 
been exiled by Nero from 
Italy, is mentioned by Sueton. 
(Nero, 39). 

1 JEtenef. vii. 1, 3, he calls 
him : Vir meo judicio magnus 
etiamsi maximis comparetur ; 
and in I. c. 8, 2, he says of him : 
Quern, milii videtur rerum na- 
tura nostris tulisse temporibus^ 
ut ostenderet, nee ilium a noHs 
corrumpi nee nos ab illo corrigi 
posse, mrum eocactce, licet neget 
ipse, sapientitB, &c. Cf. Ep. 62. 
According to Philostr. ApolL iv. 
25, Favorinus had also greatly 
praised him. He appears in a 
less brilliant light in what 
has just been quoted from 
Tacitus, Dio Cassius, and Sue- 


with, the luxury of the Roman world, his philosophic CHAP. 
value cannot be estimated very highly. At any _1_L__ 
rate, there have come down to us no remarkable 
thoughts of his, and the meagreness of the tradition 
renders it probable that none of any importance 
were known. He recommends his scholars not to 
trouble themselves with much knowledge, but to 
exercise themselves in a few rules of life for practical 
use ; l he appeals with impressive eloquence to their 
moral consciousness ; 2 he expresses with cynical 
rudeness his contemptuous opinion of others; 3 he 
opposes himself with bitter scorn to the threats of 
the despot; 4 he welcomes outward misfortunes as 
a means of moral training, and resigns himself 
willingly and joyfully to the will of Grod. 5 In all 
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, 3 *#. ances concerning- Vespasian, 
What follows, however, from and Sen. Mp. 91, 9, who quotes 
5 onwards, is, as well as c. 9, from him : Eod&m, loco sioi esse 
10, Seneca's own dissertation. voces imperitorum, cpio centre 

2 In I, e. 8, 2 : He was elo- redditos crepvtwt. * Quid enim, 
q\ienti(B ejus, quce res foriissimOrS inquit, mea refert, swsvm isti 
deceat, non co7icinnat<z nee in an deormm gonent ? 9 If Seneca 
e Qer~b& solliettte, sed vngenti applies the word elega/nter to 
animo, prcnct inpetm tuttt, res these words, this is a matter 
su as proseqfitentis. of taste. 

3 Cf . Lucian, Adv. Indoct. 19, 4 Li Epikt. Dus. 1 25, 22, he 
where he takes the book out of says to Nero : awei\ets poi 8&va- 
the hand of a bad reader, and rav, <rol 8 s % <tScns. 

tears it in pieces. Further, his 5 Sen. Promd. 3, 3 j 5 j 5 ; 
previously mentioned utter- J$j). 67, 14. 





of Ga- 

Of the Cynics of the period immediately follow- 
ing, 1 some details have come down to us respecting 
(Enomaus of Gradara, who is said to have lived under 

1 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 
Diogenes and Heras, of 
whom, on account of their 
abuse of the imperial family, 
the former was scourged and 
the latter beheaded (Dio Cass. 
Ixvi. 15); and probably also 
Hostilius (7. c. 13), who was 
banished with Demetrius. 
Under Domitian or Trajan we 
must place Didymus with 
the surname of Planetiades (if 
he was an historical person), in 
whose mouth Plutarch, De Def. 
Orae. 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, Tax, 27 ###.) that he 
came to Alexandria to devote 
himself under the guidance of 
a certain Bhodius (or of a 
Rhodian ?) to the Cynic philo- 
sophy, that he tended his 
unjustly-accused friend Anti- 
philus with the greatest self- 
denial 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 went 
to India to the Brahmans. The 
historical truth of this occur- 
rence, however, is as little cer- 
tain as the authenticity of the 
treatise which affirms it; and 

even were it otherwise, the 
time when Demetrius lived 
can only be approximately con- 
cluded from c. 34. Agatho - 
bulus in Egypt (Lucian, De- 
mon. 3; Peregrin. 17) must 
also be counted among the 
Cynics of this period. Under 
Antoninus Pius and his suc- 
cessor lived Dem onax, Pere- 
grinus, and his pupil Thea- 
genes, of whom we shall 
speak later on; also Honora- 
tus (Luc. Demon. 19, where it 
is related of him that he was 
clothed in a bearskin, and that 
Demonax, therefore, called him 
'Ap/cecr/Aaos) and Herophilus 
(Icaromen. 16) seem to be his- 
torical persons, Crato, on the 
contrary (Luc. De Saltat. i. $##.) 
imaginary. To the period of 
Antoninus likewise belongs 
Pancratius, who lived in 
Athens and in Corinth (Phi- 
lostr. F. Soph. i. 23, 1), and 
Crescens, the accuser of Jus- 
tin the Martyr (Justin. Apol. 
ii. 3; Tatian, Adv. Gent. 19; 
Eus. Hist. Ecel. 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. 
19 ; cf. Bernays, Lucian und 
die Xyn. 30). After this time 
there is a gap in our knowledge 
of the Cynic philosophers ex- 
tending over a hundred and 
fifty years, but the continuance 
of the school is beyond question. 
When Asclepiades lived, 
who, according to Tertullian, 



the reign of Hadrian. 1 Julian reproaches Mm for CHAP. 
destroying in his writings tlie fear of the gods, for 
despising human reason, and trampling under foot 2 
all laws, human and divine ; his tragedies, he says, 
are beyond all description shameful and prepos- 
terous ; 3 and if in this verdict the horror of the 
pious emperor for the despiser of the popular 
religion has perhaps no small share, we must still 
suppose that GEnomaus must have departed in a 
striking manner from the prevailing customs and 
mode of thought. In the lengthy fragments from 
his treatise against the < Jugglers,' 4 which Eusebius 
has preserved for us, 5 we find a polemic as violent as 
it is outspoken against the heathen oracles, in the 

Ad Nat. ii. 14:, travelled through 
distant lands with a cow; or 
Sphodrias, who is quoted by 
Athen. iv. 162 5, with a ri'xy'n 
epariicf) ; or the Cynics named 
ap. Phot. Cod. 167, p. 114, 5 23, 
among the authorities of Sto- 
baeus viz.,Hegesianax, Po- 
lyzelus, Xanthippus, 
Theomnestus we do not 

1 He is placed in that period 
by Syncellus, p. 349 B. The 
statement of Suidas, Qiv6p. 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. EG. v. 19 
$$$., discusses him immediately 
before Porphyry, and calls Mm 
(C. 18, 3) ris T&V vewv. 

2 draft, vii. p. 209 B. Spanh. 
cf. vi. 199 A. 

3 LOG. tit. p. 210 D. When 
Suidas, Aioyerrjs fy Olv6fi. 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 
disciple Philistus (Philiscus, 
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. Prcep. 
MJ. v. 18, 3; 21, 4; vi. 6,52; 
Theod. Cur. Gr<r<zc. Affect, (par. 
1642) vi. p. 561 : yofyrwy (fxapct., 
named less accurately by Julian 
vii. 209, B : rb KO,T& x/wjtrrTjpW. 

5 Prcep* Ekang* v. c. 19-36, 
vi. 6. 




spirit of cynical freethinking ; l but it is based on no 
properly philosophic arguments ; and in connection 
with it QEnomaus 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 itself, and expounding the irrecon- 
cilability of foreknowledge with freedom, and of 
fatality with moral responsibility. 2 In these utter- 
ances we recognise the self-dependence of the man 
who, in spite of his Cynicism, would be a follower 
neither of Antisthenes nor of Diogenes; 3 but he 
was doubtless neither inclined nor adapted for any 
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, Def. Orac. 7, p. 413. 
Moreover, cf.m/ra,p, 298, 3, and 
PMl d. Gr. II. i. 280 s##. ; Ber- 
nays, 1. c. 30 $%%. 

2 LOG. dit. vi. 7, 11 a#. (The- 
doret, I, c.) with the proposi- 
tion: ISoi/ 7&p, $ rp6irq> ^JMOOV 
avrcav a.vreiX'hfJLju.eOa, TOTL>T<P teal 
r&v ev Tjfjuv avQatperuv KOI fiiaicw* 
But of self -consciousness it was 
previously said: OVK &\\o tKavbv 
ovrcas cos- % cruj/a<r07j<m re teal 


8 Julian, Orat. vi. p. 187 C : 
d Kwitfiibs otfre 3 AvTi<rOi/i<r]j.6s 

ktfTW 01JT A.LOyVtfffJl.6s. 

* Born in Cyprus of a good 
family, Demonax (according to 

c. 3) had enjoyed the instruc- 
tions of the Cynics Agathobulus 
and Demetrius (supra, p. 291 ; 
294,1) and of the Stoics Epic- 
tetus and Timocrates (#gpra,pp. 
197, 256); he afterwards lived 
in Athens, and died there when 
almost a century old, having 
starved himself to death on 
account of the advancing weak- 
ness of old age (Z, c. c. 63 *.), 
but as he still had intercourse 
with Herodes Atticus (c. 24, 33) 
in this latter period, he may, 
perhaps, have lived till 160 A.p., 
or even longer. The treatise 
said to be by Lucian shows (as 
Bernays, Z. c., remarks), by the 
way in which Herodes is alluded 
to, that it was not written till 
after his death 176 A.D. 


bearing Lucian's name, 1 Is much more distinguished CHAP. 
by his character than, by his science. 2 From QEno x * 
maus he differs chiefly in that he tried to mitigate 
the severities of the Cynic mode of thought, and to 
reconcile it with life and its necessities ; in other 
respects he is considerably in harmony with it. As 
QEnomkns had neither held strictly to a definite 
system nor troubled himself at all about any scien- 
tific knowledge, so Demonax, according to the 
assurance of his biographer, 3 carried his eclecticism 
to such an extent that it is difficult to say which 
of his 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 a model the mild, benevolent, 
and moderate temper of Socrates, 4 and was large- 
hearted 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 who is free, said 
he, alone is happy; and he only is free who hopes 

1 Bekker has denied that it for suspicion as to its credi- 

is Lucian's, and Bernays (Lu- bility. 

dan und die Kyn. 104 sg.*) has 2 Concerning his gentle, hu- 

def ended this opinion with very mane, and amiable character, 

important arguments. But that his imperturbable cheerfulness, 

its author, who nowhere gives his efforts for the moral welfare 

himself out to be Lucian, was of those around him, and the 

really a contemporary of his extraordinary veneration he 

hero, and had intercourse with thereby acquired, cf . Lucian, 

him for many years (eirl /djf<r~ Z. c. c. 5-11 ; 57 j 63 ; 67. 
TQV <rvv r yev6fji'r)v, c. 1), we have 3 Demon. 5. 
no reason to doubt, nor is there 4 LOG. dt. 5-9 ; cf . 19 ; 21 ; 

any internal reason in his work 48 ; 52. s LOG. dt. 62. 


CHAP, nothing and fears nothing, being convinced of the 
' transitoriness and paltriness of all men. 1 In order 
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 sacrifices, 
and despised the Eleusinian mysteries, and he con- 
ceals neither in his defence nor elsewhere his low 
opinion of the existing worship. 3 In his suicide and 
his indifference to burial, 4 we recognise the disciple 
of Antisthenes and Zeno ; and though the departure 
from this life, according to the Stoic doctrine, must 
open an entrance to a higher life, Demonax, like 
Pansetius and Epictetus, disclaimed this view. 5 As 
to any scientific enquiry, however, we hear as little 
on this point as on any other. The philosopher 
considers his task to be solely the exercise of 

1 Lucian, Demon. 20 ; cf . c. 4: : make them acquainted with 

rl *6Xov ejue/teA^/cet avr$ jUTj&ej/bs- them. In c. 27 he refused to 

&X\ov Trpoo-Sea eB/at. " enter a temple to pray ; for 

* Cf. the anecdote quoted God, he said, could hear him 

supra, p. 274, 1. just as well in any other place ; 

3 LOG. oit. 11. To the com- and in c. 37 he confounded a 

plaint that he did not sacrifice soothsayer with the dilemma : 

to Athena he replied he had either he must believe himself 

hitherto refrained, ovSe 70^ to have the power of altering 

$?<r0c avrfyv T&V wap* e/uou the decrees of fate, or his art 

6v<uS>v vir\dppavoj/ ; and when was worthless, 

censured in respect to the * Loo. cit. 65 sg. 

mysteries, he said that he did s LOG. oit. c.32: &\\ov 5e irore 

not get himself initiated, be- tyon&ov, el bOdvaros avrQ 77 

cause it would be impossible T^WX^ So/cei eT^ai; bOdvaros, e^>^, 

for him not to speak to the a\\* &s irdvra. Cf. c. 8, where 

uninitiated about them ; in he says that in a word, x^07? ns 

order, if the mysteries were hyaQ&v Kal KUKUV Kal ^\ev9epta 

bad, to warn them against /zawp^ irdvras fr o\lycp /cara- 

them, and if they were good, to A^ercw. 


practical influence on those around Mm, and the CHAP. 

means to this end is with him, as with Diogenes, U 

not so much instruction as counsel, and before all 
things, ready and trenchant wit, the old weapon of 
the Cynics, which he in most cases employed very 
skilfully. Cynicism appears, indeed, in his person 
in its most interesting and attractive shape, but 
still with essentially the same features which have 
already been long familiar to us. 

In contradistinction to this ideal picture we find Peregri- 
a caricature in Lueian's description of Peregrinus, 1 nm ' 
who bears the cognomen 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. TTJS Uepeyptvov reXevTTJs. found in the treatise of Zelle 

Of modern writers concerning already quoted. In that of 

Peregrinus and the literature Lucian, ride, concerning the 

relating to him, cf . Eckstein, excesses imputed to him, c. 9 ; 

EncyHop. v. Ersch. it, Gniber, the murder of his father, of 

sect. iii. vol. xvi. sub wee ; which he is accused, c. 10, 14 

Zeller, Vortr. u. Afihandl. ii. sg.; his relation to the Chris- 

173 sq. ; Bernays, IMC. u. d. tians, and the imprisonment 

Kynik&r, 21, and Z. <?.,p. 65, the which he suffered in cpnse- 

translation and commentary of quence, c. 11-14 ; Ms intro- 

the treatise bearing the name duction through Agathobulus 

of Lucian. to the Cynic philosophy (supra, 

a He first received this name, p. 294, 1); his arrival in Italy, 

according to Gellius, 2V". A. sii. c. 18 ; his burning himself to 

11, 1, after the time when that death (which is also mentioned 

author made his acquaintance ; in Athenag. Suppl. 23 ; Tert* 

what it means we are not told. Ad Mart. 4 ; PMlostr. V. Soph. 

3 Further details will be ii. 1, 33), c. 20 $##. Some few 


.CHAP, at the Olympic games in the year 165 A.D. But 
. the most serious of these charges are too insuffi- 

ciently attested l by Lucian's testimony, the uncer- 
tainty of which he himself cannot entirely conceal, 
to allow of our unconditionally endorsing his judg- 
ment of Peregrinus. If we separate from his 
account all that is internally improbable, this Cynic 
appears as a man who was sincere in his endeavours 
after virtue and austerity, but was, at the same 
time, always exaggerating and pushing forward his 
principles to an absurd extreme, 2 finally investing 
even suicide in regard to which he has so many allies 
in the Stoic and Cynic school with theatrical pomp, 
in order to produce the most striking effect possible. 3 
There is other evidence to show that he asserted the 
claims of his school with some exaggeration ; 4 but 
Orellius praises the earnestness and steadiness of his 
character, 5 and the value and usefulness of his 

years after his death, previous Attlcus, he is said to have tried 

to the year 180 B.C., Athenagoras to raise an insurrection against 

(I. 0.), in agreement with Luc. the Eomans (Luc. 18 sg.). 
c. 27 $([. 41, speaks of an oracu- s The fact of this suicide 

lar statue of Peregrinus which (which has been disputed by 

stood in the market-place of A. Planck, Theol. 8tud. in Krit. 

his native city. 1811, 834 $g., 843 ; and Baur, 

1 Cf.Zell&c,Vwtr. ii. 175 sg.; MrehengescJi. ii. 412), accord- 
Bernays, 52 sqq. ing to all the above quotations, 

2 If he was thrown as a is beyond a doubt. 
Christian into prison while his 4 Luc. Demon. When Pere- 
fellow-Ohristians remained un- grinus said to Demonax, on 
molested, he must have given account of his cheerfulness : 
occasion to this by his beha- oi> KVVO.S, the latter replied, riepe- 
viour ; he was banished from ypwf 9 ofac Mpcairlgeis. 

Italy on account of his abuse 5 He calls him (Z. <?.) mr 

of the Emperor; in Greece, grams eb constant, whom he 

besides his quarrels with the often visited in his hut before 

Eleans and his attacks (also the city, and whose lectures he 

'mentioned by Philostratus, F. attended. 
Soph. ii. 1, 33) on Herodes 


doctrines, 1 and quotes a discourse of Ms, in winch he CHAP. 
says that a man should not avoid wickedness through s - _ ....... 

fear of punishment, but from love to the good ; and 
the wise man would do this even though his action 
remained hidden from gods and men ; but he who 
has not made so much progress in morals may still 
be restrained from wickedness by the thought that 
all wrong-doing comes to light in the end. \Ve are 
acquainted, however, with no scientific achievement 
either of Peregrinus or his scholar Theagenes, 2 or, 
indeed, of any of these later Cynics. 

But for the very reason that this Cynicism was 
far more a mode of life than a scientific conviction, 
it was able to outlast the vicissitudes of the philo- 
sophic systems, and to maintain itself down to the 
latest periods of Greek philosophy. Even in the 
second half of the fourth century the Emperor 
Julian found occasion for those two discourses 
against the Cynics, which give us a picture so un- 
favourable, but at the same time probably not 
essentially untrue, of this school at that time. 3 

1 Zoc. cit. : MultOf Ji&rcle di- Kvvas. Or. vii. : irpbs ' 

cere ewn utiliter &t lioneste au- "KwiKby, "jr&>s Kvvi.a"r4ov. For 

divimus. Of. the same authority example, cf . Or. vii. 204, C. sq., 

for what follows. 223 B sqq. Julian (p. 224 C.) 

2 This Cynic, whom Lucian mentions, besides Heraclius, as 
(c. 3 sqq. ; 7 ; 24 ; 30 sg. ; 36) Cynics of his time, Asclepiades, 
treats with the greatest ma- Sereniarms; and Chytron. In 
lignity, is described by Galen, Or. vii. 198 a, he mentions 
Metfi. Med. xiii. 15, yoL x. 909 Iphicles of Epirns, whose free- 
Z. (as Bernays, p. 14 sqc[., has spoken notions expressed before 
shown) as a philosopher of the Emperor Valentinian in the 
repute (8m rty M&v rwQp&xov) year 375 are related by Am- 
who gave lectures daily in Rome mian. Marc. xxx. 5, 8. A Cynic 
in the Gymnasium of Trajan. named Demetrius Chytras, who, 

3 Or. vi. : els robs awatSeinovs in extreme old age, was tor- 




Further traces of the recognition which Cynicism 
still found in this period are to be met with both in 
heathen and Christian authors. 1 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 
a Cynic ascetic, Sallustius. 3 With the overthrow of 
heathenism this school, as such, naturally came to 

tured under Con stan tins on a 
political and religions charge, 
but was finally set free, is men- 
tioned by Amniian. xix. 12, 12 ; 
another in Julian's time is 
spoken of anonymously by 
David, Sehol in AT. 14 a, 18. 

1 Bernays, I. c. p. 37, 99 s#., 
alludes in this connection to 
the panegyric which Themis - 
tius pronounced on Cynicism 
and its founders in his dis- 
course on Virtue, especially pp. 
444:, 417 (preserved in the 
Syrian language, and translated 
into German by Grildemeister 
and Biicheler in the Rliein. 
Mus. vol. xxvii.) ; also the 
violent attack of Chrysostom 
(Somil. 17, c. 2 ; Chrys. Opp. ed. 
Migne, ii. 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 

2 Cicero, Acad. iii. 19, 42 : 
Itagrue nwio ghilosoplios now, 
fere videmus, nisi a,ut 

aut Peripatetieos aut Platoni- 
cos. M Cynicos guidem, quia 
eos vitce quGdcwn, delevtat liber- 
tas atqm licentia. Later on, 
Civ, D.xix. 19, he remarks that 
if 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, is quoted by Bernays, 
1. c,, from Tillemont, MSmoires, 
ix. 2, 796 *##. 

3 Damasc. V. Zsidori, 89-92, 
250 ; and at greater length 
Suidas (sub voce\ who has 
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 irai^Lv &rl rb y\oi6r- 
pov, is confirmed by Simplicius, 
in Epiet. Man. p. 90 H j accord- 
ing to whom he laid burning 
coals upon his leg to see how 
long he could endure it. 


an end ; the only element which was peculiar to it, CHAP. 
the Cynic mode of life, the Christian Church had X ' 
long since appropriated in Monaehisin. 1 

1 Julian, I. c. 224 A, already airoTaKriffrai ( = qui s&culo re- 

the Cvaics with the f)ii.nria.rrrnnr\ nf t>imhi-io-no 





C. The 
tetics of 


THE direction taken by the Peripatetic school in 

- - the first century before Christ was maintained by it 

during the whole of its further existence. 1 Those 

members of it with whom we are acquainted, 2 

1 In regard to what follows, 
cf. Fabric. MU. Gr.iii. 458 sqq. ; 
Harl. ; Brandis and Zumpt in 
the treatises mentioned sujara, 
p. 112, 1 ; Prantl, GescJi. der 
Logik, 545 sqq. 

* Our knowledge of the Peri- 
patetic school in this period is 
very imperfect. According to 
the writers named supra, pp. 113 
*#., we find, about the middle 
of the first Christian century, 
Alexander of ^aSgae, the in- 
structor of Nero (Suid. *AAe, 
A*7.), from whom Simplicius, 
Categ. 3, a (Sclwl. in Arist. 29, 
a, 40) quotes observations out 
of a commentary on the Cate- 
gories, and Alex. Aphr. ap. 
Simpl. De Ccelo, Scliol. 494, 5, 
28, from a commentary on the 
Books of the Heavens. (Kars- 
ten, 194, , 6, here substitutes 
Aspasius for Alexander, whether 
by Ms own conjecture, or ac- 
cording to manuscripts, does 
not appear.) Ideler, Arist, Me- 

teorol. i. xvi. sqq., believes we 
should perhaps attribute to 
Alexander the commentary on 
Khz" Meteorology, which has been 
handed down under the name of 
Alexander of Aphrodisias ; and 
he seems to suppose that the 
Sosigenes whom Alexander men- 
tions as his teacher is the 
famous astronomer of the time 
of Cassar. "We shall, however, 
find that Alexander the Aphro- 
disian had a Sosigenes for his 
teacher. Towards the end of 
the same century we encounter 
(ap. Plut. Qn. Gonvvu. ix. 6 ; 
14, 5) a Peripatetic named 
Menephylus, perhaps the 
head of the school in Athens, 
and ibid. Frat. Am. 16, p. 487, 
Apollonius tne Peripatetic, 
one of the ' later philosophers,' 
who was praised for having as- 
sisted his brother Sotion to 
attain greater honour than 
himself. This may, perhaps, 
be Apollonius the Alexandrian, 



so far as we have any details concerning their 
writings, are mostly mentioned in connection with 


from whom Simplicms,i?i Categ. 
Selwl. in Arist. 63, Z>, 3, quotes 
a treatise on the Categories. 
Sotion, another Peripatetic, 
has already come before us in 
Phil. d. Grr. II. ii. 931, 3 (vide sit}), 
181, 2), as author of the Repay 
3 AfjLa\6elas, This man I have 
there conjectured to be the 
same from whom Alex. Aphr. 
Top. 213, apparently out of a 
commentary on the Topica, and 
Simpl. Categ. 41, 7, Schol. in 
AT. 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, Hist. Nat. Prwf. 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 Ai6K\eioi \ejx L ) an( i 
the brother of Apollonius men- 
tioned by Plutarch. His own 
brother Lamprias is also 
described by Plutarch, Qu.Conv. 
ii. 2, 2 ; cl i. 8, 3, as a Peripa- 
tetic ; he likewise describes his 
friend the grammarian from 
Egypt (Qu.Conv. i. 9, 1, 1 ; viii. 
8, 2, 1), theo (vide, concerning 
him, DeFao. Luna, 25, 1 3 s#.) De 
Ei. 6 ; Pytli. Orac,. 3 sg., as a 
man of Peripatetic tendencies. 
On the other hand, Favonius, 
who is spoken of 1. <?. viii. 10, 2, 
1, as dai[j.ovi&TaTos 'ApicrroTeXovs 
tyaa-rtys is probably only the 
well-known Platonist, whom 
we shall discuss later on. In 
the second half of the second 
century Aspasius must have 

the first 

taught, as Galen (De Cogn. an. centuries 
Morb. 8, vol. v. 42), in his four- B<c< 
teeiith or fifteenth year, there- 
fore in 145-6, B.C. had for his 
teacher a pupil of this philoso- 
pher, who apparently was still 
alive ; and Herminus(ap. Simpl. 
De Ccelo, Sohol. 494, I, 31 $##.) 
quotes from him. Adrasttis of 
Aphrodisias (David, Schol. in 
Ar. 30, a, 9 ; Anon. I. e. 32, 5, 36 ; 
Simpl. Categ. 4, 7, Z. <?. 45 ; Ach. 
Tat. Isag. c. 16, 19, p. 136, 139), 
who is named together with him 
(Galen, De Libr. Propr. c. 11 ; 
vol six. 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 
him by Theo Smynueus (infra, 
p. 309, 4) ; for Theo was a con- 
temporary of Hadrian (infra, 
p. 335). If, however, he is 
the author of a commentary on 
the Ethics of Aristotle and 
Theophrastus (Phil d G-r. II. ii. 
855) mentioned ap. Athen, xv. 
673, c (where our text has 
"ASpacrroi') he may have been 
still alive in the time of Anto- 
ninus Pius. Ari st o cle s, the 
rhetorician of Pergamus, is 
placed by Suidas (sub voce} 
under Trajan and Hadrian: 
according to Philostratus, V. 
So2)h. 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 


the attention of these commentators. But what we 
are told in this respect about the Peripatetics of the 

Or. 5, 17, would Indeed agree 
with his sceptical bearing to- 
ward soothsaying. More defi- 
nite signs are wanting, how- 
ever, that Diogenianus was 
described by Plutarch as a 
Peripatetic. Enarmostus, 
whom Aspasius blames (ap. 
Alex, in Metapfi. 44, 23 ; Bon. 
552, J, 29, Bekk.) because 
Eudorus and he had altered a 
reading in the MetajvJiysics, 
was also probably living in the 
first century. The philosophers 
quoted by Ales. Aphr. De An. 
154, &, o- y Socrates (prob- 
ably the Bithyniaii Peripatetic 
named in Diog. ii. 47); Vir- 
ginius Rufus, and perhaps 
also Polyzelus (L c. 162, "b, 
note); Ptolemy, concerning 
whom cf . Phil. d. G-r. II. ii. 54 ; 
Artemon,thecollectorof Aris- 
totelian Letters (1H&. II. ii. 
562), who is probably older than 
Andronicus ; N i c a n d e r , who, 
according to Suidas (AiVxpiW), 
wrote about the disciples of 
Aristotle; Strato, the Alex- 
andrian Peripatetic (Diog. v. 
61; in Tertullian, De An. 15, 
it is not this Strato, but the 
pupil of Erasi stratus, also 
named by Diogenes, who is in- 
tended). Concerning the two 
last-named philosophers, it is 
not certain whether they lived 
before or after the Christian 
era; Julianus, of Tralles, 
whose theory of the movement 
of the heavens by the Platonic 
world-soul is discussed by Alex. 
Aphr. ap. Simpl. De Coelo, 169, 
1, 42 ; ScTwl. 491, &, 43. Whether 
he was a Peripatetic or a Pla 



Cat. ScJiol. 28, a, 21, Alexander 
was named Aristotle, oTov 5eu- 
Tpov ovra. 3 Apicrror\7iv. Be- 
sides these Peripatetics, whose 
dates may be at least approxi- 
mately fixed, a good many 
others are named, of whom we 
can scarcely say more than that 
they must belong to the first 
two centuries after Christ. 
Among these is Archaicus 
(erroneously regarded by Fa- 
bric. MUwtli. 6fr. iii. 536, Harl. 
as a Stoic), from whom Stobseus 
(Cat. SeTtol. 61, a, 22; 66, a, 
42 ; &, 35 ; 73, I, 20 ; 74, I, 31) 
quotes observations on the 
Categories, doubtless from a 
commentary on that work ; in 
the first of these passages he 
distinguishes Archaicus and 
Sotion as disciples of the an- 
cient commentators Androni- 
cus, Boethus, &c. Perhaps Ar- 
chaicus is the same person 
mentioned as the author of a 
work on ethics in Diog. vi. 99. 
Also the following : Deme- 
trius of Byzantium (Diog. v. 
83), if he is not the other De- 
metrius named sujpra f 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 -jrepl eifutpfievris ; 
he may be the same person as 
Diogenianus of Pergamos, who 
appears as one of the speakers 
in Plutarch, De Pyth. Or devils. 
Qu. Conv. vii. 7, 8 ; viii. 1, 2 ; 
at any rate, what is put into 
his mouth has nothing to con- 
tradict this theory, and Pyth. 

x 2 


CHAP, first century l is very unimportant. In the second 
' century we hear of several works of Aspasius : tf Com- 
mentaries on the Categories, 2 on the treatise Trspl 
spfji^vsias? on the ' Physics,' 4 the Books about the 
Heavens, 5 and the c Metaphysics ; ' 6 but though he 
seems 7 to have carefully expounded the writings of 
Aristotle, and especially to have paid attention to the 
various readings, nothing has been handed down of 
his that indicates any independent investigation of 
philosophic questions. We have more precise infor- 
mation concerning Adrastus. 8 From his treatise on 
the arrangement of the Aristotelian works, 9 there 
are quoted observations on their order, titles, 
and genuineness. 10 A commentary on the Categories 

tonist, and whether this quota- 
tion refers to a commentary on 
the Boolts on the JEFearens, or to 
a commentary on the Timtmts, 
cannot be discovered from the 

1 Alexander of JEgae and 
Sotion, vide sujpra, p, 304, 2. 

2 Galen, De Lilr. Propr. c. 
11 ; vol. xix, 42 8%. 

8 Boet. DB Interpret, cf , In- 
dftx to the edition of Meister. 
Boethns repeatedly expresses 
much dissatisfaction (it p. 41, 
14 ; 87, 17 Meis.) with his inter- 

4 Simpl. Phys. 28, 5; 96, 0, 
Jj 99, #; 127, A, J; 130, a\ 
132, &; 133, a; 185, a; 188, &; 
151, a; 168, 5; 172, a; 178, a; 
192, I ; 199, a ; 214, a\ 219, a; 
222, a ', 223, I ; 239, a, b, 

& Simpl. fit* Cwlo, 194, a, 6 ; 
23 ; 240, a, 44 ; Karst. MM, in 
Arist. 494, &, 31; 513, 5, 10. 

6 Alex. Metaph. 31, 23 ; 44, 

23 ; 340, 10 ; Bon, 543, , 31 ; 
552, &, 29 ; 704, 7;, 11 Bokk. 

7 The Scholia on the four 
first books and parts of the 
seventh and ninth books of the 
JVicowMdhfian /#/wt#, which Haso 
has published in the Gorman 
Classical Journal, vols. xxviii. 
and xxix., claim to bo extracted 
from a commentary of Aspawius ; 
but they arc otherwise of no 
groat value, 

8 Concerning him ride Martin 
on Theo. Smyru. Astronomy, 
p. 74 8ff. 


1, 5; Cate.ff. 4, f. The designa- 
tion is leas specific of Gatey* 4, 

7 : TT. 

10 According to Simpl. C&teg. 
4, 7, he wished to place the 
(fattgorin (of which I. c, 4, 
cf. tioM. in Arixt. 33, b, 80 j 
39, , 19 ; 142, />, 38, ho mentions 
a second roocusiou) before all 



is also mentioned, 1 and from a commentary on the 
Physics, Simplicius 2 gives us a detailed statement 
concerning the conceptions of substance and of 
essential and accidental quality, which well ex- 
plains the Aristotelian definitions and expressions. 
He also perhaps wrote on the ethics of Aristotle 
and Theophrastus. 3 If we add to this all that we 
are told concerning his mathematical knowledge, 
his writings on harmony and astronomy, and his 
Commentary on the Timseus, and what has been 
preserved of these writings, 4 we must allow that 


the other writings of Aristotle, 
and next to them theTojtiea ; and 
he, therefore, like some others, 
entitled the Categories : 7r/>b 
TWV T^TTWJ/ (Anon. Schol 32, &, 
36, whose account is to be pre- 
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- 
tioned forty books of the 
Analytics, of which only four 
are genuine (Phil d. 6Fr. II. ii. 70, 
1), and expressed his opinion 
on the title of the Physics and 
its principal divisions (SimpL 
Phys. 1, & ; 2, a ; cf . Phil d. Or. 
II. ii. 86). 

1 Galen, Lilr. Propr. 11 ; six. 
42 *#. 

2 Phys. 26, 5. That this dis- 
cussion is taken from a com- 
mentary on the Physios is clear 
from the words with which 
Simplicius introduces it : 6 5e 

plicius, however, does not seem 
to 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 : ou<5e \4yerai 'direp 

"bv ' (ap. Arist. PJiyn. i. 
3 ; 186, ft, 33) vap*$n\9V v*v 
tav, &o. Sim- 

3 Of. supra, p. 306 *#. and 
Phil d. 6V. II. ii. 855. 

4 He is described as a mathe- 
matician by Claudian Mamert. 
De Statu An. i. 25, if the 
Adrastus he mentions is the 
same person. From Ms com- 
mentary on the TWTUBUS, Por- 
phyry (in Ptol. Harm. ; Wallis, 
Opp. iii. 270) quotes a defini- 
tion on Consonance. His Har- 
mony, in three books, still exists 
in MS. (Fabr. Bill Or. iii. 
459, 653). From the first of 
these books, the quotation ap. 
Procl. in Tim. 192, C ; 127, ; 
198, E ; and probably also ap. 
Ach. Tat. c. 19, p. 136 (80), are 
doubtless taken ; a treatise on 
the Sun is mentioned by Ach. 
Tat. c. 19, p. 139 (82). Lastly, 


CHAP, the praise accorded by Simplicius to this Peri- 
XI> patetic l is entirely justified. But he nevertheless 
seems to have deserved it rather for his faithful 
transmission and intelligent elucidation of Aristotle's 
doctrines than for any new and original enquiries. 
As in the isolated definitions which have been 
handed down as his he almost entirely follows 
Aristotle, so in his general view of the universe and 
of Gk>d, he is allied with him. The universe, the 
construction of which he describes according to the 
pattern of Aristotle, 2 is formed by the highest 
essential nature for the best, and is moved thereby 
in the manner belonging to it, namely, in a circle. 
A consequence of the contrast between the terres- 
trial elements and the various influences which the 
planetary spheres in the multiplicity of their move- 
ments exercise upon them, is the change in our 
world ; 3 but in saying this, Adrastus expressly 
guards himself against the opinion that the heavenly 
bodies are created for the sake of that which is 
meaner and perishable ; they have, on the contrary, 
their end in themselves, and their influence on the 
earth is only .an effect of natural necessity. 4 All 

Martin has shown {7. <?.) that 8i<nefo, avtyp r&v 

the greatest part of Theo's TTJTIK&V yeyovds. 

astronomy is borrowed from a 2 Vide the dissertations on the 

treatise of Adrastus ; and that spherical form of the universe 

this is the commentary on the and of the earth, the place o-f 

TimfGus is proved by Hiller, the earth in the centre of the 

Uliein. Miis. JV, F. xxvi. 582 whole, the smallness of the 

sgg. The same writer shows earth in comparison with the 

that Ohalcidms has adopted a whole, in Theo Smyrn, Astron. 

great deal from this commentary c. 1-4. 

into his own. 3 L. c, c, 22. 

1 M> 4, -7: *A5p. <5 3 A<fy>o- 4 L. c. Beneath the moon 



this is Aristotelia,n. Adrastus sought likewise to 
maintain in principle the Aristotelian theory of the 
spheres, which he connected by means of ingenious 
modifications with the theories of later astronomers. 1 
He therefore seems, irrespective of his mathematical 
and other learning, to have been merely a skilful 
expounder and defender of the Aristotelian theories. 
Not even as much as this can be said of Herminus. 


reigns change, generation, and 
destruction : rovr&v 5e, <p7]<rlv 
(Adrastus), atria TO, irXav^^eva 
r&v atrrpav. ravra 5 AC'YOI TIS 
"av, oi>x &>$ rcav riftKarepow teal 
Geiwv Kal aiSiuv ayevy^rcav re 
Kal a<p6dpra>v eVe/cct r<nv eAar- 
r6vcav Kal Bvrir&v Kal 

rb Kdhhicrrov Kal apicrrov 

r&v Se j/ravQa Kara (TVfji 
efce^ois- eiro/Jievcav. The circular 
movement of the universe pre- 
supposed a central point at 
rest, 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 hand, 
conditioned by the changing 
position of the planets, espe- 
cially of the sun and moon (cf . 
Phil. d.Or. II. ii. 440, 468 *q. 

1 In Theo, c. 32, with which 
cf. c. 18, and Martin, p, 117 sq. 
Adrastus here assumes that 
each planet is fastened to the 
surface of a globe, which ex- 

tends from the upper to the 
lower limit of a hollow sphere, 
concentric with that of the fixed 
stars. This sphere turns from 
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 
fixed 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 Hippar- 
chus, moves itself within the 
hollow sphere, so that the 
planet describes a circle the 
diameter of which extends 
from a point on the outer 
boundary of the hollow plane- 
tary sphere to the opposite 
point on its inner boundary, 
the centre of which, therefore, 
is distant from, that of the con- 
centric spheres as far as the 
radius of the sphere bearing 
the planet. Adrastus had, there- 
fore, in his theory taken ac- 
count of the hypothesis of 
eccentrics. The theory, apart 
from its other deficiencies, 
would only explain the ap- 
parent revolution of the sun 
and moon, as Martin observes, 
p. 119. 




1 Among these the commen- 
tary on the Categories is most 
commonly quoted ; mde the 
following note and Simpl. in 
Categ. Schol. inArist. 40, a, 17; 
42, a, 13; 46, a, 30; J, 15 (14, 
S Basil.) 47, 1 9 1 ; 56, 5, 39, 
and p. 3, e Bas. ; Porph. 6^7. 
33, a, Schol. 58, 5, 16. Also 
the commentary on the treatise 
Boet. De Inter- 

What we are told of his commentaries on the logical 
_ writings of Aristotle l is sometimes unimportant, 

Her minus. an< i sometimes displays an external and formalistic 
treatment of logical questions, with much misunder- 
standing of the Aristotelian propositions. 2 He de- 
rives the infinity of the motion of the heavens 

Z. 22 ; David, ScJioL 28, &, 14). 
He leaves it undecided whether 
there are only so many highest 
kinds as Aristotelian Categories 
(Simpl. Schol. 47, , 11 sgg.). 
It is observed De Interpret. 1 
that the psychic processes desig- 
nated by words are the same in 
all ; but Herminus would not 
admit this, because in that case 
it would not be possible to 
take the same expression in 
different senses. He, therefore, 
I. c. 16, a, 6, instead of Taurcfc 
iracn ira&fifMTOf tyv^s, reads 
'raSra' (Boet. De Interpret. 
ii. p. 39, 25 sgq. ; Meis. Schol. 
101, "b ; Ammon. De Inter- 
pret. 21, a-, SohoL 101, ?;, 6). In 
regard to the so-called infinite 
propositions, he distinguished 
three cases: the predicate or 
the subject, or both, might be 
infinite notions (negatively ex- 
pressed) ; but he erroneously 
compared not merely the first 
class, bat also the second and 
third, with the corresponding- 
negative judgments (Boet. p. 
275 M). He instituted a fruit- 
less enquiry concerning Anal. 
Pri. 26, &, 37, as to which con- 
ception in syllogisms of the 
second figure was the primary 
and which the subordinate 
conception (Alex. Anal. Pri. 
23, #, mj Schol. 153, &, 27; 
Prantl, 555 $#.). 

pret. (cf. the Index of the 
edition of Meiser) ; Ammon. 
De Interpret. 43, a, SchoL 106, 
#, 5. Also the following note, 
1. c. and ap. Alex. Anal. Pri. 
28, #, concerning his commen- 
tary on the Analytics-, and 
Alex. Top. 271, 274, m, in the 

2 Prantl, Ge&ch. ci. Log. i. 545 
$([%. |The substance of the quo- 
tations from Herminus's Logic 
is as follows. The treatise on 
the Categories^ which he con- 
sidered as the foundation of 
Dialectic, and, therefore, with 
Adrastus entitled 7rp2> rS>v r6itwv 
(David, ScJwl. in Arist. 81, J, 
25, according to whom he thus 
explained the precedence of the 
doctrine of opposites, Categ. 
c 10), treats neither in an ontb- 
logical manner of the highest 
kinds of the Real, nor merely 
of the parts of discourse, but 
of the designations proper for 
each class of the Beal (Porph. 

7. 4, & ; ScJiol. 31, I ; cf. 1. c. 




not from the operation of the first moving principle 
but from the soul inherent in them; 3 a devia- 
tion from Aristotle and an approximation to the 
Platonic doctrine which Alexander had already 
contradicted. 2 From the commentary of Aehaicus AcJiaicu*. 
on the Categories very little has been handed 
down to us, and that little is unimportant. 3 Nor 
has much been preserved of Sosigenes' logical 
writings ; 4 but we get a very favourable idea 5 of 
his mathematical knowledge and the care with 
which he 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 most considerable of these 

1 Simpl. De Ccelo, ScJiol. 491, 

1, 45 (169, I, 45 K), according 
to a statement of Alexander, 
which, however, seems to have 
referred not to a commentary, 
but to the discourses of Her- 
mimis ; as in I. c. p. 494, J, 31 
sqq.> an utterance of Herminus 
concerning a reading of As- 
pasius is also quoted from his 

2 "We shall find, however, that 
this opposition did not extend 
to the theory of a particular 
soul in the heaven of fixed 

8 The passages relating to 
this are given infra, p. 327. 

4 From a commentary on 
the Categories, Porphyry, ##7. 

2, & (SoJiol 31, &), and after 
him Bexipp. in Categ. p. 7, 20 
sqq. Speng. gives his reflections 
on the question whether the 
tey6[JiGvov is a <t>cav)i or a irpayiJ.a 
or a v6ri(jLa 3 on which, however, he 

could not decide. An observa- 
tion on Analyt. Pr. L 9 is given 
by Philop. Anal. Pr. xxxii. l y 
Sffhol. 158, 1 28, after Alexander. 

& Ap. Simpl. De Ccelo, ScJiol. 
498, a, 45 - 7 500, a, 40 ; 504, &, 
41 (219, a, 39 ; 223, a, 29 ; 228, 
&, 15 3L), where Simplicius 
seems to follow Sosigenes, not 
merely in that wherein he ex- 
pressly appeals to him, but 
throughout. Of. ps.-Alex. Me- 
tapli. 677, 25 *#. ; Bon. (807, a, 
29 Br.), who also names Sosi- 
genes at the conclusion of his 

6 Such enquiries concerning 
mathematics and natural science 
were contained in the trea- 
tise of Sosigenes, irepl fycots, 
from the third book of which. 
Themistius (Phys. 79, a) takes 
something concerning the 
shining of many bodies in the 
dark ; and Alexander (MeteoroL 
116, a) quotes some observations 





younger Peripatetics are Aristocles and Alexander 
of Aphrodisias ; for they alone have left us discus- 
sions which, starting from the details of logic and 
physics, proceed to enquiries affecting the whole, 
theory of the universe. 

Aristocles of Messene, in Sicily, 1 the teacher of 
Alexander of Aphrodisias, 2 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 

1 Suid. 'AjDioTo/cA.. 

2 That he was so, is asserted 
in the older texts of Simplicius 
(that retranslated from the 
Latin), De Ccelo, p. 34, I ; and 
Karsten, p. 69, 5, 25, has fol- 
lowed it. But in the collection 
of Academic SGJwUa,n, cu, 30, 
we read, on the contrary: 6 

also ap. Cyrill. c. Mian. ii. 61, 1) : 

*ypafy*iTQ f ivvv *AA.eaj/8po ^5 "Apf<r- 
<rore\Qvs /uadyrtys, and similarly 
in Alex. JDe An. 144, a, sq. (wde 
infra, p. 315, 4), according to the 
printed text Aristotle is named 
as the teacher of Alexander. 
Nevertheless, there is every 
reason to suppose that the older 
text of Simplicius is right, and 
not that of the Academy ; and 
that even in the two other pas- 
sages 3 ApicrTOK\ov$ is to be read, 
and not 'Apiffrorehovs. 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 
mention of him in Syrian comes 
to nothing, has been observed 

p. 307 ; and (2) it is 
highly improbable that a tran- 
scriber should have changed the 
universally known name of Aris- 
totle for the unknown name of 
Aristocles, whereas the converse 
might very easily happen, and 
has often happened. For exy 
ample, Muller, JFragm. Hist. Gr. 
ii. 179 ; iv. 330, shows that, ap. 
ps.-Plut. Parallel, 29, p. 312; 
and Apostol. xiv. 70, we find 
'Api<TTOT'A.i7s j whereas Stobgeus, 
Ftoril. 64, 37, and Arsen. p. 385, 
give correctly 'Apta-rotthys (the 
historian of Ehodes). Simi- 
larly, the Scholiasts on Pindar, 
Olymp. vii. 66, fluctuate be- 
tween the two names, of which 
that of Aristocles only is cor - 
rect. According to Hoche, 
Prcef. ii. two manuscripts have 
'A/Herrore'A^y instead of 'Apurro- 
/eA.f/$, and in Boet. De Interpr. 
ii. Meiser (p. 56, 2) was the 
first to correct the statement 
of the Basel edition (p. 309, m) 
that Plato was at first called 
Aristotle. On the other hand, 
in the various cases where 
Eose, Arist. Pseudepigr. 615 $#., 
assumes the same mistake, the 
matter is very questionable, as 
Heitz shows ( Verlor. SbJw. d. 
Arist. 295> 


preserved by Eusebius ; 1 and these contain, as CHAP. 
might be expected in a work of the kind, no original ' 

enquiries into philosophy. Aristocles criticises and 
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 
charges ; 3 the whole work must have contained a 
complete critical review of the systems of the Greek 
philosophers. The language of this Peripatetic con- 
cerning Plato is nevertheless remarkable. He calls 
him a genuine and perfect philosopher, and, as well 
as we can judge from the scanty escerpts in our 
possession, in expounding his doctrine, himself 
agrees with it. 3 He seems to assume that the 
Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy in the main 
coincide, a statement at that period more fre- 
quently to be met with in the Platonic school. 
But Aristocles also combines the Peripatetic doc- 
trine with the Stoic, in a manner which shows 
that the author of the treatise on the universe was 
not alone in this tendency. In a remarkable pas- 
sage from Alexander of Aphrodisias, 4 we are told 

1 Prop. Ufa. xi. 3 ; xiv. 17- t <?., and Scfiol. 15. Suidas 

21 ; xv. 2, 14. The title of this further names a work on Ethics 

work is, according to Bus. xi. by him in nine books. What 

J>, 5 : irepl QvcrLoXoyias, accord- he elsewhere ascribes to him 

ing to Id. xiv. 17, 1 ; xv. 2 ; seems to belong partly to Aris- 

14: ; Suid. *Api(rroK\. : vepl <f>t\o- tocles of Pergamos and partly 

c-o<f>{as. In Eusebius (Z. 0.) there to the Khodian. 
are quotations from the seventh 2 Of. Phil, d. 6fr. II. ii. 8 ; 37, 

and eighth books of this work ; 2 ; 43, 3. 

in Suid. SooraSay from the sixth 3 Eus. xi. 3, 1 : on the other 

book. The Se'jca Pi&xta TT. QtXo- hand, 2 relates to Socrates. 
ffofytas are mentioned by Philop, * This passage is found in the, 


CHAP, that in order to escape from the difficulties of the 
Aristotelian doctrine respecting the reason which 
comes to man from without, Aristotle set up the 
following theory. The divine reason, he says, is in 
all things, even in terrestrial bodies, and is con- 
stantly working in the manner proper to it. From 
its operation in things arises not only the rational 
capacity in man, but also all union and division of 
substances, and therefore the whole conformation of 
the universe whether it affects this immediately, 
for itself alone, or in combination with the 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 body as its inherent intelligence, and 

second book wepl ^vx^> P- 1^4, seem strange in themselves, 

a ; 145, a,, and, in my opinion, our doubts are increased by 

must have been derived from what follows, and especially by 

Alexander even if Torstrik p. 145 #, whether the exposi- 

(Arist. De Ann. p. 186) is right tion which they introduce 

in asserting that the second should be ascribed to Aristotle 

book, we pi fax/is, was not writ- and not to a teacher of Alexan- 

ten by him; for even in that der, who took them from his 

case it could only be the re- mouth, though not himself 

clwMffee of the second half of agreeing with them. That this 

Alexander's work. , Torstrik, teacher can be no other than 

however, has given no reasons Aristocles, and that conse- 

for his judgment, and it does quently *Api<rroK\ovs should be 

not seem to me justified. After substituted for 'ApurroreXovs 

Alexander has here treated of has already been shown (p. 314, 

the passive and active intelli- 2). Brandis ( Q-esck. der Jn- 

gence in the sense of Aristotle, twicbelung der Gtriechischm 

he thus continues, according to Philos. ii. 268) declares himself 

our printed text : ^Kovcra 5e vepl in agreement with the observa- 

vov QvpaQev irapk *ApKrroT<s\ovs tions on this subject in my first 

$ 5i<raxrcfyn?y. If these words edition. 


there arises an individual intellectual activity. This CHAP. 

capability for the reception of vovs is, as Aristotle L _ 

believes, conditioned by the material constitution of 
bodies, and depends 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 
is raised to actuality, and individual thought is 
realised, consists only in this : that the all-pervad- 
ing activity of the divine vovs manifests itself in a 
special manner in particular bodies. 1 Alexander 
himself observes respecting these theories of his 
master, which he seeks to reconcile with the Aristo- 
telian text, 2 that they have considerable affinity 
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 
is at the same time the primeval fire and, as such, the 
artistic and shaping force of nature. As the Hera- 
clitean hylozoism was rendered more fruitful at the 
appearance of the Stoic system by the doctrine of 
Aristotle concerning vovs, so now we see that doc- 
trine in the Peripatetic school itself, even in so 
distinguished a representative as Aristocles, entering 

1 LOG. cit. 144, I, Med. B Loc. cit. 145, a : avrtiriw- 

- LOG. Cit. : fcal r}\v xQw 5e reiy e s 8o/ci fAOi r6re TOVTOIS, rbv 

rty * v r V rpircf) irepl tyv^s TOW- VQVV Kal ev rots ^avXoraroLs eivai 

roiS irpo<roiKOVV (-etowj eAeye Qeiov ovra, &s rots airb TT/S proas 

$eo>. $$olcv t &c. 




of Apliro- 

ealled the 
tator and 

into a combination with the Stoic theory of the 
universe, which prepares the way for the later 
union of these systems in JSTeo-Platonism. 1 

The Aristotelian doctrine of Alexander of Aphro- 
disias is purer and stricter. 2 This vigorous Peripa- 
tetic, celebrated by posterity under the distinguished 
names of the Commentator and the Second Aristotle, 3 

1 Of. sup. p. 137 Sd. How 
far Aristocles was from being 
tlie only philosopher of that 
period who intermingled Aris- 
totelian with Stoic theology is 
also shown by an utterance of 
his contemporary Athenagoras. 
This apologist, who was so well 
acquainted with Greek philo- 
sophy, says (Supplic, c. 5, p. 
22 P.) of Aristotle and the 
Peripatetics : eVa &JOVTCS olovel 

> ouQlpiov 

pJev avrov 
rovs re ir 


r\\v crtycupav ru>v 
farXavuv Kivov^va KvK\o(j>opr)ri- 
K>S, "fyvyfyv 5e rbv iri ry Kiviiffei 
TOV crd^fj-aros \6yov r , avrbv [jikv ov 
KLVOV^VOV ctfrLOv Se rys rovrov 
Kivijffstas yiv6jj.vov. If this does 
not precisely correspond with 
the conception of Aristocles, 
the Deity is here treated in a 
Stoic manner, as the world- 
soul ; only that the body of the 
world-soul is formed not by all 
parts of the world, but merely 
by the heavenly spheres. But 
Alexander himself did not 
(with Aristotle) place the seat 
of Deity outside the furthest 
sphere, but in it (vide infra, 
p. 329, 1). 

2 Concerning Alexander's per- 
sonal history nothing has come 

down to us. His date can be 
fixed by the statement in De 
Jfy'to, mentioned sup. p. 304, 2. 
From his native city, Aphro- 
disias (not Aphrodisium, cf. 
Arnmon. De Interpret, 12, 5; 
81,0; 161, 5; Simpl. De Coelo. 
168, l\ 28 K), his invariable 
surname is 'AQpoSia-iebs. (he de- 
scribes himself in MetapJi. 501, 
8; Bon. 768, a\ 20, Br. 132, by 
the predicates icrxvbs (f>i\6<ro<f>os 
Xevicbs 'AtypodLcriebs) ; but which 
Aphrodisias is thereby meant 
does not appear. Concerning 
his writings, vide Fabric. MbL 
Gr. v. 650 sqq, and the passages 
there quoted. 

3 Cf. Syrian and David in the 
passages quoted p. 307, w.; Simpl. 

DO A)l. 13, & : & TOV *A/3JO"T0T<r- 

Aous Quiwriis 5 AAe'. ; Themist. 
DeAn. 94, a : 6 ^Tjy-rjT^s 'AXe|. ; 
Philop. Gen. et Corr. 15, /&; 
48, a; 50, & ; Arnmon. De In- 
terpr. 32, "b : 6 'AtypoSio-Lebs 77- 
j-nrts. He is also called 6 ^77- 
yr)r)]$ simply ; e.g., as Olympio- 
dor. Meteorol. 59, a ; ii. 157, Id. 
On the other hand, by the ^17- 
yyrfys spoken of (iMd. 12, a ; 
L 185 Id.), who makes some 
remark on Alexander's com- 
mentary, a far earlier man is 
meant, a teacher of the author, 
as we see from the mode of 
quotation, ^ (not ^o-ly). We 



has unquestionably won for himself great merit by 
his commentary on the Aristotelian works, a great 
portion of which he has furnished with detailed ex- 
planations, 1 carefully entering into the words as 


he Se- 

cannot, therefore, infer from 
this passage that the commen- 
tator on the Meteorology is dis- 
tinct from the philosopher of 
Aphrodisias. Alexander's com- 
mentaries were read by Plo- 
tinus together with those of 
Aspasius, Adrastus, &c., to his 
pupils (Porph. V. Plot. 14). 

1 The still existing commen- 
taries of Alexander, which are 
now collected in the Academy 
edition of the commentaries 
on Aristotle, and have appeared 
in a new and improved form of 
test, embrace the following 
works : (1) Book I. of the First 
Analytics ; (2) on the Topica 
(partly revised, mde Brandis, 
p, 207, of the treatise alluded to 
suj>. p. 112, 1) ; (3) on the Ite- 
teorology. That this commen- 
tary was not written by another 
Alexander has been already 
stated (*?//?. p.304,2,and31 8,8). 
Also the citations of Olympio- 
dorus from the Aphrodisian har- 
monise almost exactly with our 
Alexandrian commentary ; cf . 
Olymp. i. 133, Id. ; Alex. 126, 
a> \ 01. i. 202, where Ideler 
finds a difference that is quite 
groundless, between the cita- 
tion of Olympiodorus and our 
commentator (Alex. 82 a\ 01. 
i. 298 *#. ; Alex. 100, 5 ; 01. ii. 
157; Alex. 124, &; 01. ii. 200; 
Alex. 132, 0). If, therefore, 
something is here and there at- 
tributed to the latter which is 
not to be found in our com- 
mentary (Ideler, I G. I. xvii.), 

this would rather point to a 
later revision or to gaps in our 
text. Meantime it is a ques- 
tion whether by the 17777- 
r%$ in 01. 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. 
(Ve Cceld, '95, a, ; ScJwl 492, b, 
1), on which Ideler also de- 
pends, certainly refers to the 
commentary on the books of 
the heavens ; (4) irepl cuo-^crews, 
quoted by Alexander himself 
(JDe JLw/133, 0; Qu>. Nat. i. 
2, end, p. 19, edition of 
Thurot, 1875). On the Meta- 
pJiyaics, the commentary on 
Books i.~v. has been preserved 
entire ; the rest in a shortened 
form ; the first part, and ex- 
tracts from the second, are 
printed in the Scholia, of Bran- 
dis, a,nd both at length in the 
separate edition of Bonitz. An 
explanation of the cro^LcrrLKol 
lAeyxoi, which likewise bears 
the name of Alexander, is cer- 
tainly spurious (cf. Brandis, 7-.^. 
p. 298). Lost commentaries 
on the following works are 
quolecl : (1) The Categories, by 
Bimpl. (Gafafl. 1, a; 3, a. e. ; 
23, % and often ; De- Ccelo, 76, 
#, 26 K ; Dexipp. Catcg. 6, 16 ; 
40, 23 ; 55, 13 Speng. ; David, 
Schol. 51, &, 8; 54, &, 15, 26; 
65, ?;; 47, 8.1, 7>, 33. (2) ttepl 
IP/XT? veifas^Ammon. DB Tnte-r^ret. 
12, & ; 14, a ; 23, I ; 82, & ; 4(5, 



CHAP, well as the thoughts of the author. 1 His own 
* writings, 2 however, are no more than explanations 

5; 54, 5; 81, &; 161, J; 194, 5; 
Boot. De Interpret, [very fre- 
quently] ; cf . the Meiser Index. 
Mich. Ephes. Sehol. in Arist. 
100, a). (3) The second book 
of the First Analytics ( Philop. 
SchoLinAr. 188, ft, 3; 191, a, 
47 ; Anon. Paris [a commentary 
under Alexander's name, but 
much later, concerning which 
cf. Brandis, I.e. p. 290] ; Sehol. 
188, a> 19; 191, a, 10, ft, 28^ 
passim. (4) The Second Ana- 
lytics (Ps.-Alex. in Metapk. 442 y 
9 Bon, 745, &, 7 Br. ; Philop. in 
PostAna.lyt.Sclwl.ISS, a, 33 ; 200, 
J, 30; 203, ft, 18; 211, ft, 34 ^ 
passim; Bustrat. in Lilr. ii.; 
Anal. Post, 1, # ; 5, &, ; 11, #, 
0; cf. Fabric. Z. c. 666 ; Prantl 
(Sksc/A. d. Log, i. 621, 18). (5) 
On the Physics (Simpl. Phy*. 
3, # ; 4, <x ; 5, fr ; 6, a, and 
many other passages, especially 
the three first books; Philop. 
Phys. B, 16 ; M, 28 ; N, 13 ; 
T, 1; 4.; 9. This commen- 
tary seems to have been the 
principal source from which 
that of Simplicius is taken ; 
and the fragments of the pre- 
Socratic philosophy, especially, 
which give such great value to 
the work of Simplicius, would 
appear to have been altogether, 
or chiefly, borrowed from it). 
(6) The treatise on the heavens 
(Alex. Meteorol. 76, a-, Ps.- 
Alex. Mefaph. 677, 27 ; 678 S 7 
Bon. [807, 0; 36, &, 11 Fr.] ; 
Simpl. De Coelo. Selwl. 468, a ; 
11 sqq. [Damasc. I. c. 454, ft, 11] ; 
470, ft, 15-473, a ; 485, a ; 28 
$$$, et passim. (7) De Genera- 
tiane et Covruptione (Ps.-Alex. 

1. G. 645, 12 Bon. 799, b ; 1 Fr. ; 
title to Alex. Qu, Nat. ii. 22 j 
Philop. 6fenu. et Corr. 14, a, 
15, a ; 18, Z>, et passim). (8) 
De Ammo, (Simpl. De An,. 18, 
a, ~b ; 25, 1) ; 27, 5, *tf pamm ; 
Themist. D0 J.w. 94, a ; Philop 
Dtf J.W. A 10 ; 16, B, I. ; Ps.- 
Alex. Metaph. 473, 6 ; 405, 28 ; 
410, 20 ; 560, 25 Bon. [734, a 
28; 735, a, 32 ; 783, 1> 9 23 Fr.; 
the first passage is wanting 
with him] ; cf . Bonitz, Alex. 
Comm. in Metaph, xxii. Com- 
mentaries on the smaller an- 
thropological writings are not 
mentioned with the exception 
of the still existing commentary 
De 8ensu. Concerning some 
supposed commentaries on the 
Rhetoric and Poetics, vide Fa- 
bric. 665, 687. That Alexander 
expounded other writings be- 
sides those of Aristotle we 
cannot infer from the absurd 
statement of David (Scliol. in 
Ar. 28," % 24), that he com- 
mented, not only the works of 
Aristotle the Stagirite, but 
those of the other men of that 
name ; also the discussion con- 
cerning the harmonic numbers 
of the Slmffitit mentioned by 
Philop. (DcAn. D 6) must have 
been found in the commentary 
on the Treatise of the Soul, 

1 Cf . on this point and against 
Bittor'a (iv. 264) depreciatory 
judgment of Alexander, Bran- 
dls, I. G. p. 278 j Schwegler, 
Metaphy&k de# Arist. i. ; Torr. 
s, viii. ; Bonitz, Alex. Comm. in 
Mefaph. JPrtstf. i. ; Prantl, Oesrh. 
tier Log. i. 621. 

2 We possess four of those 




and apologies for Aristotle's doctrines. In this 

manner, in his still existing commentaries, he has 
treated of logic, 1 meteorology, and metaphysics ; in Writings 

besides the commentaries vrfpl 
^VXTIS, 2, B. (ap. Themist. Opji. 
Venet. 1534, p. 123 SQQ.} ; w. 
elpapfjiev'ris (ibid. 163 8C[c[, et pass. ; 
latest ed. Orelli, Zur. 1824); 
<f>v(riK&v Kal fyQiK&v aTropi&v teal 
\v<recav s 4, B. (qutpstiones natu- 
rales, &c., edition of Spengel, 
Munich, 1842, who in the pre- 
face, together with Fabricius, 
I. c. 661 s#., gives all informa- 
tion respecting the title and 
earlier editions) ; -jrepl /j eo>s 
(attached to -the Aldine edition 
of the Meteorology, and imper- 
fect in the commencement). 
On the other hand the Probl&nis, 
larpLK&v Kol QvffiK&v TrpojSATj^ci- 
rcoi/, 2 B (cf. also Fabric. 662 
sqg. and, in respect to Base- 
maker *s edition in the fourth 
volume of Didot's Aristotle, 
Prantl, Munch. Gel. A?iz. 1858, 
No. 25) and a treatise on Fevers 
(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, 1, 83, 
a ; cf . PML d. &r. II. ii. 224) ; this 
is no doubt the work referred 
to by Philop. Anal. Pr. xxxii. 
ft; Snlldl. 158, b t 28 (HvruHfio- 
vo&l&\<i), on the other hand the 
<rx<iA.ta Xoyucb (Alex. Anal. Pr. 
83, a ; Sohol. 169, , 14) must 
be something distinct from, it ; 
the words &rni irheoj/ f^ral poi 
v rols <rxoA.ioi TOIS Xoyticois 
seem to me to be a gloss. Also 

a treatise -Trepi ^ai^vtav (Michael 
or whoever may be the author 
of this commentary, printed 
with Simpl. De Amma^ on the 
treatise Trepl T^S /ca0' tiirvov p.av- 
riKTjs, p. 148, b) : another trea- 
tise against Zenobius the Epi- 
curean (Phil d. Gr. III. i. 377) 
in which, according to Simpl. 
PJiy. 113, 2>, he had sought to 
prove the distinction of the 
Above, Below, &o., to be a 
natural distinction. The trea- 
tise, however, on the seat of the 
rjyefjLovLK^v, alluded to in the 
commentary on the work -repi 
jW Kw^crecus, 154, b, 155, a, is 
doubtless not distinct from 
Alexander's dissertation, X>e 
An. i. p. 140 s^fjf. ; and the 
lAovofiipXlov, quoted by Eustrat. 
in Mh. N. 179, a, in which it 
is proved as against the Stoics 
that virtue does not suffice for 
happiness, is the same as the 
portion of the work bearing 
the same independent title, p. 
156 $%{[. Concerning an essay 
on the 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- 
tainly spurious, and some 
Arabic treatises mentioned by 
Casiri, all, erroneously no doubt, 
attributed to Alexander (vide 
Fabric, v. 667 .?#, 658). _ 

1 Concerning his logic, vide 
Prantl, Gcsoh. der JLogW, i. 622 
s$$. But, except his definitions 
on the relation of the individual 




wholly of 

for Aris- 
totle's and 
taries on 

two books concerning the soul, and in many passages 
of enquiries into natural science, he has developed 
the anthropology and psychology of his master ; in 
the first three books of the last mentioned work he 
has discussed many physical questions, and in the 
fourth many definitions of the Peripatetic ethics, in 
opposition to the cavils of the Stoics ; in Book i. 18, 
he defends the necessity and eternity of the world 
against the Platonists ; in the .treatise Trspl /ufscos* 
he combats the Stoic doctrine of the mutual inter- 
penetration of bodies ; in the treatise on destiny, 1 he 
defends the freedom of the will against the Stoic 
fatalism. The weaknesses of his adversaries are 
pointed out in this treatise with acuteness and skill, 
but we cannot expect to find in it a thorough and 
searching enquiry into the human will. Alexander 
lays chief stress on the practical results of fatalism, 2 
among which he does not forget the theological 
arguments which for himself are not exactly fitting, 
namely, that fatalism does away with Providence 
and the hearing of prayer ; 3 he also repeatedly and 

and the universal, to be spoken 
of, infra ; there is not much of 
importance to be derived from 
it. The most noteworthy por- 
tion (though in fact this is to 
be found already in Aristotle) 
is the distinction of the analytic 
and synthetic methods (Anal, 
Pr. 3, 5 ; cf . Nat. Qu. i. 4 ; p. 
13 sq. Speng.) ; the discussion 
on the subcontrary opposi- 
tion (Boet. De Interpr. ii. p. 
158 sq. Meis.); and the asser- 
tion that only the categorical 
syllogisms are pure and legiti- 
mate (Toj>. 6). 

js, cf. De An. 
ii. p. 159 ay. ; Qu. Mit. i. 4 ; ii. 
4 sqq. ; Hi. ,13. Tennemarm (v. 
18G *'##.) and, more concisely, 
Hitter (iv. 265 *#.), give extracts 
from the former treatise. It is 
unnecessary to enlarge further 
upon ic in this place, as the trea- 
tise contains no thoughts es- 
sentially new ; and moreover 
has been made generally acces- 
sible through the edition of 
2 j> Fate, c. 16 w. 


emphatically insists on the principle that the uni- CHAP. 
versal opinion of mankind, and the innate ideas ' 

which express themselves especially in language, are 
a sufficient and irresistible proof of truth. 1 The 
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 Aristotle, of mind, divine and 
human, as we have seen, has much obscurity, and 
his sayings about the relation of the deity to the 
world, as well as those on the relation of human 
reason to the divine reason, and to the inferior parts 
of the soul, labour under a mystic vagueness. But 
this itself is connected with the fundamental deter- 
minations of the system concerning form and matter, 
and can hardly be removed without a recasting of 
these. Therefore, while Alexander is intent upon 
a conception of the Peripatetic doctrine, which shall 
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 essences to be the truly Sub- 

1 Do Fato, c. 2 ; c. 7 ; c. 8 ; 32, p. 35 sqg. ; 93, M). The 

of. c. 5, 12, end; 14, beginning; contradictory statement of Am- 

De, An, 161, a. Speech, how- monius (D# IntiWjpr. 32, "b \ 

ever, is not itself inborn ; only ScJioL in, Ar. 103, &, 28) is 

the faculty of speech is so (Qu. rightly rejected by Frantl (I. <j. 

Wat. iii. 11 ; Boet. De Interyr. 624, 27). 

Y 2 




and uni- 
versal ; 
form, and 


treated T)y 

stantial, but at the same time he had declared the 
Universal to be the proper object of knowledge ; he 
had conceded that forms, with the exception of 
pure reason and the deity, are not separated from 
matter, but he had nevertheless sought the proper 
essence of things in them alone. Alexander goes a 
step further. Of the two conflicting definitions that 
the higher reality belongs to the individual and the 
higher truth to the universal, he gives up the second 
to save the first. The individual, he maintains 
(herein departing from Aristotle 1 ), is not only for us 
but in itself, prior to the universal, for if the indi- 
vidual were not, the universal could not be ; 2 and 
consequently he not only includes incorporeal natures, 
such as the Deity, under the conception of indi- 
vidual substance, 3 but also holds the individual to 
be the proper object of universal conceptions ; yet 
in these universal conceptions, only those determina- 

1 Cf. Phil. d. 6V, II. ii. 197, 

* Simp. Cat. 21, /3: 6 ^ueVrot 
*AAeaj/5pos evravda Kal ry ^>i5<rei 
titrrfpa ra Ka66\ov rcov KaQeKacrra 

ovde/jitav KO/mtfav <r%$bj>, rb 5e ev 
a/>Xf? Xa/mftdvcav, ftrav Xey?;, rb 
?vcu Kal TV overlay ra KOtvairapa 
T&V Ka6 3 e/cacrra Xafj,fidviv . . . 
KOIVOV yap &VTQS, (f}7}fflv, avdyKy 
Kal rb aropov elku, & yap ro?y 
KOLVQLS ra &ro]jia ire 
ar6fjioi) 5e cWos, ov irdvrcos 
Kowhv, <#ye r6 KOW&V iirl 7roAAo?y. 
Loc. cit. : ( J AAe|.) Kal rfj <j>6a"i 
irporspas $Qv\6fJiGvo$ etvai ras aro- 
IULQVS ovcrias rQv KQIV&V. jj.^ OVG&V 
yap rS>v ardpow, ovSkv elvai S^i/arai, 
l, rwy a\\ow. In agreement 

with this, cf. Dexipp. Cat. c. 
12; 54, 22 zqq. Sp. (Sdlwl, in 
Ar. 50, #, 15 sqg>.) who com- 
pares Alexander in this respect 
with BoSthus (suj>. 119, 2) ; and 
David, in Cat. ScJwl. 51, #. 10. 
We have no right to refuse 
credit to these utterances (as 
Prantl does 1. 623) because 
Alexander also maintains the 
incorporeality of the concept 
(cf. Boot, in JPorpk. a se> Trausl. 
p. 56, m) ; for the aro/jLov is not 
necessarily something corporeal 
(vide next note), and as Boe- 
thus (Z. <?.) says, quoting from 
Alexander, even from the cor- 
poreal the conception of incor- 
poreal form can be abstracted. 
8 Simpl. Cat. 21, : 6 ^vroi. 



tions of the individual are brought under considera- 
tion which are equally present in several individuals 
or may be present. 1 The universal conceptions are 
therefore, as he observes, universal only in the in- 
telligence which abstracts them from individuals ; as 
soon as this ceases to think them, they cease to 
exist : it is only our thought which releases the forms 
bound up with matter from matter, and gives to 
them reality in their absolute existence (fursich- 
sein}. 2 This indivisibility of form from matter 

^97 ou&6 %ffriv avrobv ri vovs 
e^ye iv rep voeTcrflcu avrols y rov 
vorjro'is tlvat VTrocrravis. ra, yap 
Ka66\ov Kal KOLVOL rfyv fitv vitap^iv 
ev ro'is KadKao~rd re Kal GVV\OLS 


Kal rb voyrbv Kal 
eTSos aro/u,ov ov&iav 
Aeyeerflcu (priori. JBM. 23, y : &s 

KLVOVV %v avrfj 
repcu at airoplaL. 

1 Alexander shows this, Qu<. 
Nat. i. 3. The generic con- 
ceptions, he here says, relate 
neither to individuals, nor to 
an absolute self-subwistent 
universal, aAA' ei<rlv ol opicr^ol 
rcav <fv rols KaQ^Kao-ra KOLVCOV, 
^ rcav Ka6eKao~ra rar& ra $v 
auroTs Kowd . . . hcyovrat 5e T>V 
VQVj/jLdrcav Kal r&v KOLV&V ol fipicr- 
pol, *6n vov rb xcaptcrai. rbv avQpa)- 
ifov (the essential nature of 
mail) farb r>v ffbv ols {KpeffryKev 
$AAft>jf Kal Ka6' avrltv Xaftsiv' 6 
rov v<pcrrS>TOS ftev /-ter' aXXcav, 
voQV}j<.4vov Se xwpls %K.t:(v<av [/cai 
ahhuv, no doubt, shoiilcl be 
omitted], Kal oux ^ v<p(rrr)Kv, 
6pHTfAbs vo'ft/Aaros elz/ai So/eel Kal 
KOIVOV. Cf. yimpl. Phys. 1G, b, 

2 De An. 131), t> : rwv yap 

fJidvov, rp <pQopav avrwv 
rbv airb rys ttXys ^(apiff^v 
'crav }J,fy VQVJTCLL ra rotavra 

KOivd re Kal KaddXov yivsrai, Kal 
r6r crri vovs ftrav vortrai, i 
Se fj.^ VOO'LTO oi8e HffTtv 
%TI. &<rr x.capicrQ^vra rov 
voovvros avra vov tpQel- 
perai, e^ye h r<p voslffQai rb 
elvai avrols. S^aota 8e rovrois Kal 
ra e^ a<pai.p(rcas, biroid ecrn ra 
jua^^/xari/ca. LOG. c-it. 143, & : 
ra fj,%v yap %vv\a sYS?} virb rov 
vov voyra ylveraL 8vra tivvd/Afi 
vorjrd. -^(apl^(av yap avra rys 
ij\7]s 6 VQVS, fJi^O ' ?)$ icrrus avrys 
(1. auTOiV) rb etvat, ^vepysta, 
vofira aurbs- avra TTOLS?, &c. Cf. 
also Metaph. 763, 1>, 37; Br. 
493, 30 Bon. The discussions 
in Nat. Qu. i. 17, 26, refer to 
this relation of the ei$?} %vv\a 
to their substance. Alexander 
here shows that Form is in sub- 
stance, not ecy iv vTroKGtfievcp 
?>, not as if in something 
which existed without it, and 
to which it ia superadcled, there- 
fore not Kara crv^l37)Kos (of. 




must hold good also of the soul, the more decidedly 
Alexander maintains the Aristotelian definition that 
the soul is nothing else than the form of the 
organic body. 1 As the form of the body, it is so 
closely 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 

as to the meaning- of this ex- 
pression, Phil. d. 6rV. II ii. 308, 1 ) 
for matter became this definite 
substance first through the in- 
strumentality of Form; and 
Form, on the other hand, is 
only that which it is, as the 
form 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 
TTOLyrtys rov xpdvov (Themist. De 
An. 220, 26 Sp.) 

1 De An. 123, a, ; 124, &, et 
pass ; cf. Qu. t\ r at. i. 17, p. 61 j 
i. 26, p. 83." 

2 De An. 126, a. The con- 
tinuation of the proposition 

ou ffri tyvxti. Ibid. 125, a> : 
that the soul is not a self-sub- 

rovrois (the parts of the body) 
yivo^ivv}. Kal eVrl rb ara>ju.a KCLL 
77 rovrov Kpacris alrta rf) "fyvxfj 
rijs e ap^Tjs 'yei/ecrecus, as we can 

see from the fact that the 
constitution of our souls corre- 
sponds to that of our bodies : 

eivaij OVK etVl rr)$ <$>v)(ri$ avrys 

avr'fiv . . . iracrat y&p at rrjs 
fyvxys Kivfjffets rov (rvva/uLtyorepov 
rov (tovros eiVi^. Cf. Qa. j\ r a,t. 
ii. 2 ; Simpl. Phys. 225, a ; and 
concerning the Aristotelian 
doctrine which Alexander here 
follows, cf. vol. ii. /;, 597, G. 
On account of this indivisibility 
of soul and body Alexander will 
not allow their relation, to be 
apprehended according to the 
analogy o f that between the ar- 
tist and his tool (PMl. d. &r. II. 

sistent substance, but the form ii. 487), for the artist is separate 

of the body, is plain from its 
activity j ov yct,p ol6v re Hvepyeidv 
rivet. ^v%t/c}/j/ yevecrdai xojpls* 
{Tca/jLariK^s Kiv^crews. This is 
then proved in detail, and the 
inference drawn &$ rov ff6^aros 
tan rl (namely its form) /ml 
ax&pLVfos avrov. p&rriv yfcp 
etV; x ta P LO '' T ^J ^S^iaz/ r&v vlKelwv 
^vspyeiSiv Ka6* avr^v ^vepy^cfat 
Sui/afteV^f. Loo. olt. 14B, d : The 
soul is 8vva/At$ rts Kal ovcrla Hirl 

from his tool ; but the soul is 
in the body, and especially in 
the .central organ, as its form 
and tho force inherent in it ; the 
other parts of the body can only 
be regarded as organs : J)& An. 
127, i, J; cf. 8impl. J)e An. 
13, />; Alex. &itu ^ &$ &pydv<p 
Xp?i<rQou rrj tyvxf}' M 7&P ytvc<r- 
9ai v ri ?/c rov xp&^vov Kal TOW 


the soul form no exception to this. The Aristotelian CHAP. 

doctrine of the parts of the soul is also defended 1_ , 

by Alexander; 1 but he insists the more strongly 
that the higher faculties of the soul cannot exist 
without the lower, and that the unity of the soul 
depends upon this ; 2 and whereas Aristotle had dis- 
tinguished vovs as to its origin and its essence very 
decidedly from all other faculties, Alexander co- 
ordinates it in one series with the rest. Intellect 
in man exists primarily only as a disposition vovs 
V\LKOS teal (frvcrifcbs merely potential thought. 3 
Through the development of this disposition, there 
arises the real activity of thought intelligence as 
an operative quality, as an active power, the vovs The soid 

i / e/o A T- i 1 j 1 1. C J. MWi VOVS. 

STTLKTTITOS Qi vovs fcau sgtv. But that WHICH, effects 
the development of potential intelligence and 
brings it to actuality as the light brings colours, the 
vovs TroL'TjTitfcbs, 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 D$ An. 128 sqq. ; 146, &. the Arabian and Scholastic phi- 

2 Loc. tit. 128, a, 1) ; 141, a. losophers derived their well- 

3 Perhaps it may be in con- known doctrine of the intelkc- 
nection with this, that Alex- tm acqni*?itu$. 

ander, according to Simpl. DC 5 Loo. cit. 130, 1)\ 143, b, ^.; 

An. 64, &, would, admit no pure 130, b: cnradfa 5^ &v (5 TTQM?- 

self -consciousness, related to abs vovs) ical ^ fj.ejj.iyju.4j/os v\rj 

vovs as such ; for he taught nvl teal ftpOaprds ^ffnv, Ivepyeia 

that vovs conceived directly the &v KO.I elSos X U P^ S 5vi/(f / acjs re Kal 

etor} alone ; and itself only /CCCT^ $Xr)$. rotovrov 8% ~bv SeSeiKTcu 

(rvjuLfieftyKbs,, so far as it is one far' 'A/ucrroTe'Aovy r& irp&rov 

with the ^77. 'aYnov 5 Kal Kvpios <rrl vovs, fcc., 

4 Z.QG. cit. 188, a, sg.; 143, b. p. 114, a: TOVTO 5^ TO vorjro'v 
In these definitions of Alexan- re rf) avrov tyvcrsi KO.I war' &&< 
der He the source from which ytiav vovs, afriov yiv6u.evov ry 




reason with the divine is here broken j on the one 
side is man, and on the other the deity operating 
upon him. The human soul is therefore an abso- 
lutely finite essence ; the souls of the gods (i.e. no 
doubt the heavenly bodies) could only be called l 
souls in an improper sense (opwvviMtosr). In accor- 
dance with this our philosopher places the seat of 
reason, to which Aristotle had denied any corporeal 
organ, 2 in the heart, 3 like the Stoics, and says, uni- 
versally and unconditionally of the human soul, 
what Aristotle had said only of one part of it, that 
it passes away with the body. 4 The attempt which 

$ TOV /carcfc T^JV irpbs r& 
TOLOVTOV ?8o$ ava<popkv x<apifciv 
T Kal fjiifj.Lff6ai Kal voelv Kal T>V 

voyrbv avTo, OtipaQev <TTI Ae 
fMevos vovs <5 iroL^TLKbs, OVK 
/j,6piov Kal Svvatiis ns TTJS ^/ic 
pas if/v^s, aAA' |&>0j/ yivdfJLe 
avro vo&^v . 

Se kffriv T\\JM>V rotovros 
&v tK6rcas. On account of this 
assertion, Alexander was fre- 
quently attacked by later com- 
mentators, cf. Themist. De An,. 
89, i (where, though not 
named, he is evidently alluded 
to) ; Simpl. Plvys. I , a; 59, a ; 
Philop. De An. F, 11 ; G-, 
7 ; H, 8 ; Q, 2 3 (quotation 
from Ammonius) ; 10, sg. 
Alexander's general view of 
vovs is thus summed up by 
Philop. I. <?., 0, Q, 2 : irpuiroy 

Ae'yei rov vov 
t vovv, ftswep ^crnv fal rfijv 

fjLGVov rov 5vi/4aei [ley. TOV vow] d 
KaQ 1 ej-tv vovs, ttsirep 6 girl rfav 
T\ei(ov cwQod)ir<av . , . rpirov 

O"nfJ.CW>6fJiGv6v (TTt TOV VOV 6 j/p- 

yela vovs, '6 ZffTiv 6 Ovpadej/, 6 
jraj/reAetos . . . 6 Kv/Bepvuv Tb 
Traj/. Concerning his explana- 
tion of the particular in the 
Aristotelian passages concerned, 
cf . iMd. Q. 4, 5, 8 ; also Simpl. 
De An. 64, #. 

1 D& An. 128, a. 

2 Cf . Plitt. d. 0r. II. ii. 568, 3. 
8 De An. 141, a. Observe 

here also the Stoic yye/AoviKov 
and the Platonic XoytorTiK^v in- 
stead of the Aristotelian vovs. 

4 Loo. cit. 127, a, o : ovcra ^ 
7) t//i>x^ eldos TOV crdjuiaTOs . . . 
T< ax^p'-o'TOV etvcu TOV crtiofjiaTOs 
r<i roiovTov elSos Kal crvjuL<j>6ipoiTQ 


Nat. ii. 10: 97 ^v%^ ofiv 
?5os "bv aSvvaTov avTb ttaO* a^rJ) 
elvai. % y&p 0A??s 5e?rat irpos rb 
?yat, TarJr^s- ri "by (namely its 
form) aSiWroj/ aurb /ca0* avT^ 
elvai. Alexander here infers 
that the soul cannot move 
itself, in and for jtself ; but it 
also follows that it cannot exist 



is seen in these definitions to refer phenomena to CHAP. 


natural causes by rejecting everything superna- ' 

tural may be also perceived in the doctrine of the 
Aphrodisian on the relation of God and the world. 
All that happens in the world he derives, like Relation 

Aristotle, from the influence which diffuses itself f .^ 

7 ana the 

from the Deity first into the heavens, and from 
thence into the elementary bodies ; 1 but this whole 
process is conceived entirely as a process of nature ; 
in each of the elements there is more or less 
animate force, according as its higher or lower 
position in the universe, and its coarser or finer 
nature, places it nearer or further to the first bearer 

without the body. This denial 
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, &, 41 ; 26, &, 13; 
Philop. De An. A, 5, o ; B, 8, 
Q, 4. 

1 The motion of the heavens 
itself, Alexander explained, 
like Aristotle, by supposing 
that the (rwjuo KVKXofyQpyriKbv 
bad a longing to become as 
like as possible to the highest, 
eternal, and unmoved substance 
(which, however, according to 
Simpl. P/iys. 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 Q<uov cnS^a fyufwxov KOL\ 
/caret tyvxfyv KLVO^^VOV. Simi- 
larly each of the seven plane- 
tary spheres (to which accord- 

ingly Alexander again refers 
the 55 Aristotelian) e^eVei ical 
opeei Tij/bs over/as (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 
round by it a double motion 
which was necessary, because 
otherwise there could not 
be in the world beneath the 
moon a regular alternation of 
generation and passing away 
(Qu. Nat. i. 25). Alexander 
also (herein differing from 
Aristotle) attributes a soul to 
the irp&TOs ovpavbs, in which the 
longing, which Aristotle had 
ascribed to matter itself (PHI. 
d. 6V. II. ii. 373 *#.) must have its 
seat ; his contradiction to Her- 
minus (vide s^t>pra,p. 318, 1) con- 
sists only in this that Herniinua 
derives from the soul what 
according to Alexander, is the 
effect of the first moving prin- 


CHAP, of this force the sky; and it is likewise divided 
XJ> __ among the bodies compounded of these elements in 
greater or lesser measure ; they have a more or less 
perfect soul, according as they consist of purer or 
impurer substances and, particularly, according as 
more or less of the noblest element, fire, is mixed 
up in them. 1 In this divine power the essence of 
nature consists ; 2 but Providence or destiny coin- 
cides with nature. 3 Therefore, though Alexander 
does not admit destiny in the Stoical sense, he is as 
little inclined to favour the ordinary belief in Pro- 
vidence. This belief seems to him not only irrecon- 
cileable with the freedom of the human will for 
free actions, as he points out, the Deity Himself 
cannot foreknow, since His power does not extend to 
the impossible 4 but is also opposed to right con- 
ceptions of God and the world. For it cannot pos- 
sibly be supposed that the mortal and meaner is the 
end, and the activity of the higher -of God 
is merely a means existing for the sake of the 
former; 5 nor can we say of the world that it 

1 Qu. Na>t, ii. 3. theory (w/tf #tf/wr p. 327, 5 ; 

2 Qu. Nut. I e. p. 90 ; J)e. An. 329, i ). Bmndin, Mwl 475, # , 
159, # : TTJS Oelas SwdjuLetav ryjs 45: ws ^TT! rotirovS. r. 0, : 
Jy T$ 7w?r$ crti)/a.ari J-yytvo^vys l HO far as the deity is combined 
ct7r<> TTJS irpbs r& Oe'tov [sc. cTw/ua] with the jtjthcr,* 
yeirvidcrews, fyv Kal tyvfftv KO,\QV- 3 J)tf Pfltf^ C, 6 : AefTrercu 5^? 
fMv. According 1 to JSimpl. l)t*> AOITT&J/ r^*/ tfjt,apfji,4vr)v & ro?s 
(JcelO) 54, a, 23, Karston, Aloxan- tyi'icrei yivo^vois elvat A^ycij/, &$ 
der even Identified the Deity eTwu raur^ ^l^aip^vfiv re Kal 
with the aether, for it is here nid </>^(rof, which is then further 
(ap. Arist. JDe 6M0, i. 8 ; 270 //, 8) discunsod. J)<t An, 102, 

he referred the &&dvarov to the XefTr^rat pa rtyv ^apiu.^' 

Qelov crw^aa, &$ rodrov ftvros rov &\Ko fy rfyv otKetav ^<rty 

060v. But only the reading of l/cc(WoiA iteo. 

Brandis is compatible with the * Iki JPbto, c. 80, 

context, and with Alexander's * Qu. W<it> ii, 21, p. 128 


requires a providence for its constitution and main- CHAP. 
tenance ; on the contrary, its existence and con- ' 

dition is a consequence of its nature. 1 If, therefore, 
Alexander does not wholly deny Providence, he 
confines it to the world beneath the moon, because 
for this world alone care is taken by something out- 
side itself which is destined to maintain it in its 
existence and order, through the world of planets ; 2 
and if he also opposes the notion that Providence 
is only an accidental operation of the Deity, he 
considers it just as little an activity working with 
design, but only as a consequence of Nature, fore- 
known and fore-ordained by it. 3 We cannot call 
these opinions on Providence entirely un-Aristo- 
telian ; but as they follow the Aristotelian doctrine 
only on the physical side, they give proof of the 
naturalism of the philosopher, whose explanation 
of the life of the soul approximates to the Stoic 
Materialism, and his whole theory of the universe 
to the standpoint of Strabo the physicist. 

Alexander of Aphrodisias is the last important 
teacher of the Peripatetic school with whom we are 


0. the quotations from Adras- a more remote sense to the <^- 

tus, stymi, p. 310, with whom, whole material world, 
however, Alexander does not 3 Qu. J\ r ttt. ii. 21, p. 124 sg., 

wholly agree j for he supposes 131 sq. Alexander here ota- 

tho planets to have their double serves that the question whether 

motion for the sake of the Providence proceeds /ca0' &M 

earthly sphere, vide sujjra, p. or /car& <rv/*0j8ij&s has never 

#29, 1. been more closely investigated 

1 Loo. olt. ii. 10. by any of his predecessors ; he 

2 fao. cU. and i. 25, p. 79 $$. himself gives the above decision 
According to the second passage only hypothetically, but it 
the conception of Providence manifestly expresses his own 
can only have been applied in opinion. 




From the 
half of the 
third cen- 
-twry the 
tic School 
is gra- 
merged in 
that of the 

acquainted. Of the few who are mentioned after 
him in the first half of the third century, 1 all without 
exception were insignificant. 2 From the second 
half of the third century the Peripatetic school 
seems gradually to have lost itself in the school of 
the Neo-Platonists, in which the knowledge of 
Aristotle's writings was also zealously maintained ; 
we still hear of Peripatetics ; 3 and there were not 
wanting men who commented on the Aristotelian 
writings and followed their doctrines in particular 
branches, such as logic, physics, and psychology ; 4 

1 Longinus ap. Porph. V. Plot. 
20, among the philosophers of 
his time whom he there enu- 
merates, mentions three Peri- 
patetics: Heliodorus of Alex- 
andria, Ammonius (according to 
Philostr. V. Soph. ii. 27, 6, he 
was probably in Athens), and 
Ptolemasus. Of these only the 
first left philosophical writings ; 
of the other two, Longinus 
remarks that they were indeed 
full of knowledge, especially 
Ammonius (of whom Philostr. 
I. o. 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- 
terity by these productions. 
Porphyry, ap. Bus. Pr. JSfo. x. 3, 
1, also mentions as his con- 
temporary in Athens, Prosenes 
the Peripatetic, perhaps head 
of the school there. 

a Even Anatolius of Alexan- 
dria, who became bishop of 
Laodicea about 270 A.D., and, 
according to Eus. JFfist. JScoL 
via. 32, 6, so distinguished him- 

self in the Peripatetic philo- 
sophy that his native city 
wished to make him head of 
the school in that place, seems 
to have displayed his chief 
strength in mathematics. A 
fragment from his Ktx,K4vs irpl 
TO v ird<rxa is quoted by Eusebius, 
1. c.j 14 siffl. ; a fragment like- 
wise, ap. Fabric. Mbl. Gr. Hi. 
462 sg. 9 may, perhaps, belong to 
him ,* but the fragments ap. 
Iambi. Theol. Arithuwt. (ride 
index) are from an earlier Ana- 
tolius, the teacher of lanabli- 

8 Vide suflra^ p. 302, 2. 

4 Thus, following Plotinus, 
came Porphyry, lamblichus, 
Themistius, Dexippus, Byrianus, 
Ammonius, Sirnplicius, the two 
named Olympiodorus, and other 
Neo-Platonists, to whom we 
must add Philoponusj in the 
East, Boethus, and the philoso- 
phers quoted by him, Victorinus 
and Vegetius Projtextatus. Of 
these men, so far as they come 
within the scope of the present 
exposition, we shall have to 
speak later on. 


but with regard to any philosophers who adopted CHAP. 
the Peripatetic doctrine in their whole theory of XL 
the world, there are only incidental allusions. 1 

1 We meet with such a Peri- Vers. Xsid. 131, was converted 

patetic even at the end of the by Isidorus from the Aristo- 

fifth century in Dorus the telian to the Platonic i.e. the 

Arabian, who, according to Neo- Platonic system. 
Damasc, ap. Suid. ml vooe, cf . 





OUR knowledge of the Academic school 1 at the 
point where we last left it becomes so fragmentary, 
that for half a century not even the name of any of 
Platonuts its teachers is known to us. 2 Only in the last 
'- e "- rs decades of the first century does some light break 
in upon this darkness, and from that time onward we 
can follow the school through a continuous series of 
Platonic philosophers to the times of Neo-Platonism. 3 



1 Cf. Fabric. MU.iii.l 59 ,<?#</.; 
Zumpt r p. 59 sgq.) in the trea- 
tise quoted supra, p. 112, 1. 

2 Seneca, whose testimony 
must be valid, at any rate for 
Rome, goes so far as to say : 
JVa>t. Qu. vii. 32, 2 : Academiol 
et veteres et minores nullim 

After the Platonists, men- 
tioned p. 100 sgg,, the next that 
we know of is Aminonius of 
Egypt, the teacher of Plutarch, 
who taught in Athens, probably 
as head of the Platonic school, 
and died there, after having 
repeatedly filled the office of 
Strategus (Pint. Qu. S'ljtnp. Hi. 
1; viii. 3; ix. 1, 2, 5, 1, 5; De 
Si. c. 1 sff. p. 385, where a sup- 
posed conversation with him 

during Nero's visit to Greece 
63 A.D. is narrated, Def. Orac. 
c. 4; 9; 20; 33; 38; 46; De 
Athdat. 31, p. 70 ; TlieniistoU. 
c. 32, end ; Eimap. V. Soph* 
Protein. 5 ; 8). With him Plu- 
tarch is connected, of whom 
we fcihall speak more at length 
later on. Aristpdemns, of 
JEgium, was a friend and co- 
disciple of Plutarch, whom 
Plutarch calls, Adr. Col. 2, 
ov vap- 

opytacrrfyv TlXdrowos, and to 
whom in this place, and in the 
treatise against Epicurus (JV r . 
P. fhwv. v.) he has given a part 
in the conversation. Under 
Hadrian seem to have lived 
the Syrian Apollonius, men- 



In its mode of thought it remained true, on the whole, 
to the eclectic tendency which it had struck out since 


tioned as a Platonist by Spar- 
tian. JEfadr. 2, and Gains, 
whose pupil Galen heard in 
Pergamum about 145 B.C. (Galen. 
Coffti. An. Morli. 8, vol. 5, 41 ; 
vide m/m, p. 337, 3). In the 
eighth year of Antoninus Pius 
(145 A. D.) Jerome ( Chro-n. JEvs.) 
places Oal visius Taurus, of 
Berytus (Eus. 1. c. ; Suid.TaSp.). 
or Tyrus (Philostr. F. Soph, ii, 
1, 34) ; but as, according to 
Gellius, JV. A. i. 26, 4, he had 
Plutarch for his teacher, and, 
according to Philostr. I. <?., 
Herodes Atticus, who was con- 
sul in 143 A.D., he must have 
come forward some time pre- 
viously (Zumpt, p. 70). Gel- 
lius, also his pupil, often men- 
tions him. We see from .A 7 ". A. 
20 ; ii. 2, 1 ; vii. 10, 1 ; 13, 1 
tfg 1 .; xvii. 8, 1, that he was at 
the head of the school. Con- 
cerning 1 his writing's Tide infra. 
To the same period belong 
Nigrinus, who is known to 
us through Lucian (Nfyrin.') 
as a Platonist residing in Rome 
(as such he describes himself 
in c. 18). Sextus, of Cha>~ 
ronea, a nephew of Plutarch's, 
teacher of Marcus Aurelius and 
Verus (Capitol. Antottin. ; 
Philos. 3; Vwm. 3; Suid. 
MdpK. and 2er. ; by whom, 
however, through his own mis- 
take or his transcriber's, Sextus 
of Chaeronea and Sextus Em- 
piricus are confused ; M. Aurel. 
i. <) ; Philostr. F. Sojph. ii. 9 ; 
Dio Cass. bod. 1 ; Butrop. viii. 
12 ; Porph. Qu. Homer, 26, cf, 
p. 276, 2) j Alexander of Se- 
leucia, in Cicilia, who was called 

Peloplaton, and who taught 
in Antioch, Rome, Tarsus, and 
other places, and also stood in J & 
favour with Marcus Aurelius *. oot at 
(Philostr. F. Soph. ii. 5; M. tfm 
Aurel. i. 12); /Ibinus, the 
pupil of Gains (the title of a 
treatise spoken of inf. p. 337, 3, 
describes him as such) whose in- 
structions Galen attended in 
Smyrna 151, 2 A.D. (Gal. De 
Lilr. Propr. 2 vol. xix. 16 ; for 
further details concerning Al- 
binus, vide inf. p. 338 #7.) ; D e- 
metrius (M. Aurel. viii. 25); 
Apuleius of Madaura, and 
Maxim us of Tyre. TJnder 
Hadrian lived T h e o of Smyrna 
(cf. Martin, Theon. Astwn. 5 
$##.), as we know from the fact 
that astronomical observations 
of the 12th, 13th, 14th, and 
16th years of Hadrian are 
quoted from him (cf . Eossbach 
and Westphal, Metrik. der 6f t r. 
2nd ed. 1, 76). He is described 
as a Platonist by Procl. in Tim. 
26, A, and in the title borne by his 
principal work in several manu- 
scripts, VOL /caret rb n.aQrifjia.rLKbv 
Xfrfjo-Lfia els T^V TOV HXdrcavos 
avaryvoxnv the first book of this 
work is the 'Arithmetic,' which 
Bullialdus first edited ; the se- 
cond, the 'Astronomy,' edited 
by Martin; the three remaining 
books are lost. Procl. (L 0.) 
seems to refer to a commentary 
on a Platonic work, perhaps the 
Kepublic (cf. Theo, Astro n. c. 
16, p. 203, and Martin, p. 22 ^. 
79). Under the reign of Mar- 
cus Aurelius, besides Atticus 
(Jerome, Cfvron J&us.of the 16th 
year of Marcus; 176, A.D. 




Philo and Antiocims. 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 that 
religious mysticism, through the stronger growth of 
which the eclectic Platonism of an Antiochus and 

Porph. V. Plot. U ; further de- 
tails infra), must be placed 
Daphnus (a physician of 
Ephesus, Athen. i. 1, <?); Har- 
pocrationof Argos, a scholar 
of Atticus (Procl. in Tim. 93, 
B s$. Suid. sub wce\ according 
to Suidas, <rwfij8tT%$ Kalcrapos, 
perhaps the grammarian, name- 
sake and teacher of Verus, so 
described by Capitol. Ver. 2. 
Suidas mentions as written by 
him a vird^vrijua els TLXdrtova in 
twenty-four books, and \%*is 
n\dra)vo$ in two books. In the 
first was contained no doubt-, 
what Olympiodoms in Ph&don, 
p. 159, SofwL 38 ; F. in Alcib. p. 
48 Cr. quotes from him. In 
the time of Marcus Aurelius, 
also seem to have lived Nu m e- 
nius, Cronius, and Celsus, 
to be spoken of later on ; at 
the end of the second century 
Oensorinus, attacked by his 
contemporary Alex. (Aphr. Qu. 
Nat. i. 13) for a statement con- 
cerning Epicurus' theory of 
colour; perhaps also A polio - 
phanes, mentioned by Por- 
phyry (ap, Eus. Hist. jEecl. vi. 
19, 8) as a philosophical writer, 
with the Platonists Numenius, 
Cronius, and Longinus. In the 
first half and middle of the 

third century there lived in 
Athens, Theodotus and E u - 
bulus, two SidSoxot of the Pla- 
tonic school, of whom the latter 
was still alive after 263 A.T>. 
(Longinus ap. Porph, V. Plot. 
20; Porph. himself, I. c. 35, 
where the few and -unimportant 
writings of Eubulus are also 
mentioned). To them Longinus 
adds as Platonists (I. c.) who 
had written much, Eu elides 
(cf. inf. 337, 3), Democritus, 
and Proclinus, in Troas ; of 
Democritus, also mentioned by 
Syrian in Metaph. Sdhol. in AT. 
892, , 31, we hear that he 
wrote commentaries on the Al- 
cihictdes (Olympiodorua in, Al 
oil), p. 105, Cr.) and the Phatlv 
(ttid. in Pt&& p. 159, end, 
38, F), Of Ammonius, Sak- 
kas, Origen, and Longinns 
we shall have to speak further 
on. When 'A/c^AAas lived (quo- 
ted by Procl. in Tim. 319, F. in 
connection with a theory on 
Tim. 41, D), and whether he 
was earlier or later than Plo- 
tinus, cannot be ascertained ; 
nor are the dates of Maxim us 
of Nicjea (ride inf. p. 337, 3) 
and of 8 ever us (iV- P- 339^.) 
exactly known. 


his successors was developed into Neo-Platonism. CHAP. 
The opposition to the intermingling of other points _1 __ 1 

of view with the Platonic doctrine, was chiefly called 
forth and nourished by the more accurate knowledge 
of its most ancient records. As the Peripatetics of this 
period turned their attention more and more to the 
Aristotelian writings, so do we see the Academics now 
applying themselves to the 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 Comment- 
stands in the closest connection with the earlier 

expositors of Platonic writings : l inasmuch as he not $* f 

r r. . TV Plato and 

merely in numerous passages refers to sayings of Plato study 

in a general manner, but has also thoroughly discussed ^ m ' 
certain points of his doctrine and certain sections of his 
works. 2 As commentators of Plato, Graius, Albinus, 
Taurus, and Maximus are likewise mentioned 3 among 

1 DeroyUid&$\ T/iraSf/lllfS, JE/U- Eu/cAc^s, Kal Hirl ira<rivTlop<ptipLos. 
dowis (ride. .s?/j?;. p. 610 .?#.). A Scholium, ap. Fabric, iii. 158, 

2 Especially in the TlXarcaviK^. says : rbv (JL& HXdrcava virofj.vri- 
{"TjTTJjUara and the treatise trepl fjLari^ov(ft TrXeivroi. Xpfjari/j.^- 
rv}s $v Ti/tiat(p tywxvyovias, repoi 5e Tatosf, 'AKfitvos, TLpia-Kiavbs 

3 In the fragment of the (contemporaries of Simplicius), 
commentary on the Republic Tavpos, Up6K\os, &c. Gaius also 
ap. A. Mai,' Glass. Ant. I. xiv. names Porphyry V. Plot. 14 
Proclus names as expounders of among those whose commen- 
the mythus in "Rep, x. 614 xq. taries Plotinns had i-ead ; an 
rS>v H\arc)VLKcav ot Kopvtycuot, exposition of the Timseus is no 
Novfji'fivt.os, 'AAjSTvos (as, accord- doubt referred to in Procl. in 
ing to Freudenthal, ifaUenist. Tim. 104, A ; from. Taurus, 
St-ud. 3 H. p. 300, the MSS. give ; Gellius (JV. A. vii. 14, 5) quotes 
Mai substitutes 'AXKIVOS^ td'ios, the first book of a commentary 

6 "NiKasbs, ^ApTroKparicav, on the Gorgias and also (xvii. 




others. Of Albinus we possess, in a later revision, 
an introduction to the Platonic dialogues, 1 and an 
epitome of the Platonic doctrines 2 hitherto falsely 

20) his oral exposition of the 
Symposium ; and from the first 
book of an exposition of the 
Timseus, extracts are given in 
the Beltker Scholia 011 Plato, p. 
43 G sq. and by Philop. De JEtern,. 
Mundi, vi. 21. From the same 
source comes, no doubt what is 
quoted by Iambi, ap. Stob. 
Eel. ],906. 

1 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, "f-Tellen, Stud. 3 H. 
pp. 241-327). Its title runs thus 
in the best MSS. : eisay&y)) 


s AXj8i/ov irp6Xoyos. Its text, 
however, in its present form, 
as Freudenthal has shown, p. 
247 sqq. is only a badly exe- 
cuted and mutilated extract. 
The same writer proves, p. 257 
sq., that c. 1-4 of the prologue, 
and Diog. Laert. iii. 48-62 have 
emanated from one source, 
which was earlier than Thrasyl- 
lus (concerning whom ride sup. 
p. 1 02, 2). As to its contents vide, 
Alberti, HJiein. Must. N". F. xiii. 
7sqq. Some further details will 
be found Phil, d Gr. II. i. 427, 3. 

2 This work is called in the 
MSS., almost without exception, 
*A.XKw6ov fiifiao'KaXtKbs (or X6yos 

in the transcripts of some of 
them also elsaycay^ els r^v <piXo~ 
troQtav UX. , or iirirojud) rwv U\dr. 

drav (by the moderns for 
the most part) ehaywy^. It 
has now been placed beyond 
question by Freudenthal's tho- 
rough examination (I. c. 275 
s##.) that its author is no other 
than Albinus, with whose 'in- 
troduction ' it entirely corre- 
sponds both in form and con- 
tent, and to whom many of the 
doctrines brought forward by 
the supposed Alcinous, and 
among them some that are very 
remarkable, are expressly attri- 
buted. The alteration of Al- 
binus into Alcinous was (as Fr. 
p. 300, 320 shows) so much the 
more possible as all our manu- 
scripts are derived from the 
same ancient copy ; and in this 
an 'AXKivov may have been 
found, or an 'AXfilvov read 
'AX/cIyov, and may have been 
changed, when the book was 
transcribed, into 'AA/cfvoou. But 
even this treatise of Albinus we 
possess according to all the evi- 
dence only in a later revision, 
which considerably shortened 
the original work and repro- 
duced it not without some cor- 
rections ; a Paris Codex (Z. 6*. 
p. 244, now imperfect), names 
in its index Albinus' third book 
TrepI TJV Tixdrcavt. hpeffK^vrc^y. 
But that Albinus in his treatise 
made plentiful use of more 
ancient works we see from the 
agreement for the moat part 
word for word of his twelfth 
chapter with the passage from 
Arius Didymus (ap. Bus. JPr. 
J&v. xi. 28 ; Stob. JPel i. 330), 
which Diels has now proved 
more minutely (JDoxogr. 76,447). 



put forth under the name of Alcinous. He also com- 
posed commentaries, but we know nothing of them. 1 
The commentary of Severus on the Timceus we know 
through Proclus. 2 The writings of Theo and Har- 
pocration in explanation of Plato have been already 
mentioned ; 3 commentaries on the Timceus and 
also quoted from Atticus; 4 from 



1 Among the more celebrated 
commentators of the Platonic 
writings, Albinus is reckoned 
in the passages quoted siip. p. 
337, 3. What writings he ex- 
pounded, and how his commen- 
taries were made, tradition does 
not tell us ; perhaps he merely 
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 G-aius ('AA.- 
$LVQV [add. UK] rSiv Tcilov cr^oX^v 
virorvTrdxrecav Tr\asr<aviK(av Soy/J.d- 
rcav this same work is alluded 
to by Priscian, Solitt. p. 553, 7;, 
32, as Lamni ex ffaii scliolis 
exemfilaribits Platowieorum doff- 
mat'itm, for the translator read 
instead of AABINOT, <AAB.' 
Freud. 246. According to its 
contents, that which Prod, iti 
Tim. 104, A; 67, C; 311 A, 
quotes may have been part of 
a commentary on the Timseus ; 
the passage we find ap. Tertull. 
JDfi An. 28 s@. may have been 
taken from, an exposition on 
the Pliwd'O ; and that in Iambi, 
ap. Stob. JEJoL i. 896, may have 
come from an exposition of the 
Republic. Meantime most of 

these citations have amply suf- 
ficient parallels in the supposed 
Alcinous, and less exact paral- 
lels in Procl. in Tim. 104 A and 
Tertull. De An, 28 (cf. Freu- 
denthal, 299 s$.\ and though 
it does not follow uncondi- 
tionally from this that they 
refer to that particular treatise, 
it is not unlikely that Albinus 
may have repeated and copied 
what he wrote there, as other 
writers in those later centuries 
are accustomed to do, and as 
he himself transcribes from his 
predecessors. Moreover, though 
the circumstance that three of 
the utterances of Albinus relate 
to passages of the Ti waits and 
are quoted in a corarnentary 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, A ; 70, A : 78, 
B; 88, D; 168, D; 186, B; 
187, B ; 192, B D ; 198, B E sq ; 
304, B. I shall recur to this 
philosopher later on. 

8 Vide ^<2?ra,pp. 337, 3 j 335, 

4 Concerning the first, cf . the 
Index to Procl. in Tim,, \ the 
other is mentioned I, c. 15, A. 

z 2 




tion to the 
tion of 
alien doe- 
trines in 
the writ- 

Numenius and Longinus, besides other treatises 
devoted to the Platonic writings, commentaries on 
the Timceiis ; 1 and from Longinus' contemporaries, 
Democritus and 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 
which had in later times claimed to be Platonic was 
far removed from the real opinions .of Plato, and 
thus we hear of several individuals who protested 
against the prevailing confusion of the various 
systems. Taurus wrote upon the difference of the 
Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, and against 
the Stoics; 4 but as to his own conception of the 
Platonic system, little has been handed down: to us, 
and no noticeable peculiarities or characteristics 5 are 

multitude of commentaries and 
expository writings, and also 
from statements like those 
quoted supra, p. 337, 3 ; 331), 1, 
on the lectures of Taurus and 
Gaius, and Porph. V. Plot. 14. 
Taurus also read Aristotelian 
his quotations from jSTumenius, writings with his scholars (ap. 
out of a commentary, and not GeH. xix. 6, 2 j xx. 4, the Pro- 
from the other writings of this blems). 

Platonist. Whether Oronius 4 The former, according- to 

had written commentaries can- Suid. raup, the latter according 

not be decided from Porph. V. toGellius,JO.xii.5,5. He also, 

^0** 14 - according to Suidas, composed a 

2 Concerning- Democritus, treatise irpl a-afjidrajv Kal &cro>- 

vide 8uj). p, 336, n, ; concerning /mdrtw and many other works. 

Eubulus, mde Longinus, ap. 5 We learn from his disciple, 

Porph. V. Plot. 20. Gellius, who frequently men- 

8 This we infer from the tions him, that he required a 

Syrian (Solwl. in Ar. 892, b, 31) 
seems to refer to the commen- 
tary on the TimcBi(s, and indeed, 
to the passage discussed by 
Procl. in, Tim. 87 B. 

1 Vide the Index to Prod, in 
Tim. He seems to have taken 



exhibited in it. Atticus also, like Taurus, set himself 
against the tendency to amalgamate the Platonic 
and Peripatetic theories. In the fragments of a 
treatise which he devoted to this purpose 1 he 
appears as an enthusiastic admirer of Plato, who is 
anxious about the purity of the Academic doctrines ; 
attacks the Peripatetic system with passionate pre- 
judice, and especially reproaches it with the lowness 
of its moral standpoint, and its denial of Providence 
and immortality. 2 Of the remaining doctrines of 
Aristotle, it is the theory of a fifth element and the 
eternity of the world which particularly move him 
to opposition, the latter so much the more, as 

thorough training for philoso- 
phy, and could not endure a 
merely rhetorical treatment of 
it (JV. A. i. 9, 8; x. 19: xvii. 
20, 4 syr.) ; that he did not de- 
spise subtle dialectic discus- 
sions, and special physical in- 
vestigations (vii. IB; xvii. 8; 
xix. 6) ; that he did not wish 
to eradicate the emotions, but to 
moderate them, and therefore 
condemned passionate disturb- 
ances of the feelings, such as 
anger (i. 26, 10) ; that he abhor- 
red Epicurus' doctrine of plea- 
sure and denial of Providence 
(ix. 5, 8), to pass over points of 
less importance (ii. 2 ; vii. 10, 
14, 5 ; viii. 6 ; xii. 5; xviii. 10; 
xx. 4). It further appears from 
the fragment ap. Philop. IJv 
JKtwnl M. vi. 21 that he, with 
the majority of contemporary 
Unionists, denied a beginning 
of the world in time; and from 
the fragments in Bekker's Scho- 
lia ad Plfit. p. 430 sq. and ap. 
Philop. I. c, xiii. 15, that he 


$ nffs O f 

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 
and fire. From Iambi, ap. 
Stob. Eel. i. 906, we learn that 
his scholars were not agreed 
as to whether souls were sent 
upon the earth for the comple- 
tion of the universe or for the 
manifestation of the divine 

1 Ens. Pr. Ev. xi. 1, 2 ; xv. 
4-9, c. 13, and probably also in 
c. 12. In the first of these 
passages the subject of the 
treatise is indicated in the 
words : irpbs rovs Stct, r&v 'Apicr- 
ToreXovs rk HXdrcovos inricrxvov- 
/JLGVOVS. What we find in the 
superscription of many chap- 
ters and in xv, 5, 1 ; 6, 1, as to 
Plato and Moses belongs, of 
course to Etiscbius and his 

a xv. 4, 5, 9. 


CHAP, he has here to contend with a portion of his own 
XIIt school. 1 Together with the Aristotelian doctrines 
on immortality he also contests the statement that 
the soul as such is unmoved, in order to uphold in 
its stead the Platonic conception of the Self- 
moving ; 2 but he herein limits existence after death 
to the rational part of the soul, and represents this 
as uniting itself at each entrance into earthly life 
with the irrational soul dwelling in the body, which 
is now first brought into order, 3 so that he conceived 
the origin of the individual in a similar manner to 
that of the universe. He, no doubt, also opposed 
the Aristotelian conception of Grocl, but of this 
tradition tells us nothing ; as to his own theory, we 
are told that he made the Creator of the world 
identical with the (rood, but discriminated the other 
ideas as creators of particular things from Him. 4 
Some other quotations from his commentary on the 
Timceus 5 are of no importance ; from his objec- 
tions to the Aristotelian definitions concerning 

1 Against tlie aither of Aris- whole, and its soul, were formed 

totle and the views connected at a definite epoch (Prod, in 

therewith concerning the stars, Tim. 84 F; 87, A; 110, B F; 

he appeals to Bus. xv. 7, 8; 119, B; of. 00, 0; 170, A; 250, 

against the eternity of the B ; Iambi, ap >Stob. JfoL i. 804:) ; 

world, to L G. c. 6. But he but they may nevertheless be 

nevertheless would not admit imperishable (of, Tim. 41, A) 

any end to the world, as we through the will of the Creator 

shall presently find. He had (Procl. I. <-t. 304, B). 

brought forward the same - Eus, xv. 0, 4 ,sv/(/. 

views in his commentary on a Procl. HI 1, A; Iambi, /U'. 910. 

the TiHiwiix. The unordered ' Procl. I. o. OB, ; 111, G j 

matter (he here ways, follow- 111) B; of. 181, 0. 

ing Plutarch) and the im- ft Ap. Procl. 87, B; 315, A; 

perfect soul that moves it 7, C : HO, D ; 63, 0, I) ; 129, D j 

are certainly indeed uncreated, 187, B; 234, I) j Syrian 

but the world as an ordered in Ar. 802, b, 31. 


Homonyms l we see that lie extended his polemic to CHAP- 
logic also. But no important results are to be XI *- 
expected from this, because he himself stood nearer 
to the eclecticism which he combated than he was 
aware. He is angry at the admixture of the Platonic 
doctrines with the Peripatetic, but he himself inter- 
mingles them with those of the Stoics when he 
opposes to the Aristotelian doctrine of goods an 
avrdpxsca of virtue, which only differs in words from 
that of the Stoics. 2 Still more clearly, however, 
does he betray the standpoint of the later popular 
philosophy in the proposition that the happiness of 
man is unanimously recognised by the philosophers 
as the ultimate end of philosophy. 3 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- 
dictory doctrines. Atticus, however, does not seem, 
to have proceeded very scientifically. His objections 
to Aristotle chiefly consist, as we have seen, in com- 
plaints about the moral and religious corruption of his 
doctrines; to Aristotle's deepest and most thoughtful 
discussions he opposes arguments like that by which 
he tries to reconcile the temporal origin of the world 
with its eternal existence ; namely, that God by 
reason of his Omnipotence could preserve even 
what has come into existence from destruction, 4 

1 Sirnpl. Cateff. 7, 5. 8, a, and on the Categories. 
Porph. <^T. 9, a, SoJiol, 42, ft, 9 a Bus. xv. 4, 1 ; 7 s^. 
(Prantl, (xcsch. d. Loci, i. 618, 2 8 Loc. <rit. xv. 4, 1 ; of. 5, 1. 
$q. These soom to have been 4 Loo. ait. C, 5 sqc[. ; of. Frocl. 

taken from a separate treatise in Tim. 304 B. 


CHAP. 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 
which that very necessity had been the determining 

This eclecticism, then, constantly maintained its 
ascenc:ieilc y "wtolx the majority of the Academics. 
Men like Plutarch, Maximus, Apuleius, Numenius, 
are, indeed, Platonists, but their Platonism has 
absorbed so many foreign elements that they appear 
merely as the promoters of the tendency introduced 
by Antiochus. As these philosophers, however, will 
again engage our attention among the forerunners 
of Neo- Platonism, other details respecting them may 
be omitted for the present. In respect to Theo of 
Smyrna also it will suffice to remember that, as we 
have already noticed, 1 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 
description of him shows us a man of excellent dispo- 
sition, who took refuge in philosophy from the luxury 

1 Sup. p. 309, 4. Adrastus is writcris and irepl JLLOVCTLK^S is no 
also made use of in De MM. doubt chiefly Pythagorean, as 
c. 6 j c. 13, p. 94, 97; c. 19, c. lie indicates in De Mm. c. I, c. 
22, p. 117 ; c. 40, p. 169. 12, etpamni. In regard to his 

2 What Theo says in his first philosophy, the Nco-Pythago- 
book, on numbers and the rcla- rean element is especially pro- 
tions of tones, generally quoted minent in De AritL c, 4j De 
under the two titles, irepl &pie~ Mm, c. 88 sqq* 


and immorality of his time, and found in it inner CHAP. 

satisfaction and freedom ; but the discourses which I 

Lucian assigns to him might just as well have been 
put into the mouths of Musonius or Epictetus. We 
have still to speak of Severus and Albinus. Sever us, 
whom, indeed, we can only place conjecturally in 
the second half of the second century, 1 is described 
as having explained Plato in the sense of the Aris- 
totelian doctrines. 2 From a treatise of his on the 
soul Eusebius 3 has preserved a fragment in which 
the Platonic doctrine that the human soul is com- 
pounded of two substances, one capable of suffering, 
and the other incapable, 4 is attacked with the obser- 
vation that this theory would annul the imperish- 
ableness of the soul, because two such different 
constituents must necessarily again dissolve their 
unnatural combination. According to this, he does 
not seem to have recognised this doctrine as Plato's 
real opinion. Severus himself described the soul, 

1 The first to mention Mm 38 ; Aristotle, M&tapJi. xiii. 2) 

are lamblichus and Eusebius. opposes the doctrine that the 

But there are as yet no traces mathematical element accorcl- 

of the Noo-Platonio period in ing to Plato, was in material 

the quotations from him. Pro- bodies; but this is irrelevant, 

clus, Tim. 304 B., observes in since such was not Plato's 

respect to the opinion quoted opinion : e! S ^eftrjpos $) &\Xos 

in/, p. 346, 8, of Beverus, Atticus, TIS ruv ^arrepov ^yTjffajnevcav ra 

and Plutarch, that many ob- n\drcavos K rrjs wap' avr$ ?$ 

jections to it were raised by ^ApicrroreAet /car??;^ crews rots 

the Peripatetics ; which also juad^uxtn Karaxp^vrat irphs rh$ 

points to the fact that Severus ot7ro5ei|eis ru>v fyvcrtK&v alrtuv, 

was older than Alexander of ouSei/ rovro irpbs rovs ctpxalovs. 

Aphrodisias, the last author 8 Prop. JSv. xiii, 17. 

known to us of the Peripatetic 4 Tim. 41 sgg. ; G9, C ,^. ; of. 

school, P7ril. d. Gr. II. i. 690 5^7. 

3 Syrian (Solwl. in AT. 880, ft, 


CHAP, 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 world- 
soul, 1 he connected the indivisible with the point, 
and the divisible with the line. 2 A beginning of the 
world in its proper sense he did not admit, even if 
the present world had been begun ; he thought with 
the Stoics that the world, eternal in itself, changed 
its condition in certain periods, and he appeals for 
this doctrine to the mythus in the Platonic dialogue 
of the Statesman. 3 There is a reminiscence of the 
Stoics also in this, that he declared the Something 
(rt) to be the highest generic-conception, below which 
stand Being and Becoming. 4 However isolated 
these statements may be, they nevertheless prove 
that Severus departed in many respects from strict 
Platonism. But we have much more numerous and 
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 
Stoic definition of wisdom as the science of things 
human and divine (c. 1), and the Peripatetic division 
of philosophy into the theoretical and the practical 
(c. 2), preceded by Dialectic as a third division 

1 Tim. 35, A ; ride Part ii. a, through the will of God (I. e. 
C46, 3. ^ ^ 3Oi B) was doubtless only a 

2 Iambi, ap. Stob. Ed, i, 802 ; concession to the expressions 
Procl. in Tim. 186, Ej 187, A of Plato. 

* * Procl. 70, A ; of. Phil. d. 

8 Procl. L c. 88, D 0. ; 168, 6V. III. i. p. 1)2, 2. 

D. That the world not with- s Vide sity. p. 338, 2. 
standing might be imperishable 


(c. 3). Albinus then, like Aristotle, divides theo- CHAP. 
retic philosophy into Theology, Physics, and Mathe- ~: 
maticp, without, however, himself keeping to this 
arrangement (c. 3, 7) ; 1 and practical philosophy also, 
like the Peripatetics, into Ethics, (Economies, and 
Politics (c. 3). 2 Under Dialectic he first gives a theory 
of knowledge which combines Stoic and Aristotelian 
definitions with Platonic, and unites the <j>vcrLtc7) 
swoia of the Stoics with the reminiscence of ideas. 
In regard to the 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 is directed to the super-sensible. 3 Sub- 
sequently the whole Aristotelian logic with the 
syllogisms and the ten categories with various later 
additions of the Peripatetics and Stoics, is foisted 
upon Plato ; 4 and the Aristotelian and Stoic ter- 
minology is unscrupulously employed. 5 In the 
section on theoretical philosophy three primary causes 
are enumerated : Matter, the primary forms, and the 

1 Instead of an exposition of not very clear, concerning v6-n> 

the mathematics we find at c. <ris and aMya-Ls, \6yos 

7 only an extract from the fwwK&s, and So&ffriKbs. 

utterances of Plato's JRepullio * C. 5 sg. ; vide Prantl, 

on mathematics and their di- d. Log. i. 610 #g. ; Freudenthal, 

vision of mathematics. 280 xq. 

- Similarly the ' Introduc- fi Of. Freudenthal, L o. 279, 

tion,' c. 6, spoken of sujp. p. 338, 281. So also in c. 25 ; of. Ter- 

J ; concerning the Peripatetic tull. De A<n. 29 ; a Platonic ar- 

classification vide Phil. <l. Or. II. gument for immortality (Phe#do 9 

ii. 170 ${({. Albinus makes use 71, C $##.) is defended with an 

of no Platonic divisions. Aristotelian definition conceni- 

8 0. 4. I pass over some ing the ^vavrla (cf. PliiL d. G'j\ 

further observations which are II. ii. 215, noieX 


CHAP, creative principle, or the Deity ; the Deity is de- 
xn ' scribed in the manner of Aristotle as active Reason 
(c. 10) ? which, unmoved, thinks only itself. A three- 
fold way is assumed to the knowledge of Grod : the 
way of emancipation, analogy, and elevation ; l ideas 
are explained as eternal thoughts of God, but, at 
the same time, as substances ; their sphere, with 
the exception of artificial things, or things contrary 
to nature, is restricted to natural classes, and side 
by side with the ideas, as their copies, the Aristo- 
telian forms inherent in matter find a place. 2 In 
regard to matter, Albinus says, making use of an 
Aristotelian definition familiar to him, it is that 
which is neither corporeal, nor incorporeal, but is in 
the body potentially (c. 8, end). The eternity of 
the world, he also thinks, he can maintain as a 
Platonic doctrine, since, like some other philoso- 
phers, he describes the world as having had a begin- 
ning only because it is involved in constant Becoming, 
and thereby proves itself the work of a higher 
cause ; 3 and he rightly concludes from this that the 
world-soul also has not been created by Grod, but is 
similarly eternal. It does not, however, agree very 
well with this, that the world-soul should be adorned 
by God and awakened as it were from a deep sleep, in 

1 In the second the author forms imitated from them clftij. 
has in view the passage from 3 To this passage or a similar 

Plato's ItejwMic, vi. 508 B ; in one, of a commentary on the 

the third, another from the Twiains or the Jlyyotypoms 

jSyinposluM; 208, 3 sgq. , Proclus refers in Tim.. 67 0. 

'* 0. 9, c. 10, Albinus, like Precursors of Albinus in the 

some others (md&PML,d. <9r.ll. theory mentioned above are 

i. 552, 2), calls the ideas tSccu ; the named in Phil d. Q*r, II. i. 6CC, a. 

ALBINUS. 349, 

order by turning to Grod, to receive the ideal forms CHAP, 

from Mm; 1 and that Albinus cannot altogether free 

himself from the notion of a Divine formation of the 
universe having once taken place. 2 That he assumes 
the existence of inferior gods or demons, to whom 
the guidance of the world beneath the moon is con- 
fided, and that he regards these beings in the Stoic 
manner, as elementary spirits, cannot surprise us in a 
Platonist of that period (c. 15). It is also in accord- 
ance with the eclecticism of his age that he should 
introduce into the Platonic ethics the Aristotelian 
definition of virtue as fjisaor^s (c. 30) ; that he should 
place among the four fundamental virtues the Stoic- 
Peripatetic prudence in place of the Platonic 
wisdom, 3 and appropriate the Stoic doctrine that 
virtue is capable of no increase or diminution, 4 and 
with certain modifications also the Stoic theory of 
the passions. 5 Some other instances might be 

1 C. 14, Albinus here follows tutecl) and defined quite in the 
Plutarch, who, however, was Stoic manner as lioerr^u^ a-yaWS? 
more logical in disputing the Kal KO.K&V KO.\ odHcrtpuv ; inc. 30 
eternity of the world (cf. PMl the relation of Qpfoycris to the 
d. Gr. III. i. 168 #7.) ; for before virtues of the lower parts of the 
the world-soul had awaked out soul is spoken of in a way that 
of sleep, the world as such reminds us altogether of Aris- 
could not possibly have existed, totle's Eth. N. vi. (vide Phil, d. 

2 Besides what has already h\ II. ii. 502 *##.). 

been stated, we find these words 4 Cf. c. 30, and concerning 

in L c. p. 170, 3, Herm. : TTJS the corresponding- Stoic doe- 

VTJS T<x0e<n7S ^/c row /ueVou trine, lUd. III. i. 246, 2. 

rb <rfy*a rod riffpov ... 5 C. 32, where Albinus re- 

Xtycu and : 7) ^v yhp &o peats Zeno's definition of vdOos 

rby &(rxrros fyetvtv, rj Se ^by (IbicL III. i. 225, 2), while he 

ds iTTrct K^K\OVS <?7>d}07?. opposes the reduction of the 

3 In c 29 the <J>p<^<ns is emotions to Kptffeis (wide I. c. 
called the rttedrys rov \oyur- 226 5^.) but enumerates the 
Ti/coO (for which subsequently same four chief emotions as 
the Stoic JiywovtKbv is substi- the Stoics held (I c. 230). 


CHAP, adduced, 1 but the previous quotations will suffice to 
* show how inclined Albinus was to combine alien 

elements with the old Academic doctrine, which, 
however, he followed in the main, a,nd how deficient 
he was in a clear consciousness of the peculiar 
character of the Platonic system. We are told that 
Albinus was one of the most important representa- 
tives of his school, 2 and if we may infer anything 
in respect to him from what we know of his master 
Grains, with whom he agrees 3 in one of his exposi- 
tions of the Platonic philosophy, it becomes the 
more evident that the mode of thought he exhibits 
was still very prevalent in the Platonic school about 
the middle of the second century of our era. 

1 Cf. Frettdentbal, 278 sg$. 8 JSitjj. p. 339, 1. 

2 Cf . sup. p. 337, 3 ; and 

Freudentlial, p. 243. 




ALL the philosophers we have hitherto discussed 
reckoned themselves under one of the existing CHAP. 
schools, though they allowed themselves many de- 
partures from their original doctrines. The number F 
is much smaller of those who belong to no particular Eclectics 
school, but, assuming a more independent attitude, particular 
borrowed from each and all that which seemed to scllo l - 
them true. For though the internal unity of the 
schools and the 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 case of the Neo- 
JPythagoreans, when they claimed to be a continua- 
tion of the ancient Pythagoreans, and in that of 
the Sceptics when they professed to continue the 


CHAP, school of Pyrrho. There are, therefore, but few 
XIIL among the philosophers of that time who stand out- 
side the traditional pale of the schools, and these are 
invariably men who had not made philosophy the sole 
task of their life, but had occupied themselves with 
it merely in connection with some other art or science. 
An opportunity for such incidental occupation 
with philosophy was afforded at that period partly 
by the natural sciences, partly and especially by 
rhetoric l which was constantly and zealously culti- 
vated, and was included in the public education. 
When a 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. It was, therefore, hardly possible 
to advance beyond the merest outworks of rhetoric 
without in some way taking a glance at philosophy, 
and though this, no doubt, was done in most cases 
hastily and superficially enough, 2 yet it could not 
but happen that some individuals should occupy 
themselves more seriously and permanently with 

1 How numerous the schools Further details are to be found 

of rhetoric and teachers of rhe- in the writings quoted svj>. p. 

toric were in the times of the 189, 1. 

Emperors ; how lively the in- 2 To students of rhetoric who 
terest in the achievements and only studied something of phi- 
rivalry of celebrated rhetori- losophy by the way, the cen- 
cians (now called ffofurral) and sures of Calvisius Taurus, for 
how pupils streamed to them example, refer (ap. (ML N. A. 
from all sides, we see from i. 9, 10 ; xvii. 20, 4 ; x. 19, 1 ; 
Philostratus' Vitas Soplmtarwn,. the last passage, compared with 
The appointment of public i. 9, 8, proves how common this? 
teachers of rhetoric has been al- was. 
ready noticed {sup. p. 190, sqq"). 



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 
philosophy. But neither of these men is important 
enough as a philosopher to detain very long. Dio, 
surnamed Chrysostom, 1 after his banishment, de- 
sired indeed to be no longer merely a rhetorician, 
but before all things a philosopher ; 2 he also 
assumed the Cynic garb ; 3 but his philosophy is very 
simple, and confines itself exclusively to such moral 
considerations as were at that time not only to be 


1 The sources for our know- 
ledge of Dio's life are, besides 
his own writings, Philostr. F. 
Soph. i. 7 (the statements are 
quite untrustworthy in his F. 
Apol. v. 27 sgi. ; V. Soj)k. i. 7, 4, also 
seems not to be historical) ; 
Synes. Dio; Phot. Cod. 209; 
Suid. sul) voce ; Plin. Mp. x. 81 
sq. (85 sq.y, Lucian. Peregr. 18; 
Paras. 2; Schol.inLuc. p. 117; 
248 Jac. ; Eunap. F. SopJi. 
Procem. p. 2, and some later 
biographical notices in Kay- 
ser's PMlostr. V. Soph. p. 168 
sqq. and in Dindorf's edition of 
Dio, ii. 361 $qq. The results 
have been summed up after 
Fabric. Bi"bl. F. 122 sqq. by 
Kayser (Z. 0.). In this place it 
will suffice to say that he was 
born at Prusa in Bithynia, 
and under Domitian (according 
to Emper. De JUxil. Dion. 
Braunschw. 1840, p. 5 *##. 
in Dindorf's edition, Dio, I. 
xxxviii, sqq. the date is 82 
A,D.) was banished or escaped 
from Rome where he bad 
taught rhetoric, wandered for 
many years through distant 


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- 
provement to be a physician 
of souls (Or. 33 ; Or. 34, p. 34, 
R. ; Or. 35) : he comes forward, 
generally speaking, as a man 
to whom God has given the 
vocation of declaring to all, 
the doctrines of philosophy 
(Or. 13, p. 431; Or. 32, 657 
S 4$- G t passim). He himself 
dates this vocation from his 
exile (Or. 13, 422^.) ; likewise 
Synesius (IMo, 13 sqq.) shows 
how 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 (Kara r&v <piXQcr6<pa)v " 
and Tcpbs Mov(r<>viov^. 

9 Or. 72 ; Or, 34, p. 33 ; cf . 
Or. 1, p. 60. 

A A 


CHAP, found alike in all the philosophical schools, but even 

XIIL outside them. With theoretical enquiries he did 

not concern himself; Ms whole endeavour is rather 

to impress upon the hearts of his hearers and readers 

the principles long acknowledged by the best, and 

His notion to apply them to given cases. 1 Philosophy has, he 
* * * P , -i . -, 

says 2 the task of curing men ol tneir moral in- 
firmities ; it consists in the endeavour to be a 
Righteous righteous man. His philosophic ideal is Socrates, as 
man. conceived by the later popular philosophy namely, 
as an excellent teacher of morals, but with whom 
specifically scientific thoughts and purposes are not 
in question ; 3 after him Diogenes, whose emancipa- 
tion from needs he admires so unconditionally that he 
pays no attention to what was unsound and distorted 
in his character, and finds even the most revolting 
things that are told of him praiseworthy. 4 He 
demonstrates that with virtue and wisdom happiness 
is also given ; 6 he describes the virtuous man in his 

1 Synes., p. 14 s#., says very with the Cynics, PMl,d.&r. II. i. 
truly : d 5* olv Aicav &u/ce flew- 285, 3 ; Philo, ttp. p. 77 $qq. ; 
p'ti/jLacri pej> T^viKols v tyiXotfotyiq Musonius and Epictetxia, tWp. p. 
u?h irpoffraXaiiruipvia'ai /xi?5 irpo<f- 250-272. 

avwxtiv Qvffutots Sityaaow, &r 8 Cf. Or. 13, 423*tf#. ; Or. 12 

o4/e TOW Kaipov jUrar606ijU,Vos 374 sytj. : Or. 54, 55, 60, p. 312 

(sc. cwrb croc^iffriK^s irpbs <^>tAo(ro- and elsewhere, 
<f>ia,v)' ovaffdai 5e rr)S ffroas %<ra * Cf. Or. 6, 8, 9, 10, and the 

els %Qo$ reivei Kal %ppvS}<r6at coarse description of his sup- 

irap' &VTIVOVV r&v ^ iawov, posed conversation with Alex- 

&n0e<r0ai 8^ r$ vovQertw &vQp<!>- ander, Or. 4. In Or. 6, p. 203, 

TTOVS . . . eist> xphffa.Q'Qai irpwiro- Diogenes is admired even for 

Kifj.4vyj vapaffKevy r^s yX&rrys. the excesses mentioned in PJiil. 

2 Or. 13, p. 431 ; cf. Or. 70, d Or. II. i. 274, 3. 

71, and sup, 353, 2. The same 5 Or. 23, especially p. 515^.; 

definition of the problem of Or. 69, 868 *q. where the ^/jrf- 

philosophy has already come vi^oi and the tiuppoves are dis- 

under our notice in connection cussed in the Stoical sense. 


moral greatness and his working for others ; l he 
points out, with the Stoics, that true freedom coin- 
cides with reasonableness, and slavery with un- 
reason ; 2 in regard to the appetites, passions, 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 of life prevailing in society, 
with its follies, its moral corruption, its artificial 
wants, to the simplicity of the state of nature ; 4 he 
discourses in earnest and rational words against the 
immorality of his time, 5 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 for the most part very 
sensible discussions, there is little real and indepen- 

1 Or, 78, 428 s#. had commended the Jewish 

2 Or. H, 15, 80. Bssenes (Synes. p. 16). 

8 E.g. Or. 5, 192 ; Or. 16, 17, 6 So in Or. 7, 268 sgq,, where 

32, 66-68, 74, 79. the degradation and danger 

4 Of. on this point, besides of the public immorality so 

the passages already quoted universally tolerated, is very 

concerning Socrates and Dio- well exposed, 
genes, the happy description 6 Or. 36, 81 sq, 33. 
of an innocent natural life in 7 Or. 36, 83 *#. 
the Ei>j8oi/cbs ( Or. 7) that * Greek 8 Or. 33 $q. 38, 40, et passim. 
village history,' as Jahn calls 9 Or. 3, 115 $$. On the 

it ; the purpose of which Synes. monarchy as distinguished from 

correctly estimates (Dio, p 15 the tyranny (cf. Of. 1 i, 62). 
##.), In the same respect Dio 

A A 2 


CHAP, dent philosophy to be found ; as soon as Dio goes 
beyond actual and particular cases he falls into com- 
monplaces which are treated in the spirit of a modi- 
fied Stoicism or of the ethics of Xenophon. 1 Plato 
was indeed, next to Demosthenes, his pattern of 
style ; 2 and in Dio's moral disquisitions the influence 
of his philosophy and writings are unmistakable ; 
but of the speculative determinations of Plato's 
system we find only a few scattered echoes, 3 and in 
regard to the Platonic Republic, Dio is of opinion 
that it contains too much that is irrelevant to its 
proper theme the question of justice, 4 We more 
commonly meet with Stoic doctrines in his writings : 
what he says about the kinship of (rod to the 
human spirit, on the knowledge of God that is 
innate in us, on the natural interdependence of all 
men, 5 next to the Socrates of Xenophon reminds us 
most of the Stoics ; this is still more definitely the 
case with the proposition that the world is a com- 
mon house for gods and men, a divine state, a nature 
governed by one soul, 6 and with the tracing of the 
dsemon to man's own internal nature. 7 Even the 
Stoic doctrine of the conflagration and formation 
of the world is at least tentatively brought forward. 8 
But for Dio it is manifest that nothing is of real 

1 He expresses Ms adrnira- 5 Or. 12; of. especially p, 

tion for Xenophon in Or. 18, 384 *#, ; 891 sg. ; 397 ; Or. 7, 270. 
481. s Or. 30, 557 ; Or. 36, p. 83, 

Of. Philostr. Fto %A. i. 88 ; of, Or. 74, p. 405 ; 12, 

7, 3. 390, &o. 

3 Such as Or. 30, 550; cf. 7 Or. 4, 165; of. Or. 23, 25. 
PJusdo, 62 B, and elsewhere, 8 Or. 36, 97 s$. 

* Or. 7, 267. 



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 
philosopher, which turns to account in a practical 
manner scientific results which have become common 
property, without enriching them by new and 
original enquiries. 

A similar attitude to philosophy is assumed by 
Lucian, 2 though for the rest his literary character 
is widely different from that of Dio, and in mind and 
taste he is far above him. Moreover, it was only 

1 Or. 12, 390 sq. 

2 All that we know of Lu- 
cian's life and personality we 
owe almost entirely to his own 
writings. From them (confin- 
ing myself here to what is of 
most importance) we find that 
he was born in Samosata {Hist, 
Soril. 24; Piscat. 19), 'and was 
first destined for a sculptor, but 
subsequently devoted himself 
to learned studies (Sonm. 1 sgg. 
14) and had traversed part of 
the Boman dominions with 
glory and profit as a rhetorician, 
when at about forty years of 
age, and by his own account, 
through Nigrinus (,s-?/y;. p, 334, 3), 
was won over to philosophy, 
and began to write philosophic 
dialogues (Bis Acmts. 27 sq. 
30 sgg.'j Apol. 15; Nign>n>. 4 sq. 
85 s$<j. -, Hermot. 13). The time 
of his birth cannot be correctly 
stated, nor that of his death. 
From Ale. 48, we see that he 
composed this work after Mar- 
cus Aurclius' death. As an 




older man he filled the impor- 
tant and lucrative office of 
secretary at the court of the 
deputy (Apol. 12. ; cf. c. 1, 15). 
We afterwards find him resum- 
ing his long interrupted dis- 
courses (Here. 7). Nothing 
farther is 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- 
tonvni. It is possible that this 
story (as Bern ays conjectures, 
Iwoimi nnd die Kyrdker, p. 52) 
may have directly arisen from 
his conflict with the philosophic 
KiVes, of whom he says himself 
(JPeregr. 2) : bxiyov <5eTv tf-rrb 

rwv KVVIKUV lytcj ffoi 

o&tTTrep 6 'AtcTaitav fab T&V KVVUV. 

Among Lucian's writings there 
are several which are spurious, 
or at any rate doubtful. 


CHAP, in his more mature years that he went over from 
XIIL rhetoric to philosophy, and he appropriated from 
philosophy only so much as might prove advan- 
tageous to him either for his personal conduct or for 
the new form of his writings which chiefly har- 
monised with his individual character. True philo- 
sophy consists, according to his theory, in practical 
Ms of wisdom, in a temper of mind and bent of will which 
is attached to no philosophical system ; on the other 

and is tied h^A the distinctive doctrines and other peculiar!- 

io no ays- * 

tem. ties of the schools appeared to him unimportant, 

and, so far as men pride themselves upon them and 
quarrel about them, ridiculous. Thus he assures us 
that it is philosophy that has made him disloyal to 
rhetoric, that he has always admired and praised 
philosophy and nourished himself upon the writings 
of its teachers, that he has fled from the noise of 
the courts of justice to the Academy and the 
Lyceum ; l yet he has exempted no school and no 
philosopher from his mockery, 2 and chooses espe- 
cially for the target of his wit those that through 
their remarkable customs and obtrusive character 
excite the most attention and offer the most tempt- 
ing material for satire. 3 But as he confines himself 
almost entirely to the satirical exposition of the 
errors of others and very seldom brings forward his 
own views, his standpoint may indeed be generally 

t, 5 sq. 29 ; JBis ACGUS. the fyaWrcu, the <Tv/u,Trd<rtov, the 

32, and elsewhere ; cf. the pre- 'Ep/^rt/xos-, ^iKapo/j.^ynnros, Eu- 

vious note. w)%os r *AA.i6t)s, and several 

2 References are superfluous, funeral orations. 

Among his chief writings of 8 Above all the Cynics, SK^. 

this kind are the $l(av irpa<n$, p, 290, 1 ; 344. 

LUCIAN. 369 

determined, but cannot be explained by any more CHAP, 

precise account of his convictions. If the treatise on L_ 

Nigrinus be authentic, 1 he was at first much impressed 
with the independence of the external, and insight 
into the hollowness of the ordinary life of the world, 
which characterised the discourses of this Stoicising 
Platonist, but we cannot suppose the impression to 
have been very lasting, since in his description the 
rhetorical phraseology is patent enough. Even the 
Cynics, whom in the sequel he opposed with sach 
passionate bitterness, he treats for a time not with- 
out kindliness, and puts his satires and especially 
his attacks upon the gods of the popular belief into 
their mouths. 2 In his later years he bestows high 
praise upon Epicurus for his freedom from religious 
prejudice and his relentless war against superstition. 3 
But he gives utterance to his own opinion doubtless 
only where he maintains that he honours philosophy 
indeed as the true art of life, but that among the 
multitude of philosophical schools philosophy itself 
cannot possibly be found, since there is no token of 
it which does not require to be proved by a further 

1 I see no sufficient reason in genuine, as has been already 
its contents for denying this ; mentioned sup. p. 297, 1. 
even such, a superficial man as 8 Alese. c. 17, c. 25 : s E7Ti/coiJp^, 
Lucian may have had transient avtipl r^v (j>{icriv r&v irpay^drav 
fits of disgust with the world. KadewpaKfin teal jj.6v(p rfyv & 

2 So in many of the funeral avro?s aX^Oeiav eiS^n. C. 61 ; 
discourses (No. 1-3, 10, 11, 17, *EirLKotpq> avfipl &s aKyQus tep$ 
18, 20-22, 24-28), in the MenijJ- ical eearvea-ltp r^v 4>tW Kal i*.6vy 
jtwa, Zevs ^Ae7%<J/x. ; Cat&pl. C. /XST' aXyQelas TCL /caX& eyj/eo/cdn 
7 ; cf. Bernays, Liwian und di& ical ircLpaSetiaKtri Kal ^Xeuflepom? 
JSjyniTtw* 46 $g. On the other rtav dfjt.LXrio'dvrtav avrtp 761/0- 
hand, the discourse on Demo- p&tp, 

nax is not to be considered 


CHAP, token ; that they all strive for visionary treasures, 

and waste their time with useless things ; the best 

philosopher is he who, conscious of his ignorance, 
abandons any claim to a specific wisdom, and, in- 
stead of speculative cogitations, keeps to the moral 
advantages of philosophy. 1 

The limitation of philosophy to a system of 
ethics, in which there is no question of any deeper 
scientific foundation, is here based upon a sceptical 
view of the human faculty of knowledge. We shall find 
this sceptical element still more strongly developed 
in 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 
philosophy with the mistrust of all philosophic 
systems which was spread abroad by scepticism. 

Far greater is the scientific importance of Clau- 
dius Gralenus, 2 and though it is primarily the art of 

1 Piscat. 11 ,29, and the whole Liter aria OaUni, which first 
of the Sermotvnvus ; especially appeared in Fabric. JBW. Gr. 
c. 15, 25 S<L<[. 52 s$. 70 *##. 84 ; v. 377 sgg. HarL, revised in the 
cf. Ms Aoous. 24. Of. also the first volume of Kiihn's edition 
characteristics of Lucian as of Galen, s. xvii-cclxv. To 
given by Bernays, I o. 42 *#0. this history I will also refer, 

2 All the information that even in respect of Galen's 
can be gathered concerning writings, passing over the rest 
Galen's life, almost entirely of the voluminous literature 
from his own writings, is to be concerning him. Born at Per- 
found in Ackermann's Hist, gamum in the year 181 A.D., 



healing to which he owes his extraordinary fame CHAP. 

and influence, yet he also knows how to acknow- L_ 

ledge to the full the worth of philosophy, 1 and His fame 
occupied himself with it deeply enough, 2 to take his \ a . . 
place among the philosophers of his century. 3 He 
himself indeed stands nearest to the Peripatetic 

Galen, whose father was him- 
self a great architect and ma- 
thematician, had received a 
careful education, and had 
already been introduced to phi- 
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 $##) and 
returned from thence in the 
year 158 to practise his art in 
his native city. In the year 
164 he betook himself to Rome, 
where he won great fame by 
Ms success as a physician, and 
in 168 again returned to Per- 
gamum, but was soon after re- 
called afresh to Italy by Marcus 
Aurelius and Yerus. 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 Pertinax is mentioned 
by him (De Libr. Propr. c. 13 ; 
vol. xix. 46 K); he wrote De 
Antidotis (i. 13 ; vol. xiv. 16) 
in the reign of Severus(2%0n#0. 
ad Pis. c. 2, vol. xiv. 217, proves 
nothing against the genuine- 
ness of this treatise), Accord- 
ing to one account (that of the 
anonymous person mentioned 
by Ackermann, Z. c. xl. ##.) he 

lived to the age of 87 ; Suidas, 
however, says 70 years ; so that 
he probably died in 200 or 201 


1 In Protract. I. vol. i. 3, he 
calls philosophy rb peyiffTov 
ra>v Qeitov ayadccv, and in another 
treatise (vol. i. 53 $#.) he de- 
sires his fellow physicians to 
remember on. ftpivros larpbs Kal 

2 Galen had learned in his 
home, while still very young, 
the chief forms of philosophy 
as it then existed ; from pupils 
of Philopator the Stoic, of 
Gaius the Platonist, and of As- 
pasius the Peripatetic, and 
from an Epicurean philosopher 
{Cog%. an. Mori), vol. v. 41 $#.), 
At a later period he heard 
Albinus in Smyrna (ride supra,, 
337): of Budemus the Peri- 
patetic, who perhaps was also 
his teacher (SiScfo-waAe, however, 
may be a mere title of respect, 
De Prtenot. ad Ej)iff. c. 4, vol. 
xiv. 624), he says that he had 
gained more from him in regard 
to philosophy than to medicine 
(I c. c. 2, p. 608). Galen's 
philosophical writings were 
very numerous ;*but the greater 
part of them is lost. 

8 Concerning Galen's philo- 
sophic opinions cf . K. Sprengel, 
JSeitr. z, Gesoh. d. Medicin^ i. 




d#m, on a 
tic "basi-s. 

Xlis theory 
of kncnv- 

school, but he has also taken so much from others 
that we can only designate his standpoint on the 
whole as that of eclecticism on a Peripatetic 
foundation. Galen is at once placed among the 
eclectics by the fact that he compiled an entire 
series of continuous expositions and excerpts from 
Platonic and Aristotelian writings, 1 and also from 
those of Theophrastus, Eudemus, and Chrysippus, 
while at the same time he declares that none of 
all these schools satisfy him. 2 To Epicurus alone he 
is thoroughly antipathetic (as were the eclectics of 
that time almost without exception), and expressly 
opposes him. 3 The scepticism also of the New 
Academy appears to him an error, which he combats 
with great decision. 4 He for his part finds man, in 
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, D& L%br. Pro}>r. c. 
11; 14-16; vol. xix. 41 *0. 46 
sg. t where a great number of 
such works are named. 

2 Zoo. &it. c. 11, p. B9 *#., 
with immediate reference to 
the doctrine of proof. He 
sought counsel on the subject 
from the philosophers, but 
found here as in other divisions 
of logic so much strife among 
them and even within the 
several schools, tjiat he would 
have fallen back upon Pyrrhon- 
ism if the certainty of the 
mathematical sciences had not 
kept him from it. 

3 Galen, in those of his 
writings which have been pre- 
served, mentions Epicurus but 

seldom, and almost always in 
connection with subordinate 
points ; on the other hand, he 
names (De Lilr. Projir. c. 17, 
vol. xix. 48) no fewer than six 
works against Epicurus and his 
doctrine of pleasure. 

4 In the treatise irepl 
8L$a(rKa\la$ (vol. i. 40 
against Favorinus, Gagm. an. 
Peoo. c, 6, vol. v, OB s$$. He 
also wrote upon Clitomachus, 
D& Libr. Propr, c. 12, p. 44. 
His chief complaint against the 
sceptics is that they could not 
establish their standpoint with- 
out appealing to the judgment 
of others, and presupposing in 
them the capability of deciding 
between true and false. 

GALEN. 363 

the deceptions of which, may well be avoided with CHAP. 

the necessary circumspection ; the super- sensible is L_ 

discerned by the understanding; and as the sensible 
perception carries with it an immediate power of 
conviction (svdpyeia), so also the 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- 
sal agreement ; through all this, which is self-evi- 
dent, the hidden' is known by logical inference. 
The criterion of truth, therefore, for all that is clear 
through 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 
agreement with the immediate certainty, which is 
clear. 1 This appeal to the directly certain, to the 
senses and the unanimous opinion of men, this 
empiricism of the inner and outer sense, corresponds 
entirely with the standpoint of Cicero and of the 
later eclectic popular philosophy. 

Among the three principal divisions of philo- 
sophy, Galen ascribes a high value to logic, 2 as 
the indispensable instrument 3 of all philosophical 

1 De Opt. Disc. c. 4, vol. i. either assent to, or deny every- 

48 sq. ; be Opt. Secta, 2 ; i. thing, &c. 

108 s$. ; Coffn. an. Pecc. 1. c.] 2 Concerning Q-alen's logic 

De Hiypocr. et Plat. ix. 7 ; vol. <Me Prantl, Gesch. der Logik. i, 

v. 777 sq. As principles that 559 sgq. 

are immediately certain, Galen 3 De Elem. ex Jffip^cr. i. 6, 

(Tlierap. Metl^. i. 4; vol. x. 38) vol. i. 460, Quod 0#t. Mad. Sit 

names the &px^ hoyiKat, that Qn. Pltilos. i; 59 $g. ; Constit. 

magnitudes equal to a third Art. Hed. c. 8 ; end, i. 253 q. ; 

magnitude are equal to one H'ipjyocr, et Plat. ix. 7 j end, 

another, that nothing happens 1 j vol. v. 782, 
without a cause, that we must 




enquiry. He himself has composed a great number 
of logical treatises, 1 but what remains of them 2 does 
not cause us to deplore very deeply the loss of the 
remainder. In the doctrine of the categories, which 
he with others declares to be the beginning and 
foundation of all logic, 3 he appears to have attempted 
a reconciliation between Aristotle and the Stoics ; 4 
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 ; 6 in regard to matter, he places 

1 For the catalogue of these 
of. Gal. De Zibr. Propr. c. 11 
*#' 15 *> xix - 41 sq. ; 47 
^. ; cf . Prantl, p. 559 sq. 

2 The short treatise ir. r&v 
KO.TO, T^V \i\iv ffCKpi&fj.&rwv (vol. 
xiv. 582 $##.), which is quoted 
by Alex. Sophist. M. 8, &, 45, a 
(Sclwl 298, b, 14 ; 312, &, 29). 
But nowhere else are G-alen's 
logical writings and commen- 
taries mentioned by the Greek 
commentators (with the excep- 
tion of the passage quoted infra, 
365, 1). 

8 Therap, Metlt, ii. 7; x. 
145; 148; PuZ*. Dlff. ii, 9; 
viii. 622, 624. Whether Galen 
had himself written on the 
Categories is not quite clear 
from his own expressions (Zibr. 
Propr. 11, p. 42). The meaning 
seems to me to be that he did 
not actually write commen- 
taries on them, but only some 
observations on the difficult 
questions they contained. This 
would explain the i>iroju.vfi/j.ara 
on the Categories mentioned c. 

15. Prantl (560, 79) is of a 
different opinion. 

4 David (Seftol. in AT. 49, a, 
29) ascribes to him five Cate- 
gories : ovcrla, irocrbv, iroibv, irp6s 
n, wpds ri TTWS %x oj/ > which does 
not indeed altogether agree 
with the division mentioned 
elsewhere (Therap. Mcih. ii. 7 ; 
129 0. ; 146 ; 156) of the oMu 
and the cri/^e^/c^ra ; and of 
the latter division into tvfyyeiaL, 
TrdQij, and 8 tad fasts ; but it can 
hardly be a mere invention; of. 
Pufo. Di/f. ii. 10; viii. 682. 

5 He discriminates very de- 
cidedly between the y&o$ and 
the category; that which 
falls under the same category 
may belong to separate genera 
(Puts. JDljf. ii. 9 $q. ; 622 M, ; 
632. What Prantl, p. 665%, 
quotes concerning the differen- 
tiating of genera into species 
belongs to the older Peripa- 

6 Mir. Propr, 11, p. 89 sa. ; 
of. Met. Worm, c. 6 ; iv, 696 ; 

GALEN. 365 

himself on the side of Aristotle and Theophrastus l CHAP. 
and against Chrysippus ; but that he himself out _1_L 

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 
Galen, or is to be found in his writings, is in part 
so unimportant, and in part so fragmentary, that it 
may suffice to refer the reader for further details to 
Prantl's careful digest, 

Also in his physics and metaphysics Galen even -5S* t 
as a physician and naturalist chiefly follows Aristotle andmetc 

without however being entirely fettered by him, 4%*^* 
& J J based on 

He repeats the Aristotelian doctrine of the four time of 

causes, but increases their number to five by the 
addition of the middle cause (the St? ou). 4 Like 
Plato and Aristotle, he regards the final cause as the 
most important : 5 the knowledge of them forms, he 
says, the groundwork of true theology, that science 
which far surpasses the art of healing. 6 In follow- 
ing the traces of the creative wisdom, which has 
formed all things, he prefers to dwell on the con- 
sideration of living creatures ; 7 but he is at the 
same time convinced that if here in the meanest 

1 Hipj)oor. et. Plat. ii. 2 ; B. footAc/m/c^ p. v* ay., vide the 

v, 213. exhaustive investigation of 

' 2 Vide PML d. 6fr. II. ii. Prantl, p. 570 s$$. 

8 Concerning this fourth 4 De um Part. Corp. Hum. 

figure of Galen's, which was vi. 13 ; vol. iii. 465. 

formerly only known on the 5 Loo. oit. 

authority of Averroes, but is 6 Zoo. cit. xvii. 1; vol. iv. 

now confirmed and explained 360. 

by a Greek fragment of Minas 7 LOG. cit. p, 358 8$g. et 

in his edition of the Elcrayayti passim. 


CHAP, portion of the universe, and in these base and un- 
* clean substances, so wonderful a reason is at work, 

this must also be in overflowing measure in the 
heaven and its stars, which are so much more 
glorious and admirable. 1 In what manner it is 
inherent in the world he does not enquire more 
closely ; but his expressions indicate a tendency to 
the Stoic conception, according to which the sub- 
stance of the world is permeated by the divine 
mind. 2 He is opposed, however, to the Stoic mate- 
rialism ; for he shows that the qualities of things 
are not bodies ; 3 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, 
against the Stoic-Heracleitean theory of one primi- 
tive matter. 4 What we are told of his objections 
against the Aristotelian discussions concerning space, 
time, and motion, is unimportant. 6 Galen's devia- 

1 LOG, cit, ri$ ^KrerdcrQat 50/ceT vovs, for how 

2 P. 358 : vis 5' OVK 5fo> ev6vs could it otherwise be heated 
^veOv^difj vovv TWO. 86vajj.iv and illuminated by the sun ? 
cxovra eavfiaa-r^v 1-irtfrdvTa, ry$ a Quod Qualities Sint In* 
yris ^KrerdcrQai Kara Trdvra ra corporew. B. xlx. 468 sqq. 
rfpia; this vovs comes to the 4 De Const/It. Artis Med. c. 7 
earth from the heavenly bodies: ,<?#.; B. i. 245 sqq, Ue Me- 
& ots tK^y, %(rq> irep Icrn Kal ^ mentis, 1. a. 413 sqq. Though 
rov ff<&/j.aro$ ovcrta /ca^apcorcpa, the views of the Stoics are not 

cp Kal rbv vovv &oiKeiv named among those combated 
ov nark j& ypiva fft&fjuvra here, the Heracleitean doctrine 
ica re Kal aKpi&(rrpov. And of primitive matter which Galen 
even here, before all thing's, opposes is also theirs (De M, i. 
in the human body, J*/ opj8rf/>y 4, p. 444) ; cf. also Bftppoor' et 
roa-ovry, thereisavovs 1 irepirr&s', Plat, viii, 2 sq. v. 6S5 sqg, 
how much more, then, in the In respect to space, he de- 
stars 1 through the air ofa o\iyos fends (ap. Simpl. Phys. 183 & 

GALEN. 367 

tion from Aristotle in respect to the soul and its CHAP. 


activity 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 
standpoint in the strife of opinions. As to what 
the soul is in its essence, whether corporeal or in- 
corporeal, transitory or imperishable, he not only 
ventures to propound no definite statement, but 
not even a conjecture which lays claim to probability; 
and he omits every sound argument on the subject. 1 
The theory of Plato, that the soul is an immaterial 
essence, and can live without the body, seems to 
him questionable; 'for how,' he asks, c could in- 
corporeal substances be distinguished from each 
other ? how can an incorporeal nature be spread 
over the body ? how can such a nature be affected 
by the body, as is the case with the soul in madness, 
drunkenness, and similar circumstances.' 2 So far 

Themist. Pliys. 38, J) the defi- l D& Feet. Form. c. 6 ; iv. 

nition controverted by Aristotle 701 sgr. ; De Hipp. et. Plat. vii. 

that it is the interval between 7 ; v. 653 : the soul, accord- 

the limits of bodies ; a miscon- ing to its ovcrla, is either rb o!W 

ception of Aristotle's observa- afryoetSes re Kal cu0pw8e*<rai,ua 

tion that time is not without mo- or, aM)v JJLCV ao-^arov virdpxew 

tion; and the objection that Aris- ou<rfco>, tfx 7 ?/"* ^ [5^] r& irpurov 

totle's definition of time con- afrrTjs efj/cu rovri rb <r&jfta, 5i ' o5 

tains a circle, are mentioned by /ucVou rfyv vp^s r&xxa, o-^/Aara 

Simplicius, Phys. 167 a] 169 Z>; Kowwtav Xappavei. On the other 

Themist. Pkys, 45, #; 46, a hand, the Pneuma is neither its 

(SckoL 388, ft, 20 ; 26) ; and an substance nor its seat, but only 

objection against Arist. Phys. its vp&rov tipyavov (I. c. c. 3 ; p. 

vii. 1 ; 242, a, 5 ; in Simpl. Phys. 606 ^.)- 

242, &. Simplicius here (p. 167, * Quod Animi Mores Corp. 

a} refers to the eighth book of Temy. Se$. c. 3 ; 5 ; iv. 775 

Galen's Ajpodewtic, and it is sq. ; 785 9$. ; De LOG. A ff. ii. 5 ; 

probable, therefore, that all viii. 127 $g. 
these remarks were to be found 
in this work. 


CHAP, we might be inclined to endorse the Peripatetic 

L_ doctrine, according to which the soul is the form of 

the body ; but this would certainly lead to the view 
maintained by the Stoics and shared by many of 
the Peripatetics, that the soul is nothing else than 
the mixture of corporeal substances, and as to its 
immortality there could then be no question. 1 
Gralen does not venture to decide on this point, and 
as little does he purpose to affirm or to deny im- 
mortality. 2 It is the same with the question as to 
the origin of living creatures. He candidly ac- 
knowledges that he has not made up his mind upon 
this subject. On the one hand he finds in the 
formation of the human body a wisdom and a 
power which he cannot attribute to the irrational 
vegetable soul of the embryo ; on the other hand 
the likeness of children to their parents obliges him 
to derive the children from that soul ; if we further 
assume that the rational soul builds up its own 
body, we are confronted with the fact that we are 
most imperfectly acquainted with its natural con- 
stitution ; the only remaining alternative, to assume 
with many Platonists, that the world-soul forms the 
bodies of living creatures, seems to him almost im- 
pious, since we ought not to involve that divine 
soul in such base occupations. 3 Gralen declares 
himself more decidedly for the Platonic doctrine of 

1 Qu. An. Afore*. &c. c. 3 ; 4; rb Xoyta-riKM o&e'' &$ OVK l<mj/ 
p. 773 tq. ; 780. f X o> twnbwrtat. 

2 Vidfi ytpra and Z. o. c. 3 : * De Jfct. fbrm. c. 6 Iv 
*y& 5* otie* &s %<rrtv [Mdvarov 683 *. 

GALEN. 369 

the parts of the soul and their abodes, 1 which he CHAP. 
also no doubt combines with the corresponding ______ 

doctrine of Aristotle ; 2 his uncertainty in regard to 

the nature of the soul necessarily, however, casts 

doubt also upon this theory. Nor will our philo- 

sopher decide, he says, whether plants have souls, 3 

but in other places he declares himself decidedly His con- 

for the Stoic distinction between the f>i>^ and the t ^^ or 

<bvori$*^ tlieoretlcctJ, 

We shall be all the less surprised at the vacilla- 

tion and fragmentariness of these definitions when and out f 

we hear what value Galen attributes to theoretical 

enquiries in general. The question concerning the 

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 Gods 

and the guidance of a Providence we must indeed 

try to convince ourselves, but the nature of the 

Gods 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- 

different 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 

1 Of. besides the treatise De by Galen, De Hijjp. et Plat. vi. 

K$)jr>0cra,tis et Ptatonis Placitis, 2, and 1. c, 

which discusses this subject in 2 In Hypgoor. de Alim. iii. 

no fewer than nine books with 10 ; xv. 293 ; In JSippoor. de 

wearisome diffusiveness, Qu. ECumor. i. ; xvi. 93. 

Animi Mores, &c., c. 3. That 3 De Substaait. Faoult. Nat. c. 

the three divisions of the soul 1 ; B. iv. 757 s$. ; cf . in SZppo- 

are not merely three faculties cratis de JEJpidem. Lilr. vi. ; 

of one substance, but three Sect. v. 5 ; xviil &, 250. 

distinct substances, is asserted 4 De Natur, Facult. i. lj ii. 1 . 

B B 


CHAP, design. Even the question which he has so fully 
discussed, concerning the seat of the soul, is only of 

interest to the physician, and not to the philoso- 
pher ; l while conversely a definite opinion regarding 
the nature of the soul is only necessary to theoretic 
philosophy, and neither to medicine nor ethics. 2 
We certainly require no further evidence that a 
philosopher who measures the value of scientific 
enquiries so entirely according to their direct and 
demonstrated utility, could not advance beyond an 
uncertain eclecticism. But we shall greatly deceive 
ourselves if we therefore expect from him indepen- 
dent ethical enquiries. Galen's numerous writings 
on this subject 3 are all lost, with the exception of 
Ms ethical two ; 4 but what we learn from occasional utterances 
in one P* ace or anotner ? concerning his ethical 

"but two opinions, contains merely echoes of older doctrines. 
not very Thus we sometimes find the Peripatetic division of 
important, goods into spiritual, bodily, and external ; 5 and in 

lut prove , -r% 

himto have another connection the Platonic doctrine of the four 
l^otio fundamental virtues, 6 and again the Aristotelian 
also in proposition that all virtue consists in the mean. 7 
^ Q question whether virtue is a science or some- 

1 De Hippoer. et Plat. ix. 6 ; 7 In Hippoor. do $fo(m,0r. i. 
B. v. 779 $q. 13, end; xvi. 104: &o"irep ykp 

2 De Sitfost. Famlt. Nat. B. ro ^a-ov icrrlv atperbv fr 7rS<r/, 
iv. 764. otfroj /col rb tirepBdKXovf) <?A\nr^ 

3 De Propr. Zibr. 13 ; 17. QevKrfo, bperal ^ iracrat $v 

4 De cognoscendis ourandisgrtie ^crcp (rwiffravrcu at 8k Katctat 
animi morMs. De awimi pecca- $a) rov ^crov. These words 
torum digvatwiie atqwe tnodela,. refer indeed directly to cor- 

5 Protrept. 11 ; i. 26 s$. poreal conditions, but tlioy have- 
8 De Ilippocr. ct Plat. vii. 1 a universal application. 

sg. : v. 594. 


thing else, Gralen decides thus: in the rational parts CHAP. 


of the soul it is a science, in the irrational merely 1_ 

a faculty and a quality or disposition. 1 The eclectic 
tendency of the man thus shows itself in this portion 
also of his doctrine. 

1 De Hippoer. &t Plat. v. 5 ; vii. 1 ; v. 468 ; 595. 

B B 2 


A CADEMICS of the first cen- 
jOL tury B.C., 75 sQq. 

of the first centuries A.D., 344 


Academy, the New and the Old, 
80 ; Philo, and the New, 81 

in Imperial times increasingly 
tends tolbelief in revelation, 194 ; 
eclecticism of the, 34, 355 sg. 

Achaicus, his commentary on the 
categories, 313 

Adrastus of Aphrodisias, a Peri- 
patetic, 305, n. ; his commen- 
taries on Aristotle, 308 sq. ; 
views on the universe, 310 

JSlius Stilo, L,, Boman disciple of 
Pansetius, 11 

JEmilius Paulus, gave his sons 
Greek instructors, 8 

JEnesiclenms, 22 

jEschines, a disciple of Oarneades, 5 

JEther, theories concerning- the, 
124 ; 133 ; 341, 5 ; 342, 1 

Agathobulus, a Cynic, 294, n. 

Albinus, a Platonist, 335 ; his ec- 
clecticism, 346 ; his commenta- 
ries on Plato, 337 ; his division 
of philosophy, 347 ; his doc- 
trines, 347 ; concerning- Matter, 
the Deity, the world, the world- 
soul, demons, the virtues, 347- 
349 ; his importance among the 
later Platonists, 350 

Alexander, a Peripatetic of the 
first century B.C., 124, 1 

Alexander of -<32gse, a Peripatetic, 
instructor of Nero, 304, 2 

Alexander of Aphrodisias, a Peri- 
patetic, 306, n., 318 ; called the 
Commentator and Second Ari- 
stotle, 319; commentaries of, 
321 ; 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 
body, 326 ; the soul and vovs, 
327; relation of G-ocl and the 
world, 329 ; Providence, 331 

tne last important Peripatetic, 

Alexander of Damascus, a Peri- 
patetic, 306, ??.. 

Alexander of Seleucia, a Platonist, 
called Peloplaton, 335, ?&. 

Ammonius, of the New Academy, 
teacher of Plutarch, 102, 2 ; 
334, 3 ; 336, n. 

Anatolius of Alexandria, Bishop 
of Laodicea about 270, A.B., 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, 
115 ; diverged from Aristotle, 
116 ; but was on the whole a 
genuine Peripatetic, 117 

Animal food, to be avoided, ac- 
cording to Musonius, 225 ; ar- 
gument of Sextius against, 186 

Annseus Serenus, a Stoic, 196, n. 

Anthropology, Oicero's, 169 ; Se- 
neca's, 219 




Antibius, 200, n. 

Antidotus, instructor of Antipater 
of Sidon, 54, n. 

Antiochus of Ascalon, disciple of 
Philo, called the founder of the 
fifth Academy, 87 ; his doctrines : 
virtue and knowledge, 87 ; cri- 
terion of truth, 88 ; dicta of the 
senses not to he discarded, 89 ; 
scepticism self -contradictory, 
90 ; maintains that all the 
schools of philosophy are vir- 
tually in agreement, 9t ,* called 
by Cicero a pure Stoic, 92; 
divides philosophy into three 
parts, 92 ; his theory of know- 
ledge, 93 ; his ethics, 95 ; doc- 
trines of life according to 
nature, 96 ; the highest good, 
96 ; virtue and happiness, 97; his 
position in regard to the Stoics 
and Peripatetics, 98: school 
of, 99 ; other disciples of, 1 00 

Antiochus the Cilician, a Cynic, 
294, n. 

Antipater of Sidon, poet and 
philosopher, 54, n. 

Antipater of Tyre, 71, n, 

Apollas of Sardis, of the school of 
Antiochus, 100, n. 

Apollodorus of Athens, leader of 
the Stoic school in the first 
century B.C., 53, n. 

Apollodorus <5 K^iror^pavvos, com- 
pared with Epicurus, 27, 28 

Apollonides, friend of Cato, 72, n. 

Apollonius, a freedman of Cassius, 
72, n. 

Apollonins, a Peripatetic, 304, 2 

Apollonius, a Platonist, 334, 3 

Apollonius of Mysa, a Stoic, 53, n. 

Apollonius of Ptolemais, 72, n. 

Apollonius of Tyre, 71, n. 

Apollonius, Stoic instructor of 
Marcus Aurelius, 198, n. 

Apuleius, on the Cosmos, 3 29 ; not 
the author of the treatise irepl 
v t 131 


Archaicus, a Peripatetic, 307, n. 

Aristo, a disciple of Antiochus, who 
went over from the Academy to 
the Peripatetics, 105, 2 ; 121 

Aristocles of Messene, a Peripa- 
tetic, 314; fragments of his 
great historical work preserved 
by Busebius, 315 ; his admiration 
for Plato, 315 ; his conception 
of Reason, human and divine, 
317 ; was a precursor of Neo- 
Platonism, 318 

Aristocles of Pcrganms, a Peripa- 
tetic, 305, n. 

Aristodemus, a Platonist, 334, 3 

Aristodemus, teacher of Strabo, 
75, 7i. 

Aristotle, commentaries on, 112, 
304 sqg. ; assertion of his agree- 
ment with Plato, by Antiochus, 
91 ; by Cicero, 163 ; by Severus 
and Albinus, 346, 347 

Aristus, brother and successor of 
Antiochus in the Hew Academy 
at Athens, 100, 1 

Arius Didymus of Alexandria, the 
Academic, 106 

Arrian, author of a Meteorology, 
258, 1 

Arrian, the Stoic, 258 

Artemon, a Peripatetic, 307, n. 

Asclepiadcs of Bithynia, relation 
to Epicureanism, 29 ; atomistic 
theory of, 81 

Asclepiades, two Cynics of that 
name, 294, n. ; 301, 3 

Asclepiodotus, a Stoic, 71, n. 

Asclepiodotus of Nicaea, a disci- 
ple of Paniotius, 53, n. 

Aspaaius, a Peripatetic, 305, n. ; 
his commentaries on Aristotle, 

Athenodoraa, son of Saudon, 72, n. 

Athenodorus, surnamed Cordylio, 
71, n. 

Athenodoraa the Bhodian, 124, 1 

Athens visited by Eomans, 13 ; 
proposal by Gellius to the philo- 




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 ; 
opposition to Aristotle's defi- 
nition concerning Homonyms, 
342, 343 
Atomistic theory of Asclepiades, 31 

"pALBTJS, L. Lucilius, 55, n. 

Jj Balbus, Q. Lucilius, 55, n. ; 74, n. 

Basilides, 54, n. 

Basilides of Scythopolis, 198, n. 

Boethus, Flavins, 306, n. 

Boethus of Sidon, the Peripatetic, 
disciple of Andronicus, 11.7 ; his 
commentaries on Aristotle, and 
divergences from him, 119 ; on 
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. 

nALLIOLBS, 75, 4 

\J Carneades, his predilection 

for ethics, 5 ; his influence at 

Borne, 9 

Carneades, 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 

Marcus Aurelius, 336, n. 
Censorinus, 336, n. 
Chseremon, teacher of Nero, 195, 1 
Chairs, institution of public, by 

Hadrian, 189 
Chrysippus, on the treatise 

K(J<rjuou, 127 
Chytron, a Cynic, 301, 3 


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 ; Ms 
theological opinions, 154 s%. 167 ; 
his view of philosophy, 156 ; his 
theory of knowledge, 158 ; doc- 
trine of innate knowledge, 159 ; 
moral disposition innate, 160; 
his doctrine of a moral sense, 
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- 
ality, 166; nature of G-od ac- 
cording to, 167; human nature 
in, 162 ; belief in Providence, 
168 ; anthropology, 169 ; on 
freewill, 171 ; Cicero a repre- 
sentative of eclecticism, 157, 171 
Cinna, Catulus, a Stoic, instructor 

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 Cri- 
tolaus, Diodorus, Andronicus of 
Khodes, 113, 306 
of Plato, 337 $$. 
Cornutus, L. Annasus, a Stoic, 
banished by Nero, 196, n. ; 198 sg. 
Gotta, 0., consul in 76 B.C., dis- 
ciple and adherent of Hiilo, 
100, n. 

Crassitius, Lucius, of Tarentum, 
member of the school of the 
Sextii, 181 




Crassus, Cornelius, a prolific writer 
of the school of the Sextii, 181 

Cratippus, a Peripatetic of the 
first century B.O., 122 

Crescens, a Cynic, accuser of Justin 
the Martyr, 294, n. 

Crispus Passienus, a Stoic, 196, n. 

Critolaus, the most important re- 
presentative of the Peripatetic 
School in the second century 

B.C., 113 

Cronins, a Platonist, 336, n. 
Cynicism, revival of, soon after 

the beginning of the Christian 

era, 289 
Cynics, the, of the Imperial era, 

288, 290 
, mentioned by Julian, 301, 3 ; 

last traces of the, 302 

DAEMON", the divine in man, 
266 (Epictetus); 278 (Marcus 

Damocles of Messene, 53, n. 

"Daphnus, a Platonist, 336, n. 

Dardanus, disciple and successor 
of Pangetius, 53, n. 

Demetrius, a Cynic, friend of 
Seneca, 291 ; Ms moral prin- 
ciples, 293 ; Ms contempt for 
knowledge, 293 

Demetrius, an Epicurean, 28 

Demetrius, a Platonist, 335, n. 

Demetrius Chytras, a Cynic, 
301, 3 

Demetrius of Byzantium, a Peri- 
patetic, 307, n. 

Demetrius the Bithynian, a Stoic, 
53, n. 

Democritus, a Platonist, 336, n. 

Demonax, a Cynic, 294, n. ; his 
eclecticism, 297 ; his efforts to 
liberate men from things exter- 
nal, 297 ; abstained from mar- 
riage, sacrifices, and the mys- 
teries, 298 ; his ready wit and 
practical influence, 299 

Demons, Posidonius in regard to, 


61 ; in the treatise Trepl Kdcrjuov, 
132 ; all things are full of gods 
and (Epictetus), 265 ; Albinus 
on, 349 

Dercyllides, the grammarian mem- 
ber of the New Academy, 102, 2 

Destiny, submission to, man's duty, 
271 (Epictetus); 284 (Marcus 

Dio, 100, ??,; 121, 2 

Dio Chrysostom, 353 ; Ms notion 
of philosophy the endeavour to 
be a righteous man, 354; ap- 
proximation of Stoicism, 355 ; 
Plato next to Demosthenes his- 
pattern of style, 356 ; Ms general 
standpoint, 357 

Diodorus, a Peripatetic commen- 
tator, 113 

Diodotus, instructor and friend of 
Cicero, 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, 

Diogenianus, a Peripatetic, 307, n. 

Diognetus, 198, n. 

Dionysius of Cyrcne, a geometri- 
cian, 53, n, 

Dionysius, Stoic of the first cen- 
tury A.B., 196, n. 

Dionysius, Stoic philosopher of the 
first century B.C., 71, w. 

Diotimus, of the school of Pansc- 
tius, 54, n. 

Diphilus, a Stoic, 53, n. 

Divine assistance to man, how 
understood by Seneca, 243 

JD of, in Greek philosophy ; cha- 
racter of, 17; presupposes an 
individual criterion of truth, 
18; eclecticism and the philo- 
sophy of revelation, 20; scop- 




ticism, 21 ; contained germs of 
l^eo-Platonism, 23 ; eclecticism 
among the Epicureans, 24 sg. ; 
the Stoics, 31 $#., 246 #., 
189 ; the Academics, 75 $g., 335 
s#. ; the Peripatetics, 112 sq., 
304 ; in Cicero, 146 ; in Seneca, 
224, 225 ; of Galen, 362 ; Eclec- 
tics belonging to no particular 
school, 351 

Eclectic School, the, 111 
Egnatius, Celer P., a Stoic, 197 
Ennius, his acquaintance with 

Greek philosophy, 7 
Epictetus, 197, n. ; date and per- 
sonal history of, 257 ; his con- 
ception of philosophy, 258 ; doc- 
trines, 259 sg. ; men are to be 
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- 
lar religion, 264 ; soothsaying, 
265 ; daemons, 266 ; immortality 
of the soul, 266 ; freewill, 267 ; 
innate moral conceptions and 
principles, 268 ; man's indepen- 
dence of things external, 269 ; 
duty of absolute submission to 
destiny, 271 ; inclination of 
Epictetus to cynicism, 272 ; his 
cynicism modified by Ms mild 
disposition, 274; his love of 
mankind, 275 
Epicureanism, the later, at Borne, 


Epicureans, in the first two cen- 
turies B.C., relation of the later 
to Epicurus, 26 ; Cicero on the, 
25, 162 

the, averse to science, 194 
Equality of men (Seneca), 242 
Ethics of PansQtius, 47; of Posi- 
donius, 67 ; of Antiochus, 95 ; of 
Eudorus,104; of Anus Didymus, 


108 ; of Cicero, 163; of Yarro,. 
173; of the Sextii, 185; of 
Seneca, 226 ; of Musonius, 251 ; 
of Epictetus, 268 sg. ; of Marcus 
Aurelius, 286 ; of Galen, 370 

Eubulus, a Platonist, 336, n. 

Euclides, a Platonist, 336, n. 

Eudemus, a Peripatetic, 306, n, 

Eudorus of Alexandria, his Pla- 
tonism, 103 ; his digest of the 
Categories, 104; his Encyclo- 
pedia, 104 

Euphrates, teacher of the younger 
Pliny, 197, n. 

Evil external, Seneca's view of, 
229 ; Epictetus on, 270 ; Demo- 
nax on, 297 ; Marcus Aurelius 
on, 284 

Faith, attitude of Pansetius to 

the popular, 50 ; of Cicero, 169 ; of 

Seneca, 244 ; of Epictetus, 264, 

265 ; of Marcus Aurelius, 282 
Fannius, C., a Roman disciple of 

Pansetius, 55, n. 
Fatalism of the Stoics opposed by 

Diogenianus, 307 ; by Alexander 

of Aphroclisias, 322 
Forgiveness of injuries, Seneca, 

241 ; Epictetus, 274 ; Marcus 

Aurelius, 286 
Freewill, Cicero's treatise on, 171 ;. 

Seneca on, 231; Epictetus on, 

Friendship, Seneca on, 240; opinion 

of some Epicureans on, quoted 

by Cicero, 25 

r\ AITJS, a Platonist, 335, n. ; his 

UT commentaries on Plato, 337 

Galen of 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 

s%. ; his physics and metaphysics,,, 




365 $#.; doctrine of matter, 366; 
soul and "body, 367 ; contempt 
for theoretical enquiries, 369; 
eclecticism of his ethics, 370 j 
his ethical writings, most of 
them lost, 370 

'Gellius the proconsul, his proposal 
to the philosophers in Athens, 16 

Oeorgius of Lacedsemon, 53, n. 

God, nature of, according to Boe- 
thus, 36; Cicero, 160, 167; 
Seneca, 213 8$. , Epictetus, 263 ; 
Marcus Aurelius, 280-282 ; Alex- 
ander of Aphrodisias, 330, 342 j 
Galen, 369 

Gods, see Faith 

-Good, the highest, according to 
Antiochus, 96 ; Cicero, 164 s#. J 
Varro, 172 

*Greek philosophy, decline of origi- 
nality in, 3 j effect of scepticism 
on, 4 ; among the Romans, 610; 
Roman students of, 11 ; effect 
of Roman character on, 14 ; last 
epoch of, 23 

HAPPINESS, to be sought in 
ourselves (Seneca), 236 ; 

(Epictetus) 270; (Marcus Au- 

relius) 282, 284 
Harpocration of Argos, a Platonist, 

336, n. ; his commentaries on 

Plato, 339 
Hecato, of Rhodes, member of the 

school of Pansetius, 53, ?*., 65 
Hegesianax, a Cynic, 295, n. 
Heliodorus, a Peripatetic, 322, 1 
Heliodorus of Prusa, 115, 5 
Helvidius Priscus, a Stoic, put to 

death by Vespasian, 197, n. 
Heraclides, the Stoic, 52 ; con- 
temporary of Pansetius, 52 
Heraclitus, a Stoic, 195, 1 
Heraclitus, of Tyre, member of the 

New Academy, 99, n. 
Heraclius, a Cynic, 301, 8 
Heras, a Cynic in the reign of 

Vespasian, 294, n 


Herminus, a Peripatetic, 306, n.\ 

his commentaries on Aristotle, 


Herminus, a Stoic, 200, n. 
Hermodorus the Bphesian, 6, 2 
Herophilus, a Cynic. 294, n. 
Homonyms, Aristotle's definition 

concerning, objected to by Atti- 

cus, 342, 343 

Honoratus, a Cynic, 294, n. 
Human nature, how treated by 

Cicero, 169 ; by Seneca, 239 ; by 

Epictetus, 260 ; by Marcus Au- 

relius, 286 

TDEAS, doctrine of, according to 

JL Albinus, 348 

Images, worship of (Varro), 178 

Immediate certainty, its nature 
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 

TASON, a Stoic, 71, n. 

v Julianus, of Tralles, 307, n. 

77"INSHIP of mankind, Seneca, 

A 239 

of man to God (Epictetus), 266 ; 
(Marcus Aurelius) 283 ; (Dio 
Chrysostom) 350 

Knowledge of God, innate in man 
(Cicero), 160, 161 ; (Dio Ghryso- 
stom), 356 

Knowledge, theory of, 311 ; Philo's, 
79, 83; Cicero's, 158; Cicero's 
doctrine of innate, 159; Anti- 
ochus' theory of, 97 : proper 
object of, the universal, Alex- 
ander of Aphrodisias, 324; Al- 
binus on the theory and faculty 
of, 347; Galen's theory of, 362 

T AMPEIAS, a Peripatetic, bro- 
JU ther of Plutarch, 305, n. 




Leonides, a Stoic of Bhodes, 71, n. 

Logic, how treated by Seneca, 208 ; 
by Epictetus, 261 ; by Alexander 
of Aphrodisias, 321 ; by Galen, 

JLonginus, 336, n. 

Love of mankind (Seneca), 239, 
240 ; (Epictetus) 275 ; Marcus 
Aurelius), 286 

Lucanus M. Annseus, 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 

Lucilius, 12, 3 ; 196, n. 

Lucretius, Epicureanism of, 26 

Lyco, a Bithynian, 53, n. 

]\/fAKCUS AURELIUS, settled 

1YJL public teachers of the four 
chief schools of philosophy in 
Athens, 193; references to him 
and his instructors, 199, n. ; 
his personal history, 276; re- 
semblances to Epictetus, 278 ; 
conception of human life and of 
the problem of philosophy, 279 ; 
his doctrines, 279 s$. ; belief in 
the Divine order of the universe, 
281; in dreams and auguries, 
282; future existence, 283; his 
ethics, 284 ; resignation to the 
will of God, 285 ; love to man, 
286 j nobility and purity of his 
life, 287 

Marriage, Seneca's view of, 240 ; 
Musonius on, 256 ; Epictetus on, 

Maximxts of Nicssa, a Platonist, 
336, n 

Maximns of Tyre, a Platonist, 335, 
n., 337 

Menecrates of Methyma, of the 
school of Antiochus, 100, n. 


Menephylus, a Peripatetic, 304, 2 

Menesarchus, disciple and succes- 
sor of Pansetius, 53 

Menippus, a Cynic of the third 
century B.C., 291, 1 

, the Lycian, mentioned by 
Philostratus, 291, n. 

Meteorology, Seneca's, 211 

Metrodorus, philosopher and 
painter, 8, 1 ; accompanied jEmi- 
lius Paulus on his warlike ex- 
peditions, 8 

Metronax, a Stoic, 196 

Mnasagoras, disciple of Pansatius, 
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 

Mucius Scasvola, disciple of Panse- 
tius, 49 

Mummius, Sp., Eoman, disciple of 
Panastius, 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- 
tory, 246, 3 ; devoted to prac- 
tical ethics, 248; asserted 
philosophy to be the only way 
to virtue, 251 ; his personal in- 
fluence, 253 ; Stoicism exag- 
gerated by Musonius, 253 ; inner 
freedom of man his leading 
thought, 254 ; reasons for avoid- 
ing animal food, 255 ; views on 
marriage and the exposure of 
children, 256; disapproval of 
public prosecutions, 256 
Musonius the Tyrian, 1 99, n. 

"VTEO-PLATONISM, forerunners 
1M of, among the Platonists, 344 
Nero, influence of the time of, on 
philosophy, 236 




Nestor of Tarsus, the Academic, 
54, n. ; distinct from Nestor the 
Stoic, 102, 2 

Nicander the Bithynian, 53, n. 

a Peripatetic, 307, n. 

Nicolaus of Damascus, 122 

Nigrirms, a Platonist, 335, n ; his 
eclecticism, 344 

Nurna, the books of, 7 

Numenius, 336, n. 

nriNOMATJS of G-adara, a Cynic 
vJU of the 'reign of Hadrian, 

295 j his treatise against the 

< Jugglers,' 295 
Origen, 336, n. 
Originality, decline of, in Greek 

philosophy, 3 
Orion, 282 

of Rhodes, 30 ; at 

JL Rome, 9 ; friend of Scipio and 
Lsalius, 40 ; head of the Stoic 
school in Athens, 40; learning 
and reputation, 41 ; character 
of his Stoicism, 42 ; denial of the 
soul's existence after death, 45; 
ethics, 47 ; work on duty, 48 ; 
theology, 49 : his allegorical in- 

terpretation of myths, 50; rejec- 
tion of soothsaying, 58 ; relation 
to the Stoics, 5 1 ; contemporaries 
and disciples of, 52 ; school of, 
53 st{. ; and Seneca, 245 

Pancratius, a Cynic, 294, n. 

Papirius, Fabianus, member of the 
school of the Sextii, 181 

Paramonus of Tarsus, disciple of 
Pansetius, 53, 2 

Paulus, the Prefect, a Peripatetic, 
306, %. 

Pausanias of Pontus, disciple of 
Panastius, 53, n. 

Peregrinus, a Cynic, 294, n. ; 
Lucian's description of him, 
299, 3 ; his voluntary death by 
fire, 299; praised by Gellius, 300 


K.6<rju.ov, the treatise, its origin, 
125 ; Ohrysippus on, 127 ; Posi- 
donius not the author of, 128 ; 
nature of the treatise, 132 ; 
affinity with Stoicism, 135 ; 
Peripatetic and Stoic ideas com- 
bined in it, 137; its probable 
date of composition, 138 ; later 
than Posidonius, 141 ; about the 
first century B.C., 143 
Peripatetics, the later, 112 ; ex- 
clusively devoted to commen- 
taries on Aristotle, 194 

of the first centuries after Christ, 
304 s$. 

Peripatetic School from the second 
half of the third century A.D. 
gradually merged in that of the 
Neo-Platonists, 332 

Persius, Flaccus A., a Stoic, 
197, iw. 

Petronius, Arislocrates, of Mag- 
nesia, a Stoic, 196, n. 

Phanias, a Stoic, 71, w. 

Philo, of Larissa, at Eomc, 88 B.C., 
1 2 ; personal history, 75 ; in- 
structor of Cicero, 76 ; practical 
basis, 77 ; his revival of Platon- 
ism, 82 ; theory of knowledge, 
83 ; was the founder of the 
'Fourth Academy,' 84; pupils 

Of, 100, 'M. 

Philopator, a Stoic under Hadrian, 

398, n. 
Philosophers banished from Rome, 


sects of, enumerated by Varro, 

Philosophy, schools of, tend to 
amalgamation, 1 ; Koman esti- 
mates of, 15 

of revelation, allied with eclec- 
ticism, 20 ; schools of, are all in 
agreement, according to Antio- 
elms, 91 ; general character of, 
in Imperial times, 189 

regarded with political mis- 
trust in the first century B.C., 




190 ; chairs of, established by 
Hadrian, 191 ; theoretical and 
practical, 205 ; relation of, to 
rhetoric, 352 

Physics, Seneca's high estimation 
of, 210 

v<ns distinguished from ^vx$j by 
Pansetius, 47 ; by Galen, 369 

Piso, 55, n. 

Piso, M., a disciple of Antiochus, 
101, n. 

Plato, commentators of, 337 

Plato of Ehodes, 53, n. 

Platonism, revival by Philo, 82 

Platonists of the first centuries 
A.D., 334 

Plutarch, his commentary on Plato, 

Polyzelus, a Cynic, 295, n. 

Polyzehis, a Peripatetic, 295 n. 

Posidonius at Rome at the begin- 
ning of the first century B.C., 12 

a Syrian of Apamea, disciple of 
Panaatius, 56 ; his doctrines and 
relation to Stoicism, 59 sq, ; 
love of rhetoric and erudition, 
62 ; natural science, 62 ; anthro- 
pology, 64 ; doctrine of the soul, 
64 sg. ; ethics, 65 ; psychology, 
68 ; not the author of ire pi 

K^fffJiOV, 128 

Potamo of Alexandria, Ms eclec- 
ticism, 109 s$. ; criterion of 
truth, 111 

Premigenes of Mytilene, a Peripa- 
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, n. 

"DBLIG-ION, Seneca's conception 
Jtl of, 244 


Rhetoric, an important part of 
public instruction in the Imperial 
period, 352 ; numerous schools 
of, 352 ; appointment of public 
teachers of, 352 

Boman character, effect of, on 
Greek philosophy, 14 

Roman disciples of Pan^etius, 
55, n. 

Roman estimate of philosophy, 15 

Roman students of Greek philo- 
sophy, 11 

Rome, Greek philosophy at, 6; 
philosophers banished from, 7 ; 
Carneades at, 9; Greek philo- 
sophy at, 10 ; Epicureanism at, 
12 ; Panaetius at, 9 ; Stoicism 
at, 9 ; Philodemus and Syro, the 
Epicureans at, in the first cen- 
tury B.C., 13 ; Philo the Platonist 
at, in 88 B.C., 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 Panratius, 55, n. 

8AKKAS, a Platonist, 336, n. 
Sallustius, a Cynic ascetic of 
Athens in the sixth century A.D., 
302, 3 

Sandon, 72, n. 

SciBvola, Q. Mucius, Roman dis- 
ciple of Panaetius, 55, n. 

Scepticism, its effect on Greek 
philosophy, 4 ; relation of, to 
eclecticism, 12 ; self -contradic- 
tory according to Antiochus, 90 ; 
of Seneca, 225 

Schools of Philosophy, the, tend 
to approximate, 193 

Scylax of Halicarnassus, friend of 
Pansetius, 54, n. 

Self - examination, necessity of 
(Seneca), 238 

Selius, Caius, disciple of Philo, 
100, n. 




Seneca, 196, n. ; his reputation and 
influence, 203 ; practical nature 
of his ethics, 204 ; his concep- 
tion of philosophy, theoretical 
and practical 205 s#. ; contempt 
for merely theoretical inquiries, 
his view of logic, 208 ; his high 
estimation of physics, 210 ; his 
meteorology, 211 ; physical and 
theological doci rines, 212 ; nature 
of G-od, according to, 213 ; Stoic- 
ism in, 215 ; theories of the 
world, 217 ; his anthropology, 
219 ; nature of the soul, accord- 
ing to, 219 ; theory of passions 
and affections, 221 ; frailty of 
human nature, 221 ; contempt 
for the hody, 222 ; body and 
spirit opposed, 222 ; his view of 
immortality, 223 ; Seneca's psy- 
chology compared with that of 
Chrysippus, 224 ; scepticism of, 
225 ; Stoicism of, 226, 242 

on external evil, 229 ; ethics 
of, 226 ; Peripateticism of, 229 ; 
his opinion about Cato, 230 

on the wise man, 231 ; his 
deviation from Stoicism, 231 ; 
vacillation in his character, 232 ; 
rhetoric of, 234 

influence of his time, 235 

bids us find happiness in our- 
selves, 236 ; necessity of self- 
examination, 238 ; natural kin- 
ship of mankind, 239 ; view of 
political life, 239 ; love of man- 
kind, 239, 240 ; view of marriage, 

on the forgiveness of inju- 
ries, 241 j view of suicide, 243 ; 
of the assistance given by the 
Deity to man, 243 ; on the 
equality of men, 242 ; his con- 
ception of religion, 244 j com- 
pared with Pantetius, 245 

Senses, the, their dicta not to bo 
discarded ; doctrine of Antio- 
chus, 89 ; o Cicero, 158 


Serapio, a Stoic, 196 n. 

Sereniaxms, a Cynic, 301, 3 

Severus, a Platonist, 336, n. ; his 
commentary on the Timceus, 339 ; 
his eclecticism, 345 ; treatise on 
the soul, 345 sq. ; deviations 
from Platonism, 348 

Sextii, school of the, advocated 
daily self - examination, re- 
nounced animal food, 186 ; its 
character and doctrines, 183 s^. ; 
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, 186 ; succeeded 
as head of the school by his son, 

Sextus of Chgeronea, a Platonist, 
335, n. 

Sextus, the supposed Pythagorean, 

Socrates, a Peripatetic, 307, n. 

Sosigenes, the Peripatetic, 306, n. ; 

Sosigenes, the Stoic, contemporary 
of Pansetius, 52 

Soson of Ascalon, 53, n. 

Sotas of Paphos, a Stoic, 54, n. 

Sotion, a Peripatetic, 805, .. 

Sotion of Alexandria, member of 
the school of the Sextii, 181; 
instructor of Seneca, 181 

Soul, nature of the, according to 
Asclepiades, SO ; Antiochus, 95 ; 
Alexander of Aphrodisias, 326 ; 
Cicero, 170 ; Posidonius, 64 ; 
Seneca, 219 ; Marcus Aurelius, 
283 ; the, an emanation from the 
Deity, 176 ; the, immortality of, 
defended by Cicero, 170 j is air 
(Varro), 176; opinions of Atticus, 
342 ; Galen, 367 

Sphodrias, a Cynic, 295, n. 

Staseas, of Naples, called by Oicero 
nolMs Peripatfftioua, 122, 1 

Stoicism at Borne, 9 

Stoics, the later, 34 ; of the first 




century B.C., 71 $$. ; the, and 
Sextius, 186 ; the, in the first 
centuries A.D., 189 ; criticism of 
the, by Cicero, 164 ; their re- 
striction to ethics, 194 ; under 
Domitian, Trajan, and Hadrian, 
] 98, n, ; inclination of the later 
to Platonism, 42 $#., 62 sq. 

Strabo the geographer, a Stoic, 
73, n. 

Stratocles of Rhodes, a Stoic, 
54, %. 

Strato, the Alexandrian Peripa- 
tetic, 07, n. 

Suicide, Seneca's view of, 243 ; de- 
fended by the Cynics, 298, 300 

Sulpicius Gallus, astronomer and 
philosopher, 8 

TUS, a Platonist, 335, 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- 
demy, 102, 2 

Theo of Alexandria, 73, n. 

Theo of Smyrna, a Platonist, 335, 
n. ; his commentaries on Plato, 

Theopompus, of the school of An- 
tiochus, 100, n. 

iThrasea Psetus, a Stoic, 1 97, n, 
friend of Seneca, 291, 2 

Thrasyllus, the grammarian, mem- 
ber of the New Academy, 

Ximocles of Cnidus, 54, n. 

Truth, criterion of, according to 
Antiochus, 88; according to 
Potamo, 111 ; Cicero, 153, 156, 
161 ^ according to Galen, 363 


Tubero, Q. JElius, Roman disciple 
of Pansetius, 55, n. 

TTARRO, a disciple of Antiochus, 
V 100, n. ; 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 

Yespasian, his measures against 
philosophers, 190, 1 ; payments- 
to rhetoricians, 191, 3 

Vigellms, M., Roman disciple of 
Pangetius, 55, n. 

Virginias Rufus, a Peripatetic,, 
307, n. 

Virtue and knowledge, according 
to Antiochus the Academic, 88, 

Virtue, a condition of happiness,. 
174 (Varro) ; 238 (Seneca) ; rela- 
* tion of, ;to philosophy, according 
to Musonius Rufus, 251 

WISE MAN, the, of the Stoics,, 
and Seneca, 231 

World, theories of the (Treatise 
irepl /c<fff>iou), 134 ; (Seneca), 217 ;; 
(Marcus Aurelius), 281 ; (Atti- 
cus), 342 ; final conflagration of 
the, 34, 35, 44 

, a Cynic, 295 

.A. Xenarchns, controverted Aris- 
totle's Physics, 124 

F7ENOof SIdon,27 

IJ Zeno of Tarsus, successor of 
Chrysippus, 34; opinion as to 
the destruction of the world, 34 

SpQttiswoode & Co. Printers, New-street Square, London. 




The PBE-SOCRAT1C SCHOOLS. Being a History of 
Greek Philosophy from, the Earliest Period to the Time of 
SOCBATES, Translated by SARAH 3?. ALMSYNB. 2 vols. 
crown 8vo, 80s. 

SOPHY. Translated by SARAH F. AL&EIYNKJ. Crown 8vo. 
price 10*. 6d. 

lated by O. J. BEICHEI,, M.A. B.C.B. sometime' Scholar of 
Queen's Oollecre, Oxford. Second Edition^ enlarged from 
materials supplied by the Author. Crown 8vo. 10*. Qd. 

PLATO and tlie OLBEB ACADEMY. Translated by 
.SASUH F. AI^BYNB, and AI-VBKII^'O-OODWIIN-, B.A. Follow and 
Lecturer, Balliol College, Oxford. Crown Bvo. 18*. 

lated by O. J. K.BICHCBL, M.A. B.O.Xi. sometime Scholar of 
Queen's College, Oxford. Second Edition, thoroughly revised. 
Gr^wn 8vo. 15*. 


Translated by B. F. C. COSTBLLOE, Balliol College, Oxford. 

Crown 8vo. tXnjK>rptx,ra,tion, 

*** The volume announced above will complete the English Trans- 
lation of Dr. ZEiLiiBR's Work on the FhiloBOphy of tlio Greeks. 

London, LOJSTG-MAKS & CO*