A HISTORYECLECTICISMIN GREEK PHILOSOPHYTRANSLATEDFROMTHEGERMANOFDKE. ZELLERI UOFK SSOH TS TII K U.VIVKKSITY OF HKKMNfoitb ibcguiibors siuittionI:Y8. F. ALLEYNELONDONLONGMANS, GREEN,ANT) CO.188:}l.OMMIN : I UlSTF..l BYSIOTTl-UOillil. AMI((>., MKW-STKKKTHQIAIIKAM> rAltl.IAMKVI STI1KKT/TEANSLATOES PEEFACE.THIS is a translation of the secondsectionof Dr.tellersPhilosophicderGrieclien,DritterTheil,ErsteAbtheilung.Thefirst sectionofthevolume,concerningtheStoics, Epicureans,andSceptics,hasalreadybeentranslatedbyDr. Keicliel.Thepresenttranslationhas beenmadefrom thethirdandlatestedition of theGermanwork.S. F. ALLEYNE.CLIFTON:&yrtemiter1,1883.Errata.83,line 15 :/,,,belon-ed ,.,,,belong!5,20 :forfundamentalimpulse/.,/impulsell(i. >,2:/ortheirraidits102,1!> :/;I;vod\vo-U,r>,i :/,.^fleets roi-iaffect206,c :forenquires/,.it/.CHAPTER III.THE STOICS :BOKTHUS, PAN/ETIUS,POSIDONIUS . 34Successors ofChrysippus,34.Boethus,35.Panaetius,39.Characterof hisphilosophy,42. Deviationsfrom (Stoicism,-13,sv/.Kthics,17.ContemporariesanddisciplesofIanaetius,~>2.Posidonius,5(>. Hisphilosophictendencies,oil. Hisanthropology,61. OtherStoics ofthefirstcenturybeforeChrist,70CONTENTS.CHAPTER IV.THEACADEMICPHILOSOPHERS INTHECENTURYUEFOKECHRIST.Ihilo ofLarissa,75. Hispracticalbias,77.Modification)f thescepticismoftheAcademy,7J.Histheoryofknowledge,81.Antiochus ofAscalon, 85. 1olemicagainstscepticism,87.Eclecticism:essentialagreementofthevarioussystems,.)];theoryofknowledge,93.Physicsandmetaphysics,1)4.Ethics,J5.School ofAntiochus,9l.Eudorus,103.AriusDidymus 106Potamo,10!lCHAPTER V.THEPERIPATETICSCHOOL IN THEFIRSTCENTURYBEFORECHRIST...112TheCommentators:Andronicus ofllhodes,113.lioefhusof Silon,117.Aristo,Staseas,GYatippus, Nicolaus.Xenarchus,andothers,121gq.ThetreatisewcplK6.Varro,171. HisviewofphilosophyandI hevariousschools,172.Ethics,173.Anthropologyandphilosophy,176CHAPTER VII.THESCHOOL OF THE SEXT1I..180Historyof theschool,80. Itsphilosophiccharacter andstandpoint,183CONTENTS.CHAPTERVITT.PAfiKTHE FIRSTCENTURIESAFTERCHRISTTHESCHOOLOF THESTOICS SENECA.1hilosophyin theImperialperiod:studyof the ancientphilosophers,189.Endowmentofpublicchairsofphilosophy,190.TheschooloftheStoicsfromthefirstto the thirdcentury,194sq.Cornutus,199. Seneca,202.Hisconceptionoftheproblemofphilosophy,205.Uselessnessofmerelytheoreticinquiries,206.Opinionof dialectic,207.Physics,209.Metaphysicalandtheologicalviews,212.The world and nature,217.Man,219.UncertaintyofSenecasspeculativetheories,225.His ethicsessentiallyStoicinprinciple,226.Modificationof Stoicdogmas,227.Applicationofparticularmoral doctrines,235.Independenceofthingsexternal,236. Love of mankind,239.lleligioustemperament,242CHAPTERIX.THE STOICSCONTINUED:MUSONIUS,EPICTETUS,MARCUSAURELIUS.246Musonius,246.Hispracticalstandpoint,248. Hisethics,255.EpictetusandArrian,256.Practical end ofphilosophy,258. Inferiorvalue ofknowledge,260.lleligiousview of theworld,263.Man,266. Ethics,268.Independenceofthingsexternal; resignationtodestinyandthe courseof theuniverse,270sq.InclinationtoCynicism,272.Gentlenessand love ofmankind,274,275.Marcus AureliusAntoninus,276.Hispracticalview ofphilosophy,277.His theoreticopinions;fluxof allthings,279;theDeity,Providence,orderoftheworld,280sq.KinshipofmantoGod, 283.Ethics,284. Withdrawalintoself,284.ResignationtothewillofGod,285. Loveofmankind,286CONTENTS.CHAPTERX.THECYNICS OFTHEIMPERIALERA ..Revival ofCynicism, 280. Itsadherents,200pemetnus,21)1(FnonnnsO.Hqius, _"..{.Demonax, >% JVropnnus,any.LaterCynics>3Q1CHAPTERXLTHEPERIPATETICSOFTHEFIRSTCENTURIESAFTERCHRIST.3()ThePeripateticschool ofthefirstandsecondcentury U)4Oomra,.natn,ofAristotlesworks:AspasiusAdastuHornunus,Achaicus,Sosigenes, 306.Aristocles ofMessone,,,,.Ah,and,rofAphrodisias,31S.A^^-A?.,,,,-swri ,inp,nnflpommonfar.csoI^1larfcularandtheUniversal, FormandMatter,n soulandroBf,334.Godand theworld,3 Vextinction ofthePeripateticSchool,332CHAPTERXII.THEl-LATOXicSCHOOLIXTHEKIKSTCENTURIESAFTERTHECHRISTIANERA .t{;{.jPlatonistaofthisperiod, 334.Commentators ofPlatonic-,,.,,,337IntroductionofaliendoctrinesopposedbyTauru*andAtticus,340.Eclecticismexemplifiedinico,Nigrinus,Severus,Albinus,344CHAPTERXIII.ECLECTICSWHOBELONGTONODEFINITESCHOOL 3f, ]loChrysnstom,3a3.Lucian,357.Galen,360.Characterisphilosophy,;j]78([. pa^lavKal TUV\tyorpova(LKais 6Phil. An scni s.gcr. ryrjpase/y rIP.,1.p.791 : ofj.fi/o5fAtfaS??--^p^ffifj-ov avvr)KTOKalK.OIVUVIKQV.fiaiKvsk.iff\lviis, o-otpiffT&vTLVUV3Phil, dcrGriccheti, 111, i.\eyovTcov,6rtTrpoairoifiTaiyeyo-p. 524,note 2.vtvtuKapvedSov, /xr; yeyovus,4Videnote2.ECLECTICISM.changewasgiven bythe relation in whichGreekscience and culture stood to the Roman world.1The firstknowledgeof Greekphilosophydoubtlesscameto theRomansfrom LowerItaly : thefounderof the Italian School(Pythagoras)is the firstphilosopherwhose name ismentioned in Rome.2Butthe doctrines of the Greekphilosopherscanonlyhave been heard of (here in anentirely superficialandfragmentary mannerbeforethebeginningofthesecondcenturybeforeChrist. This state ofthingsmust havechanged,however,when,after the secondPunicWar,theRomanpolicy and Romanarmspressedforward fartherand farther towards the east;whenthe wars withMacedonia andSyria broughtdistinguishedRomans ingreatnumbers toGreece,while,on the otherhand,Greekambassadors andstateprisoners,-1and soon alsoslaves,appearedmoreand morecommonlyin Rome;when men of theimportanceof theelderScipio Africanus, T.QuinotiusFlamininus,and. KmiliusPaulus,appliedthemselves1For whatfollows,cf.Hitter,suppositionthat hodiscoursediv. 71>at].to theRomansonthephysicsof-Theargumentsfor this are thatphilosopher,givenin Plnl.drr d riicJi. I artSuchasthethousandAchse-I.pp.l S7,3; 450,1;cf. ifrifl. answho,168 n.c,werecarried;!i:s,2;and Part III. ii.p.77awayintoItaly,andkepttheresq.A still earlierdate(ifthis forseventeenyears,all ofthemstatementishistorical)mustbe men ofreputeandculturefixed for thepresencein Home(union"-them we know wasof Hermodorus theKphesian, Polybius),whose long residencewho assisted the decemviri in in thecountrycould nothavethedrawing upof the twelve beenwithoutinfluence onKoinetables(PartI.5(ifi, 2): but if even the least considerableeven if he wereindeed the ofthemhadtheiractualabodecelebrated friend of Heraclei- inthatcity.Ius,wehavenogroundfortheGREEKPHILOSOPHYINPOME.withdelightto Greek literature; when,from theCHAPbeginningof the secondcentury,GreekpoetrywastransplantedtoRoman soil in the moreor less freeimitations ofEnnius, Pacuvius, Statius, Plautus,andtheir successors;andRomanhistorywasrelatedin the GreeklanguagebvFabiusPictorandothero o *jannalists. Thephilosophicliterature of Greecestood in far too close a connection withthe otherbranchesphilosophyoccupiedfar tooimportantaplacein the wholeHellenicsphereofculture,as ameansof instructionandobjectof universal interestto make itpossiblefor such as had once foundpleasureinGreekintellectuallife to shutthemselvesupfrom itvery long,however small the needforscientificenquirymightbe in them. Wefind,then,evenbeforethemiddleofthe secondcentury,manyandvarious traces ofthecommencementof a knowledgeof Greekphilosophy amongthe Romans.Ennius shows that he wasacquaintedwithit,andadoptsfrom it isolatedpropositions.In theyear181 B.C.anattemptwasmade,in the so-calledBooksofNuma,1to introducedogmasof Greekphilosophyinto the Romanreligion.2Twenty-six yearslater(accordingto othersonly eight)theactivityof theEpicurean philosophersinteachingcaused theirbanishment from Rome.3In 161B.C.,byadecreeof thesenate,residence in Romewas forbidden tothephilosophersand rhetoricians;4andthisalways1Cf. Phil. dcr. Gricck. III.4This decreeofthesenate isii.p.83.to be found inSuetonius,De-Cf. 1. c. III. ii.p.85. Cl. Rhetor. 1;Gell.N.A. xv. 11Cf. I.e. III. i.p. 372,1.(cf.alsoClinton,Fasti llellen.CHAPI.ECLECTICISM.provesthattherewasreason foranxietyinre-are?to tleirinfluenceupmtheeducationofyouthEmiliusPaulus,theconquerorofMacedonia,gaveisonsGreekinstructors,and forthatpurposetool,I1 "onhisexpeditionsthephilosopherMetro-ana>tius,who,while hehimselfculls hisworktptwaiKalfiKaaiai,and the latter sodecidedlypreponderate,that onrhistoricalknowledget theman isscarcelyextendedby>litreatise.1Thai(Jracehus,throughtliecare of hismother,haddistinguished (ireeksfor hisinstnic-tors(Cic.Unit.27, 101;of.Ilut. Tib. (, racch.20)iswellknown.-Polybius(xxxii.lO), however,relatesthatmuchearlier,whenSeipiowasonly eighteen(16B.C.),hesaid tohim and hisbrother:irfpl/j.fi>yapTa./J.a0^fj.ara,TTfpIa viivApa,ffTrovSdfoi Tasv/nasKal(pi\i>Tiftov/j.ivovs,OVKdiropTJafTfriav(Tvvtpyr\ff6vT.^rij,;,>,-,I/Hill ( . /Mli,>,,/nulI,.]>/,j/operfecting roi/Hnrijiotrtt.t/ui. . . addinnisticummajoruniquemowmHiiiinhuncaSocratead-rniticiamilortnnamailliihnr-runt. Cie.( >rothereputsthesubstance ofCarneadesdiscourseiifrainstjustice,which hehimself hadheard, into themouthof FuriusPhilus,while hemakeshim atthesame timefollow theAcademicphilosopherin theco/mtu-fiutoi-ontra-rias inpnrtc* dixxi-rcudi;Ion.cit. c."),Ssi/J jact. J,t),t. v.14.Conc^ernin.LCtheconnectionofScipioandLa;liuswithPannetius weshallhave tospeaklateron.Lujlius,accordingto Cie. /vw.jj_ ^fv.^hadalsoattendedtlielect uresofDiogenes, whichwemust,nodoubt, connectwith hispresenceinJiome intheyear15B.C.4Q.yEliusTubero,tliroughhismother agrandson"of./EmiliusPaulus, was averyzealousStoic,whocarried outGREEKPHILOSOPHYIN ROME.with the sons-in-law ofLselius, QuinhisMuciusScaevola,1and CaiusFannius,2P. RutiliusRufus,3Lucius yEliusStilo,4andothers,5openthelongCHAPI.hisprinciplesin hislife,notwithoutexaggeration.Cf.concerninghimCic.Brut.31,117;DCOrat. iii.23,87;ProMitr.36,75MJ.,Acad. ii.44,135;Tusc.iv.2,4; Sen.Ti//.95,72sq.;98, 13; 104,21; 120,19;Hut.Litcull. 39; Pompon.7>eOrig.Juris,i.40;Gell. N.A. i.22,7 : xiv.2,20;Val. Max. vii.5,1. Cic.Off.iii.15, 03,men-tions a treatise of Hecato addressed tohim,and anotherofPanaitius,ibid. Acad. ii.44,135;Tusc. iv.2,4; againstwhichthepseudo-Plutarch,I)cyobilit.18, 3,is notanyhistoricaltestimony;cf.Dernays,Dial. d. Anst. 140.1Oneofthemostcelebratedof the ancientjuristsandfounders of scientificjurisprudence amongthe Romans(l!ern-hardy,Grundr. d. Horn. Lit.076,fec.),son-in-lawof Liclius(Cic.Ik- Or/it, i.9,35).AccordingtoCicero,he had heardPanjetiuslecture,and(I.c.10,43)he calls the Stoics Stoieinostri."C.Fannius,sonofMarcus,son-in-law ofLaslius,wasbrought byLailius to hearPansetius(Cic.Brut.20,101),and isdesignated byCicero(Brut. 31,18)as a Stoic.Cicero oftenmentions an historicalworkcomposed byhim.SimilarlyPlut. Til. Graceft. 4.Withregardto hisconsulate,cf. id. C. Gracch.8, 11,12.3This is the Rutilius whowasfatuous for his services inwar(Val.Max. ii.3,2; Sallust,Juernhardy,loc. rit. 857.5Such as MarcusVigellius(Cic.Orat. iii.21, 78)andSp.ECLECTICISM.CHAP.seriesofKumanStoics.Epicureanism,at thesametime,obtained astillwiderdiffusion,havingthroughbookswritten inLatin,gainedentranceat anearlierperiodthantheothersystems,evenamongthosewhohadnotreceived aGreekeducation.1SomewhatlatertheAcademic andPeripateticschools,whoseprinciplescouldnothaveremainedunknown tothehearersofPan;etius,wererepresentedbycelebratedteachers inKoine.AmongThePlatouistsPhilo isthefirstwhosepresenceinKoine isknownto us(irrespectiveofthedeputation>fphilosophers);ofthePeripatetics,Staseas.2Butalready,at amuchearlierperiod, ClitomacbushaddedicatedworkstotwoKomans;3andCarneadeshimself,we aretold,wassoughtout inAthensbyKomantravellers."SoonafterthebeginningofthefirstcenturybeforeChrist,Posidonius(videInfra)visited themetropolisoftheworld;beforethemiddleofthesamecenturyweencounterthereMummiusbrother ofthe con-To thepoet Lucilius(MSqueror ofCorinth,who,tojudge102B.c),andpreviouslytobythedate(Cic.Brut.25,!>4),I,Censorinus,whowasconsulmust also have owed his Stoicism in14JB.C.;Cic. A cad iis"toJranastius.]0^Itde Cic. TU*c iv.3,0:Tgomuchtruthmaylin-liaqmillius rer(/>clcgantisquederlie thestatement ofCiceroj>Jn^nj,lnlf(theStoic,Peripa- (JJeOral, iii.18,68)eventetic,andAcademic). . . nullasupposingthestatementitselfferesunt autpaucaadmmlum to heuntruethatQ Metollnscumin-(Xumidicus)as ayoungmanterim illixsileHtibus C. Arna-listened to theagedCarneadesimms^f,^dw;,*,&c. forseveraldays inAthensFurtherdetails,infra-.RespectingCat ulusrelationtoPhilocameto Rome in88B.C.Carneades:cf. thelastpagesofMaseas,as we ImdfromCic. thechapteronCarneades PhilDeOral. i.22,104,appearedd. Gr. Part III ithere in D2 B.C.GREEKPHILOSOPHYINHOME. ]theEpicureansPhilodemus andSyro.1Mean- CHAP.while,it wasalreadyat this timeverycommon forRomanyouthsto seek Greekscience at its fountain-head,and for the sake of their studies to betakethemselves to theprincipalseats of thatscience,andespeciallyto Athens.- At thecommencementof theimperialera,atanyrate,Rome swarmedwithGreeksavants ofeverykind,3andamongtheseweremanywhowere notmerelyturningto accountasuperficialknowledgein a mechanicalmanner;4whilecontemporaneouslyinvariousplacesofthewestthephilosophyofGreecebecamenaturalisedtogetherwith othersciences,and from these centresspreaditself still further.5Withtheknowledgeof GreekOphilosophy,that of Greek literature wentnaturallyhand inhand,andfromthetime ofLucretius andCicero a Roman literaturesprang upat itsside/11liil.d. Gr. Part III. i. 374. of the time ofAugustusand-The best knownexamples Tiberius,residinginRome,willarethose ofCiceroandAtticus,comebeforeus further on.Lut we shall meetwithmany">The mostimportantofothers later on. Forthegene-these was the ancientGreekralpractice,cf. Cic.Fin.v.l,city Massilia,ofwhichStrabowhereCicero describeshisown(iv. 1, 5,p. 181) says:irdvTtslife inAthenswithcompanions yapolx*pwrfsTrposTO\tytivinstudy(77 B.C.) ;and in re-TpfTrovrainaifyi\oe1v.Angardtoasomewhat latertime,earlycolonyof GreekcultureAcad. i.2, 8,where hesaysto inGaul,thiscityhad nowVarro : Scd meosamicos,in, madesuchadvancesthatnobleqttikuseststuditim,in Grccciam Romanspursuedtheirstudies>iiitt,id ea afontibiispotiushereinsteadof inAthens.liaimant,qnamrivulos eonsev-KTliat these twowere thefirstnoteworthywriters on3Thefact isnotorious;forphilosophyin theLatintongueexamplescf.Strabo,xiv.5, 1">,iscertain;the fewearlier at-p.675.Tapo-eW yapical A\fav-tempts (cf.Ilf. i.:?72, 2)seernSpewpeffr-lifo-Ti[^ P^TJ].to have beenveryunsatisfac-SeveralGreekphilosophers tory. Both,moreover,expressly]4ECLECTICISM.CHAPI.whichwasscarcelyinferiorto thecontemporaryGivek,thoughnot tobecomparedwiththeearlier.either inscientificacumen orcreativeindividuality.Atthebeginningofthismovement,theKomanswererelated totheGreeksmerelyasdiscipleswhoadoptedandimitatedthescience oftheirteachers;and,toacertaindegree,thisrelationcontinuedthroughoutitswholecourse;for inRomethe scientificgeniusandspiritneverattainedeven to somuchforceandself-dependenceas inGreece it hadstillpreservedin thelatterperiod.Hutinthe endtinsinfluence ofGreekphilosophycould notremainJUT*without areaction onitself.ThoughRomansbvth,likeCiceroandLucretius,mightrehabilitateGreekscience fortheircountrymen;andGreekphilosophers,likeIana-tiusandAntiochus,mightlectureto theKomans,inbothcases itwasunavoidable thatthecharacteroftheirpresentationsshouldbemoreorlessdeterminedbyregardto thespiritandrequirementsoftheirKomanhearersandreaders.Even thepU1vlyGreekschools ofphilosophyinAthens,Khodes,andotherplaces,couldnotfreethemselvesfromthisdetermining influence,onaccountof thegreatnumber ofyoungKomansofpositionwhovisitedthem;for itwasnaturallyfromtheseclaimf,,rthemselvesthisl,ulniitlumen literhonour,cf.Lucr. v.386:Hancnarum . . . i ,/t/fEpicureandoctrine)pri-note*cstelaboranmiis CUM.primisijjserepertusiiniltijamme libr-Latini di-GREEKPHILOSOPHYINNOME.scholars that honour andprofitmostlyaccrued to CHAI-theteachers. Of stillhigher importance,however,than the.seconsiderations mustberated theunconscious influence of the Romanspirit;notmerelyupontheRomanswhopursuedphilosophy,butalsouponthe Greekphilosophersin theRomanempire ;for,howevergreatthesuperiorityof GreekcultureoverEoman,howevercompletetheliterarydependence oftheconquerors upontheconquered,it wasinevitable thatGreece,too,shouldreceivespiritualinfluence from herproud scholars,and that theastuteness and force of will towhich,inspiteofscience,she hadsuccumbed,shouldnecessarilyacquireconsiderable value ascomparedwith thatscience intheeyesof thesubjugatednations. Itwasconsistent with the Romanspirit, however,toestimate the worth ofphilosophy,as of allotherthings, primarilyaccordingtothe standard ofpracticalutility; and,on thecontrary,to ascribe noimportanceto scientificopinionsassuch,when nogreatinfluence on human life wasperceptibleinthem. From this sourcesprangthoseprejudicesagainstphilosophy,whichat first led eventomagisterialinterposition.1The samepointof view was1Cf. on thissubjectwhat contents of theirlectures,hePlutarch(CatoMaj. 22)relatesadvisedshould besentawayasof Catosbehaviourtotheem-quicklyaspossible.Also id.bassyofphilosophersas toap.Gell. xviii.7,3;Nepos ap!whomhefearedfromtheoutsetLactant. iii.15, 10;and tin;M-rbVi T&JAeyeij/supra,p 7,note4,which cen-Mfcvayairriffaifft/j.a\\ov TTJSfab surestherhetoricalschools : iUrui>epywvKalTUVffTpareiwv,andhominesadolescentulostotosdie*whom,after he hadheardthedesidere. TotheRomanstates-ECLECTICISM.also,however,maintained even in thepursuitandstudyofphilosophy.So far asphilosophywasconcernedmerelywith scientificquestions,itcouldscarcelyberegardedasanythingmorethan a respectablerecreation;itonlyattained to moreserious value intheeyesof theRoman, inasmuch"as itproveditself aninstrument ofpracticaleducation. Thestrengtheningof moralprinciplesandthetrainingfor thecallingof oratorandstatesman,these aretheaspectswhichprimarily amiprincipallyrecommendedphilosophicstudies to hisattention.Hut on thisveryaccount he wasnecessarilyinclinedtotreat themwithreference tothesepointsofview.Hecared little for the scientificestablishment andlogicaldevelopmentof aphilosophic system;thatwhichalone,or almostalone,concerned himwas itspractical utility;the strife ofschools,hethought,turnedmostlyonnon-essentialthings,and he himself could not therefore hesitate toselectfrom thevarioussystems,careless of thedeeperinterconnec-t ionofparticulardefinitions, that whichseemedto him.serviceable. TheproconsulGrellius,whomade thewell-meaningproposalto thephilosophersinAthensthattheyshouldamicablysettle theirpointsofdifference,andofferedhimselfasmediator,1expressedthetrulyRomanconceptionofphilosophy,thoughsomewhat toocandidly. Thoughtheinfluence ofthisstandpointwoulddoubtlesshaveaffectedGreekman and soldierphilosophyCic./>ieurushimself-Hutwhen wehavefollowedupiatcrEpi-a]1 the traceswhichmightseem toindicatethatindividualdisciplesofEpicurushaddeparted,eitherformallyormaterially,fromtheirmaster,1thesum1Acollection andexamina-which wecannotbutacknow-tion of these thevalue ofledge,thoughwemaynotTHEEPICUREANS.total of suchdepartureswhich can behistoricallyprovedis so inconsiderable that the well-knownjudgmentsof SenecaandNumeniusconcerningtheorthodoxyof theEpicureanslscarcelysuffersanylimitation from them. Welearnfrom Cicero2thatthetheoryofEpicuruswasnotseldomconceivedbyhis Romancompatriotsas if he had ascribed anindependentvalue to intellectual culture and tovirtue;butCicerohimselfadds,thatthisopinionisto be found in no scientificrepresentativeof theEpicureanphilosophy.3He tells us of someEpicureansof his time whoseparatedthemselvesfromEpicurus4bytheirtheoryof adisinterested love tofriends. It isdoubtful, however,whether thisshould beregardedas aradical deviation from theEuda!inonism ofEpicurus;the statement inquestiononlyasserts thatfriendsmaybeloved for theirownsake,evenwhentheybringusnoadvantage;5butthisdoesnotexcludetheideathatlove tothemis baseduponthepleasuresecuredbyintercourseagreewith all the inferences these laterphilosopherstoandconjecturesdeduced from be Siro and Ihilodemus;butthem hasbeenundertakenby thoughthis idea is notimprob-Hirzel,Untersuchunyen-zu Cic. ableinitself,it cannotbeasccr-i. 165-lJO,in connection with tained whetherit hasanyfoun-Duninp-,De Mvtrodori vita ft dation.sc-riptis, p.18srj>(/.5Cic. Fin. i.20, 69,thus ex-1Phil,derGr.III. i.p.H79,4.pressesit : Priinosconyressus2Fin. i.7, 25;17,55;cf.(andsoforth) fieri pro^tt-rPhil,der Gr. III. i.445,2.voluptatem,cum antem VSHS3Qiws quide-m (hemakesprogrediensfamiliaritatemeffe-Torquatus,i.17, 55,observecerit,turn amoremt-fflorcacertirespecting them)video essetantiim, ut,etiam si nulla sitmultos Kt dimperltos.iit ditasexamicttia,tamenijjui4Phil, der Gr. III. i.4GO,2. amid-projrfersei^sosamenta?.Hirzel,loc. cit.170sq., supposesECLECTICISM.withthem.1Suchadifferencecannot boconsideredofmuchimportance.Norare wejustifiedinascribinganalteration of theEpicureantheologytoPhilodemus, thoughhemay,perhaps,have carrieditfurther incertainparticularsthanEpicurushimself:2andthoughmany deviationsfrompureEpicureanismareperceptible3inLucretius,oncloserinspectiontheywill befound to refer totraitswhichmerelyconcern theform of thepoeticpresentation,but donotaffect thescientifictheories.41hi the in/m/i-]>rnjiti/gci/ixnn,asopposedto the lovebecause ofutility,there liesnothingmore than the conception of ;m atl ection basedupon delightin tin:personofaIriend,and not nierelv on ai-alculation ofbenefits. lint-ach an afleetion can also bebased on the motive ofpleasure. Tothisonlythe furtherargumentcan beapplied:A ffHi/H xiloca,gi fund,xiiirlira,xi//ymiiiixi/i,xicninpiiin,xii ntii-it,xir-*liiiUcru i .1-1 ri i iii/inut Tt iiitiniiCHHtuetinline ////-(innirixii/r/HHx,ijinnifiiid inhum iii iiHI fiiiitiiiet inlinefaciliiixfieripotin- fit i tjiixtinst!-Phil, der < ,r. III. i.-\:\r>,1.*Kilter,iv. S,)-1()G.4Kilter thinks(p. ill)thatNature and hercomponentpartsare describedbyLucretius at times in a much morevivid,and at timesin a muchmore detailedmanner,thant helifelessanduniformph\>icsof theEpicureanswould seemto havepermitted.Nature isconceivedbyLucretius as aInity,which rulesabsolutelyover all. The sun isdescribedas an essencewhichgeneratesthebirths ofUK;world;theearth,inanimatedlanguage,asthemotheroflivingcreatures;even theconjecturethat thestars arelivingbeingshedoesnot (;astaside(v.">:_ ;{,\v///.).1 hislast,however,accordingto v. ILLfiji/.,cannot be hisownopinion.What hereallysaysisonlyUK;samethatKpicurus(ap. Diog.x. 112)alsoexpressesin one of hishypotheticalexplanationsofNaturewithreference to earlier theories(Phil.derGr.1.245).toncern-ing,thcremainingpoints,liitterhimselfremarks that the descriptionsof thepoetcanonlybeintendedfiguratively;andthis is the casewith thepassageswhichperhapswouldbemostsurprisingformEpicurean(v.5IMfi/q.),when;Lucretiusdefends theEpicureantheorythat the earth isborneupbythe air(Diog.x.74)withtheobservation that the air is notoppressedbytheearth, becausethe earthwasoriginallyof onepiecewithit,justastheweightTHEEPICUREANS.2"Thesamemaybe said ofotherphilosophersamongthe laterEpicureansconcerningwhomtraditionhastold ussomething.Itmaybe that Zenoof Sidonappropriatedtohimself in the schoolof Carneadeslamoredialecticmethod,amodeofargumentgoingmoreacutelyandthoroughlyinto details than wefind inEpicurus;2orthatApollodorus3wassuperiortoEpicurusin historicalknowledgeand interest;4CHAP.II.of our limbs is no burden tous.Thoughthisstronglyremindsus oftheStoicsympathyof theuniverse,Lucretiuswillhavenothingto do with thattheory,andconsequentlydesignates thepartsof the worldonlyasquasimembra. Inanycase thisthoughtis withoutresult for the rest of hisdoctrine of Nature. He rathermaintains,as his ownopinion,theunityof Nature in thesamesense asEpicurusI.e. inthesenseofaninterdependencebroughtaboutbytheidentityofphysicaland mechanicallaws.Moreover,the doctrineof thespontaneousmovementoftheatoms(Lucr.ii.133,251sqq.)isEpicurean;andif,onthe otherhand,Lucretius isdistinguishedfromEpicurusbymaintainingmoretirmlytheconformityto law of naturalphenomena (Hitter, 97),wehavealreadyheard(Phil,derGr. III. i.397, 1)theexplanationofEpicurus,whichis confirmedbyhis wholesystem,that unconditionalnecessityrules in universalcauses,ifeven individualphenomenaadmitof variousconstructions.That Lucretius(ii.333sqq.~),departingfromEpicurus,assumesasmanyoriginal figuresof theatomsasthereareatoms(Ritter, p. 101)isdecidedlyamisapprehension, expresslycontradictedbythepassageii.478sqq. (whichRitter misunderstands).How little theethicsalso of theRomanEpicurean differed from those oftheancientEpicureanit wouldbeeasytoshowfromthepointsadducedbyRitter,p.104gq.Theagreementof LucretiuswitiiEpicurushas now beenexpoundedinthe mostthoroughmannerbyWoltjerinthetreatisequoted,Phil, der 6fr. III.i.363,1.1Of. I. c. III. i.373,2.2As Hirzelconjectures,Joe.cit. 176sqq., appealingtoCicero,Fin,, i.9,31;Tu.sc. iii.17,38;N.I), i.18,46sq.3TheKriiroTvpavvosdiscussedin Phil, der Gr. III. i. 373.4Hirzel,183sq., whoasserts,insupportofthis,thatApollodorus(accordingtoDiog.vii.181;x.13)hadcomposedaffvvayaiyr) Soy/j-drcav,and perhapshadjustifiedin it thejudgmentofEpicurusonLeucippus.(Phil,der Or. I,842,6).ECLECTICISM.we also find DemetriusmeetinganobjectionofCarneadeswithananswer whichleads ustosupposethat thisEpicureanhadgainedinlogicaltrainingthroughthe dialectic of theAcademy.1But thateither of thesephilosophersinanydefinition ofdoctrinematerially divergedfrom thedoctrine oftheir master is not maintained inany quarter.WhenDiogenesin hiscataloguementions certainmenwhowere calledSophists bythegenuine Kpi-cureaiiSjWehavenoreason to considertheseSophistsasmorethan isolated offshoots of theschool,or toarguefrom theirappearanceanydeeplyseated disagreementswithinit,oranychangein itsgeneralcharacter.-1In theexjxisition (mentioned in I art III. i.1571,I) ap.Sext. Mnih. viii.IMS,wherehemaintains,innpjxisitinnto the-tatement aboutargumentationdiscussed atp.">(M, and in harmonywith the distinction ofytviKi]andtiSiKy a7rd5ei|is,thatwhenevera valid.-eparate proofisadduced,the admissibilityoftheargumentis at onceshown.To him al-o,perhaps,belongswhat isquoted hySexttis,viii.3;JO;inanycase it showswhatinfluence the1objectionsof CarneadeshadmadeevenupontheEpicureans.-ThewordsinDiog.x.25proceedthus:(aftertheenumerationof several immediatedisciplesofEpicurus)KOIOVTOLfjLtv (\\6yt-u.0t,wvijVKO.I\\o\vffTpa-ros. . . tii/Sie5f|aTo Aiovvcrios,tii> Ba(r(Aei5rjs.nalAiro\h68wpos5 uKrjTrorvpav-i/osytyovtvf\\6yi^os,t>svirfpraTfTpa/cocriacrvviypatyfttfi\ia.bvoT6riTOAf,UCUO(AA6|ai/5p?S,o Tffj.f\asKO.L u\fvK6s.rL-\}viavff oSiSai^iysd/>poaTT)jAirpoii,tro\vypd(pos a.vr]pKalAri^TpuisftiriK\r]0ls A.O.KUV,&ioy4vr]sti oTapfffVi 6 ras tiri^tKTOvso-xoAasffvyypd^as,Kal^ZlpiwvKal aAAojovs olyvrjffioiEiriKovpeiot (rotpicr-raya.TruKa\ovffiv. Jlirxcl(/nr.fit. ISO.vyy.)hdicves thatthose namedSophists bythetrueEpicureansmust includeall the men here mentioned,fromApollodonisonwards,and thereforeApol-lodorushimself,the two 1tolc-i/i:ei,Zeno ofSidon,\-c. i!utthis isvery imjirobable,evenfrom tlie mode ofexpression.Had such beenthemeaningofthewriter,he must at leasthavesaid: travras Se TOVTOVS oiyvrtfftoi EiriKovpfLoiffofytffTasatro-Ka\ovKal robs^UETai Tov olyv-fjffioi EirtKovpeioifftxpiffTCisairoKa\ovcnv. Asitis,we canonlyrefer the wordsoCv a.TTOKa.\ovcrii either to the&\\OLalone,ortothe &\\oiandthe. namesimmediately precedingthem,Orion and Diogenes.Diogenes mayin thiscase be the samepersonmentionedbyStrabo,xiv.5,15;but this is notnecessarilytheas Strabo does not de-Diogenesas anEpicuand in the enumeraof thephilosophersofTarsus,theEpicureanDiogenesmayhave beenpassedover,aswell as thefarmorecelebratedStoic Zeno.Hut thepositiveargumentsagainstthesupposition of Jlirzel are still moredecisive.Accordingtothis,theEpicureanwith whomthementionofDiogenesoriginatesmust havepointedoutawholeseries ofEpicurean philosophers,whom he himself callseAA^yijuoias men who werenamedSophistsbythegenuineEpicureans,andconsequentlymembersoftheschool whohadbecome unfaithful to its truespirit.. How isthisconceivable?Ase\\6yipoi,hebadpreviouslymentionedMetrodorus,Her-marehus,Polyajnus,&c. in aword,the mostloyal disciplesofEpicurus;and is itlikelythat he wouldimmediatelyafterapplythe samepredicatetothosewhowerenotacknowledged bythegenuineEpicureans asbelongingto theirnumber? This is in itselfveryimprobable,but theimprobabilitybecomesgreaterstillwhenwefindthatamongtheseSophistsare two o:f themostdistinguishedleaders,Apol-lodorus and Zeno. Hirzelhasjustbefore(p. 170)shownthatonly Epicureansof thepuresttypeweresele^edasoverseersof the school;and we can allthe less concedetohimthatanApollodorusand a Zeno t he former,as hisdesignation proves,ahighly-esteemedheadof theschool;the latterregardedbyCicero and J :iilodemus as oneof the firstEpicureanauthorities could havebeen,in thejudgmentof theyvfjaiot onlypseudo-Epicurean Sophists.1Thisphysician, whosetheories areconstantlymentionedinthePlaeita ascribedto Plutarch,and in thewritingsofGalen,iscountedhy thepseudo-Galen, IKIII/.c.4,vol.xiv.683K,as one of the leaders of thelogicalschool ofphysicians.Accordingto Sext. Math.vii.20sq.,he was acontemporaryof AntiochusofAscalon. Videp.30,note 1.ECLECTICISM.CHAP.with theEpicureansensualism1in hisstatementthatthesensibleperception givesa trueimao-e ofthethingperceived,but thatreason,on the contrary,is not anindependentsource ofknowledge,borrows all itscontent fromperception,and hasto be verifiedby perception.-Inconnection withthis he found reasonsuperfluous,1as anintegral partof thesoul,hereingoingbeyondEpicurus:thesoul,hesaid,wasonlythewholecompoundedofall the sensescollectively;4towhich hegaveasSexl. M,,tJ,. vii. LOl. Thatprinripah,liint mr.sr//.^.v,quorumri/i-clared sensations to he therfirtiturprinriptile,fsivonrofcriterion oftruth. Antioehus whichAsdepiadesarmies thatshowsinjhesowords: iAAns Sfmanyanimals live for a timem fvTJI larptK]!fj.lv.Metros witIn.lit head orheart( the twotfVTfpos.airrAfj.tvosSt /ecu ir//tif. f-Jfrnim nihil ulnnJ IKK,-andalsobelievedinanintellec- ,/;,//nniinmni/iunnxrux ///.///t ual knowli-d-v of the hiddi-ninnniiimc/iiiini: intiUrctinni.yni -ansof inferencesfrom t he nut, inwcultn nnn IT! lul, ,iti ninperoiivi-d. Yidiinfni,note !rrrum//!H,,I:VlaTfiiiv. . .avaipovvTascmtibilibnxdtt/iieiinlcriilt .////fj.ivTOy-ytpoviKov.U.ii/.IJSO,perxpi-ctwnepcrticihirmi-moriiimhesays: ovSf oAajvirapxavn riroaliernfleorHm< xt:rntiodicit.iiyf/J-oviKiiv. Tert. !>< an. 1 ,"> : I lut. Iluc. iv.2,S(Stoh./:>/. i.Mi:tt. He alsospeaks1iitiii,ij)iu.d(Tai>TCi is to beread,accord- Sextus(,}f//f//. x.IMS)observesin and ]]picurusIpreviously understood t lie ex-representthings asarisiiiLTe|]r v-sion asapphin^to bodiesa.vop.oi() K.pr-iVr totziveto&i>o.p/j.rif/i one iinntliiT(sothat each sensiblealone,becausesensiblec.ycosi-separatedfrom theihinirs arealwaysin a state ofr and moves itself forUecoming:irora/toDSjKj/jpeoua rjs4SCLEFIADES.3these theories had been attributed to ;m acknow- CHAP.ledgedmemberoftheEpicureanschool, theywouldno doubt contain anoteworthydeparturefrom thedoctrine of themaster,but a?Asclepiadesis notdescribed a.s anEpicurean,they onlyshow in oneindividual case what seems in itself natural andprobable,viz.,that theinfluence ofEpicureanism,asof othersystems,was notstrictlyconfined withinthe limits ofthe school.34ECLECTICISM.CHAPTER III.THE STOICS:HOiiTHUS, rANjETIUS,rOSIDOMUS.CffAF.AMONGtheremainingschools ofphilosophy,that of, the Stoics wasthe firstwhich,inpartialdivergencer>. Tin- from its olderteachers,admittedforeignelements.Thisoccurred,however,subsequentlytoa still moreconsiderable extent in theAcademy,which,fromthefirstcenturybeforeChrist,was the chief seat ofeclecticism. ThePeripateticsseem,on thewhole,to havepreservedthe tradition of their school ingreaterpurity;but we shall find thatsome,evenamongthem,wereinclined towardsaneclecticcombination ofthat schoolwithotherstandpoints.In the school oftheStoics,theriseofeclecticismis connected with the namesofBoethu.s,Panastius,andPosidonius.SupposedAlreadyat thebeginningof the secondcentury}iVfj.fvyapTOVTOVnaffy-ChrysippustaughtthedoctrineT^VKO.\SidSox^T;yS6y/j.aririjstrcirvp- school,or he would not haveoJrrecosot|/e TTJS ^Ai/cias ej/So;aeras omittedtoappealto him.firurxfiv.*Concerningwhomcf. J/iil.~Neither of the witnesses d. Gr. III. i.46,1.speaksfromhis ownknowledge,4Ibid. III. \.71,1; 84,1.astheythemselvestell us. We5Jbiil. III. i. 74;84.?.">().i> 2ECLECTICISM.withthe Stoicempiricism, thoughitperfectlyharmonisedwith thePeripateticdoctrine.1Buttheattitude ofBoetlmsto theStoictheologyis still moreantagonistic.Foralthoughheheld,withothers,that (rod was an etherealsubstance,2hewouldnot admitthat He dweltin the world asits soul;and heconsequentlyrefused to describethe world as aliving being;3heratherassignedtheabode of theDeityto thehighest sphere,and representedHim asworkingfrom thenceupontheuniverse.4Asto thereasons whichdeterminedthe1Inrespectto vovs this isshmvn in 1hU.tL (lr.]\. ii. !!>()*////.Aristotlenowhere,indeed,describest lie.82,I!; >,%,"2;r,:?l, 2; :>3;cf. Eth. .V. i.7;10!>8, //,:i).2Stob. Eel. i. 00 :BoT)0osrhval6fpaOflivatrefp^i/aTo.In hisopinionof the soul also heremained faithful to the Stoicmaterialism.:ll>iog.vii. 14.!. The Stoicsdeclare the world to belivingand animate :B6i]ros 8tT)ffivOVK flvai /2ov ruvxlxr^ov.1hilo,sEtrrn. m. c. 1(5,p. 251,Jicrn. :^vx^l* ro^KOT/J.OUk a-ra Tovs avTi $o ovVTO.Su de6s -if thesewordsbelongtoi heexcerptfromlioethus, whichnowappearsto me mostprobable,at leastaccordingto thesense.4Dio.o;.vii. 1 IS : Borjflos5t firfi TTfpl tyiifftusovrriav fleovT?;iruvb.Tr\a.v}vcrtycupav,whichistobeunderstood in thesamewayasthecorrespondingdefinitionsofotherStoics(7V///.d. ,butbelief,not that he himselfonly avyr;(onwhichcf.J/i.il. d. shared it.PANsETIUS..39connectionof whichwiththephenomenaportendedhesoughtto discover.1With Boethus is associated his celebratedco-disciplePaneetius,2notonlyin hisoppositionto thedoctrine of thedestruction oftheworld,butalso intheindependentattitudeheassumed to the tradition of hisschool,and in his readiness to allowentranceto other views. Thisdistinguishedandinfluentialphilosopher,thechief founderof KomanStoicism,wasborn,it wouldseem,about 180B.C.,inRhodes,3andwasintroduced to the StoicphilosophybyDiogenesandAntipater.4Heafterwardswentto1Cic. Diriii. i.8,13 :Quisi/jiturdirt-re causasprfexen-sionum potest?Etsivideolloe-thum StoifuiH. cageconatum,qiiiItactcints(onlysofar) illiquidcf/it,nt etirto/t. rationemrenimexplicaret,qiwin mariccclovcJit-rant.Ibid. ii.21,47: 3> amftprognoaticorum causas perse-cidi suntetBoethusStincus . . .et . . . Pout (Ion ins. In bothpassagestheemphasisfallsonthe cauxrt-prognosticorum,thenatural connection betweenprognosticandresult.-VanLynden,DC Pana-twRlwdio, Leiden,1802.3Concerninghisnativeplacethere is nodoubt(rideStrabo,xiv.2, 13, p. 6.15).On theother hand,wearetoldnothingof theyeareitherof his birthordeath,andtheycanonlybeapproximatelydeterminedfromthe factsthat he attendedthediscourses ofDiogenesofSeleu-cia;in 143 B.C. as anopenly-recognisedphilosopher,accompaniedScipiotoAlexandria,andwasnolonger livingafter110 B.C. VanLynden placeshis life between 185-112 B.C.The Ind. Here.Comp.C;>1. 51(cf.Phil. d. Gr. III. i.33,2)namesNicagorasas hisfather,and in Col. 55 mentions histwoyoungerbrothers. Thathe wasofgoodfamily,we knowfromStrabo. I.e. WhenHuidas,subrace,distinguishesfromthecelebrated 1anaetius a secondandyoungerPanajtius,thefriendofiScipio,this ismerelyaproofof hisignorance,as isabundantlyshownbyVanLynden,p.5sqq.4Diogenesis mentioned ashis teacher in the Ind. Here.Col.51, 2;andbySuidas,Havalr. :Antipater, by Cicero,Dirin. i.3,6. Hispietytowards the latter ispraisedbythe Ind. Here. Col. 60. ISesidesthese,accordingto his ownstatement(ap.Strab. xiv.5, 16,p. 676),he heard Cratas ofMallos inPergamus.I o .emoalso,thePeriegete,is,onchrono-CHAPISO B.C.40ECLECTICISM.// n-ai-(/,:, ,,Koine.Apjidintnhttn!oftin- Sii >icin AtlitiuRome,1where lielongremained aninmate of thehousehold ofJScipio Africanus,theyounger.2ScipioandLa-liuswerehisfriends7)7.).seemscorrupt.Cf. I .ern-hinlyin Inc..VanLynden,. ,( ,nij.1Whetherthisoccurred aftertiicAlexandrianjournsy,andwhetherPatuetiusvisited Koineclhis ownaccord, orwasinvitedthen:by others,traditiondoesnotinform us.Plutarch(C.Iriitc. 1ltilnsojih.i.12,p.777)presupposesthat Pan;etiu> wasnot in Rome whenScipioin-viled liim toaccompanyhim.I .utSci;iomust have bvnalreadywellacquaintedwithhim tohavegivensuch aninvitation.-\"K!I- thefollowing note,and Cic. l>,-i> Mnr. \\\,C.d;Veil. Patere. i.i:i,I!. Howlotitr Iaiuetiiis wasin Koinewedo not know;but as hecamethither atlatest after theAlexandrianjourney,thereforein 142Ji.c.,andprobablyb 1 : >()li.c.,we 11111--)supj)osethat he workedhere for aconsiderable number ofyears.Vellejus say>thatSeipi,"hadhimwithhimdmiti mini i^i/m,and the Inil. II, re. ( !..")(i, 2.seems tospeakas if heaccompanied Scipioto thearmy.:iCic. Fin. iv..,+;>, [[.s, 21.Ojy.i.20,.(();ii.22, 7(i.(iell,-\. A. xvii.21,1. SuidasUavair.Ilo\v/3ios.4I "ttlcxiiprn, p.10,-;Position.ap.Pint. /.c.,:\w\Ai>n/>l(tlii i/m./;/./imp.Sci-iji..Mln.i:j,w/.p. 200;Athen. xii. 5l.,d.(whereriocrtiSwrios is inanycast; aslipof thememoryforUavainus, which,however,isrepeatedxiv. (I."",sv/.).Cf.Justin. i/!st. xxxviii. 8.liJut/. Hire. Col. ~>:>: Std5oXostyevtro rf/sA^rnrdrpuv tr^o\ris.Cf. these furtherstatements;that hedied inAthens(Suid.) ;that hedid nota.L ainreturn toKliodes(Cic.Time. v.37,107) ;that he was oll ered therightofcitizenshipinAthens,butdid notacceptit(Procl.inJfcsintl. E. xa.1H/j.. 707,nodoubt afterPlutarch);that there was in Athens aPANMTIU&,headuntil about 110 B.C.1ThathehadpreviouslyLeen active in a similarcapacityin his nativecityisnotlikely.2As teacher andauthor,3scholar and11!.socieiyfor common mealscalled Pametiasis(Athen. v.1S6, ii/i,u\it ailj)/-r-thenecessityofcritical exami-tmtncntlnm,ut nihil ncc.rc/it/i-nation,randyfelt in histime,iarii/niih-ni jmnxif ti/ifhix.for ais notaffectedbythis. Ontliephilosopherwho assumed theotherhand it is in i In-InLdie-t destructionof the worldwoulddegreeimprobablethat the as- have had nooccasion to laythesenion of hishavingdenied chiefstress on ir< durability.Platosauthorship ofthe/"//Wo N ordoesCic. A. />. ii.:>:!, S;">,restsupon anyother -roundofferanycontradiction : if thethan amisunderstanding,as 1 Stoic does not here come to ahave shownconciselyin Pandecisionwhetherthe worldwillII.ff, 884, 1,andmoreat length last forever oronlyforan in-in the (tnnmeiitittioneit Moulin-delinitelylongjieriod.this doesxcniiOH/-,]).1()7xi/.\cf. ln.1.notprovethathehadnoojilnion1J>KII/.vii. 142: nai/a:Vtoy 5 about it. butonlythat it is not&. 21S,purpose,theproofof a world-Hr,-n.(\\\l,( . If. 1H7}].):Binitiusforming intelligencetobringyovv6 ZiSdviosKalllavairios . . . thisquestioninto discussion.rastKirvpwrreisKalira\iyyfvfrepoi> Soy-the world ismentioned, /. ellat, hi/jushanounamsententiam, deimmortali-tate ammorum nonprobnt.Vultcnim,quodnemonet/at,quirquidnatum sit intfrirc:iiagii autcmanimos . . . alterantautem adfertrationem : nihilesse,qnoddolvat,quinida-grumECLECTICISM.(rur.hereckonedonlysixdivisions in the soulinstead ofthetraditionalright ;for heincludedspeechunderthevoluntary motions,andascribed sexualpropagation,not to thesoul,hut to thevegetablenature.1wetjiiiijiii /iti.-Kif :i]u,l(intern not tointernal diseaseanddis-t,t morTiuma\-doubtedit;andCicerosaysex-7771710t-nim.t/f//t/i-airdtftia ///pressly (infra, p.4.),2)that he innituiititm,int/iiit,xt-dquoruit-did not. When Hitter(iii. (VJ9)//tint rtiiini r,riaini.s not anIII. i.p.21!)sq.The Stoicevil,butonly enquired: Q-uiddoctrineisonlythatpleasureessetetquale,quantumqueineoisathingindifferent(a5ia(f>opo ),fgxctalieni-,dcindcqtxcrutiwith which thetheoryof a estetperferendi.ST RELATION TO STOICISM.49wiseman,butonlyfor thosewho aremaking pro-CHAP.gressin wisdom;and for this reason it does nottreat of theKaTop6u>/u,a,butonlyof theKaOijtcov.1Meanwhile,however,all this contains noreal deviationfromthe Stoicethics, andwhatweare otherwisetoldconcerningthe moral doctrines of Pametius isinharmonywith them.- Hisdivergencesfromthetraditionaltheologyofhisschoolweremoreconsiderable. It canonlybe the doctrine of Pansetiusin*whichhisscholar,MuciusScsevola,putsforward(liket/li:"^ffy-Varro3at a laterperiod),whenhesays4that thereare three classes ofgods,thosespokenofbythepoets, bythephilosophers,andbythe statesmen.Thenarratives of thepoetsconcerningthegodsarefull of absurdandunworthyfables :they representthegodsasstealing, committingadultery,changingthemselves intobeasts,swallowingtheir own children,&c. On theotherhand,philosophictheologyis valueless to states(itdoes notadoptitself to a1This at least results from sets forth the claim of lifeCicerosexposition, Ojf.iii.3, accordingtonature;ap.Cic.1Hsq.;alsoap.Sen.Ej>.116, 5, Off.iii.>,11sq.; 7, 34,he de-ParuLtiuswouldfirstof allgivedaresidsi)lwnboniim,qiMdrswtpreceptsfor thosewho arenothotwxttim;ap.Stob. Ecl.u.112,yetwise. Inreply totheques-hecompares particulardutiestionof ayouthas to whether the witli marksmenaimingfromwise man will fall inlove, he differentstandpointsat thesaysth;,ttheywill both do samemark. WhatCiceroquotesbetter tokeepthemselvesfrom(Off.ii.14,51)has also ansuch anagitationofthemind, analogy(PJiif. d.dr.III.i.263)astheyare notyetwisemen. with the ancient Stoics. TheForfurtherdetailsconcerningutterance inOff.ii.17, 60,isthe treatise ofPaiisutius seetrulyZenouian.Iliil. d. dr. III. i.p. 273,2763Cf.infra, chaptervii.Vnrro.sl-4AccordingtoAugustine,-Ap.Clem. Alex. Strum, ii. fir. 1). iv.27,whoseauthority416,D;Stob. Eel. ii.114,he wasdoubtless Varro.E)ECLECTICISM.CHAP.public religion),for it containsmany thingsthe11Lknowledgeof whichis eithersuperfluousorprejudicialto thepeoph>;under thelattercategory,Scavolaplacesthe twopropositionsthatmanyofthepersonageshonouredasgodsasHeracles,.-Esculapius,theDioscuriweremerelyhumanbeings,andthegodsare not inappearanceastheyarerepresented,for thetrueGodhasnosex,noage,andnomembers.1Fromthis itnaturallyresulted2that theexistingreligioncouldonlyberegardedasaconvenientpublicinstitutionin the service oforder,andthat theauthorsofit mustregulatethemselvesin their doctrineofthegodsaccordingto thepowerofcomprehensionin the masses.Thoughwedonot knewwhetherI ana-liuswasthe first tobringforwardthis discriminationof a threefolddoctrineof thegods,3we mustatanyrate assume thatin histheology,asin that of the men who forthemostpartadoptedit ScaYola,Varro,andSenecaathoroughlyfree attitudeto thepopularreligionfoundexpressionand wasjustified:thoughit is notknownthateitherofthem,in theallegoricalinterpretationofmyths,which was somuchinfavour withthe Sroicsand from which1Amongthoseportionsof Gr.III. i.317, 25)this isphilosophicaltheologywhichtreated asbelongingto theareunnecessaryfor thepeople,Stoicsuniversally;but theconcerningwhichAugustineis Stoicfrom whom the authorsilentwe mustreckontheof the Plncitu here takeshispurely philosophicdoctrines, excerptcanonlyhavebelongedincomprehensibletohim.to the laterperiod,which is2Varrusaysthis more deli-alsoindicatedbytheappealtonitely.riato>l -6)3sInthe Placita(cf.Phil.a.PANsETIUS RELATIONTO STOICISM. 51no Stoic could everentirely escape,1wentbeyondCTIAP.themostgeneraldeterminations.PaiKetiusplaced__,__himselfinopenoppositiontothe Stoictradition,onapointwhich the school was accustomed to consider ofthehighestimportance namely,in his disbelief ofsoothsaying,mentioned above:2herein,he seemsto haveacceptedthe criticism of Carne-ades.3Wecannot, however,onthisaccountconvicthim ofdesertionfromthe Stoicprinciples,4since theStoaof thattimeacknowledgedhim as one of itsmembers.5Ills relation to his schoolis,nevertheless,ofquiteanotherkindfrom that of Antiochusto the laterAcademy: he remained true in themain to its doctrine;yetin histheories,and hisattitude towards the earlierphilosophershe unmistakablytendsto anunderstandingwithpointsofviewregardingwhich Stoicism had hitherto beenaccustomed to maintain apurelyhostileposition.1Tide Phil. (J. dr. III. \tai\" ae dixit.SimilarlyAiad. ii.33,107. Meanwhilewe see from 1)1 cin. i.7, 12, atyovflvai TOVirepl6eov\6yov.that hepropoundedhisdoubts5i^it/>rft, p.42,2.pretty decidedly,and fromGSomeotheropinionsquotedDi-ciii.ii.-i2, 88; 17,97(cf. Phil, fromPautaetiusareunimportantE 262ECLECTICISM.CHAP. ThatPanatius,inadoptingthismodeofthought,_did not stand aloneamongthe Stoics of thattime,isproved,notonly bywhat we have seen above ofthe deviations of Boethus from the Stoicdoctrine,but alsobywhatweare told of hisfellowdisciples,t; ,"HeraclidesandSosigenes.TheformeropposedtheHera-Stoicpropositionconcerningtheequalityof all]til.d.(, r. III.12.xv/,y.)j 5eLynden (72.v/y.)mentions -rivesavrwv, rrjsApi(rrorf\ovsamonicthese hisopinionre-8o|r)vvintpovaKovffaiSvvjidfvrfs,spectingcomets(Sen.AW/. (), 2);histheorythat At-irtpl KpdtreiasKal avTol\tyovffiv.tica,onaccount of itshealthy2n> fls tffnKa.lSiafftyfiiis,fraiposclimate, produced giftedmenAvrnra.Tpov(cLihi/l.Ill.i.pAS).(Prod,in Tim. .")()eeausetheycouldnot,on1lato,Tim.2t, ardanustiimj>-rin-ci/H-s Woicorinn. From Iiid.Her,-. Col.51, 53,78,cf. Eint.JJUH/.,it follows that Darda-ims was likewise; an Athenianand adiscipleofDiogenes,Antipater,and Panretius. Ashowasat. thesametimecalledthesuccessorofPanaitius,hewouldseem to have conducted theschool incommon with Mnesarchus. Their successor wasprobably (as Zumpt supposes,Abb. d. Berl.Acad. Jfisf. Phil.A7.1812,p. 10.-)) Apollodo-rns ofAthens,whom CicerodescribesasacontemporaryofZeno theEpicurean (J\r. U. i.34, it;{)and the Lid. HITC. Col.53,namesamong:thedisciplesofPantetius,butwho is to bedistinguishedfrom the Seleu-cian beforementioned,withwhomZumptconfuses him. Hisleadershipof the school musthave fallen in thebeinnin,xiv. 1,48,p. 650),of whomnothing-furtheris known.Asclepio-d otus,ofXiciea( Lid.Here.Col.73).Damocles of Messene(ibid.76,4). D e me tri u s theBi-thj-nian(///or/.v.84;///,-/. Here.Col.75),withwhomIds fatherDiphilusisalsomentionedasa Stoic. Tohimbelong,asitappears,the twoepigramsinAn-tliol. Gr.ii.64,J/tc.Dio nysiusofGyrene,agreatgeometrician(Iiid.Jhrc.52).Gcorgi usof Lacedivmon(Ind.Here.76,5).Hecato ofRliodes,whosetreatise onDuties, dedicatedtoTubero,isquotedbyCicero,Cf.iii. 15,63 :23,8(Jsyy.Fromthesametreatise,if notfromaseparatework of his own onBenevolence, Seneca seems thave taken thegreaterpart01whathequotesfromhim(Sen.Jlcncf.i.3,9;ii.18, 2, 21, 4;iii.18,1;vi.37,1;Ep.5,7;6,7; 9,6. Several otherworks,some of themcomprehensive,arequoted by Diogenes (seehisIndex),who,accordingtotheepitome (inwhich 1 oserightlysubstitutes EKO.T. forKdrav),had dedicated to himhis ownbiography.The Bi-thyniansNicander andLyco(Ind.Here.75. 5; 76,1).Mnasagoras(Kpit. u).Pa-ramonus of Tarsus(Tnd.Here.74, 77).Pausanias ofPontus(ibid76,1).Platoof Rhodes(iJiog.iii.109).1 osi doni us(cldc, infra).Sosus of Ascalon(Ind.Hero.75,1; Steph. Uyz.De Urb.A,]>.li.Vi)a> ;i Stoic, iiiid liv t lieJnd. II, re.17,8,cf. 7!*.as adiscipieof Paiiietiusandantliorof a \vi Hk oil t lie Stdie school.Tiinoc1 i-s of Knosos or ( nidus(liul.11< ,;. 7C-.-)Ant i-dot us alsoappearsto Lavebelongedto tiie school ofrun;etius orMnesarcliiis, asaccordingto I ml. Ilrre.Cul. 7:.AntipaterofTyre, seemsat lir-tt-i have been hisdiscipleandafterwardsthediscipleofStratoeles. Also thepoetAn-t ipat er of Sidon( /tin;/,ili.:\.i),of whom the A>// //::>/containsmany epigrams(riilrJac.ol). Anthill,fir. xiii. S|i,),belongsto thegenerationafteri an;eiins Accordingto ( icero(]>,drat. iii. :>(\Ilil)IM| wasalreadyknown about(.I2 i,.e.,and st illliving: and t he >arneauthor ref(-rs to an event inhis life(it,/;/, :;,."),whichPosidoninswouldseem to havequoted.I)lot i inus,orTheo-timus,must have beena contemporary,ora littlelater;thesame, who,accordingto ///.x.li,forcedimmoral letterswith the nameofKpicurus(perhapsalso the samepersonthatis(]UotedbyScxt.Math.vii.140):for, accordingto Athen.xiii. (>11, />,hewasexecuted forthisattheinstanceofXenotheEpicurean(Phil.d. Or. III. i.10-0-Concernini;ScylaxofHaHcaniassus,celebj-ated as anastronomer andpolitician,welearn from(ic. Jtirin.\\ -I:.,SS,1 hat lie wasa fiiend of I ana1-tius,and.likehim,anopponentofastrology.Thai hebelongedto the school (if theStoics,isnot, however,said. In re.ardto Nestor ofTarsus,it is not.quiteclear whether he was afellowdiscipleor adiscipleofI atiii tius,or lived at a latertime. Strabo(.xiv.."ill,p.C71)mentions him afterAntipaterand Ardiedemus and beforethe two Alhen.id,,ri(discussediii/fti, p.71);the I-jiifiiiiofI >i.Irenes,sidebyside withDardanus and otherdisciplesof IMosellesof Seleiicia, beforeAntiiiater. On t lie otherhand,accordingtoLucian,Miicroh.Ll,the StoicNestorofTarsus,had been the teacher of Tiberius,which,as acontemporaryofPaiuetius,inspiteoftheninety-two yearslife hereattributed tohim,hecould notpossiblyhavebeen. Wemightconjecturethat the so-calledI.ueian had mistaken t he Stoic;Not or for thephilosopheroft heAcademyofthesamename(mentioned?///7Y?, }i.l(i2,1),theteacher of Marcellus(whomayalsohave instructed Tiberius),and that the; Stoic wasacontemporaryof Pana-tiiis.lietween Xestoratid DardanustheJ-J/>itin//tintroduces a P.a-silides.This, however,wasprobablynot the teacher ofMarcus Aurelius(infra,ch.viii.) but anotherwise unknownSCHOOLOFPAX.-ETIUS.55doctrineof theAcademyalready approximatedtothat doctrineinhisownexpositionof it;!andthathis viewsresembledthoseof his masteron otherpointsbesidespsychology,of whichthis isexpresslystated.2OfHecato,weknowthatheconsiderablydeparted fromthe strict ethicaldoctrineoftheStoicsCHAP.III.memberof the school of Diogenes;for the former couldnothavebeenplacedhere,andwas no doubt earlierthan thesource of the Stoicbioiiraphiesof the Laertian.BesidestheGreeks,therewerethellomanswhom Pametiushad for disciplesinHome,and someofthem alsoperhapsafterwardsinAthens.Themostimportantof these,Q..EliusTubero,Q. 3111 c i us ScMv o 1 a,C. Fannius,P. KutiliusKufus,L. ^liiis,M. Vi-gellins,Sp.Mummius,havebeenalreadynamed(sujmi,p.10sfj.~).Furtherwemaymention: AcertainPiso,ofwhomwe knownothing-more(Jncl.IIm.Col.~il,6),butaccordingtothetheoryofComparettihe was the L.CalpurniusPisoFr u gi, who wasconsulini:}:i B.C.;SextusPom])ejus(Cic.DeGrid.1. c.and i.15,l>7;Brut. 47, 175; Off.i.0,1 J;l>hUij>j>.12, 11,27),a distinguishedauthorityoncivillaw,geometry,andthe Stoicphilosophy;amlL.LuciliusP>al-bus(DeOrat.iii.21,78: Brut.42, 151) ;for thatthetwolastowedtheir Stoicism to Pantu-tius is mostprobable.On theother hand,Q.LuciiiusP>al-bus(Cic.N. U.6, 15)seemstobetooyoungforthis.When,therefore,we hearinDeOrat.iii.21,78(supposeddate itl15.C.),of two Balbi whowereStoics,one of thesemustbemeanttogetherwithathirdof the samename,Besidesthese the Tnd. Jlt-rc. Col. 74narncsthe Sanmites MarciusandNysius;which latterintroducedthe cnrovSaioTaToi(indistinctionfromthe crirovS-cuoC)as aseparateclass.1Nothingelse haseverbeenquotedfrom himexceptanutteranceagainst unphilosophi-cal rhetoric(a)).Cic. De Orttt.i.18, 8:>),alogicalobservation(ap.Stub. J-JcI. i.-i:5(i)>an(1 adefinitionof God(ibid.fiO).Thesepassages contain nothingdivergentfrom thegeneralStoicdoctrine.2Galen,//. F/til. 20(Diels,Dojnt/r. (515):V\.v-i]ffapxos 5eTIJV^TWLKWVl!1TO\r]^iV tTTLKpivWVTObv(KCUadd.D.)TC>ffwep-s did not reckonit accordrbatV0jTi/c(!j/,the latterbeingnaturallyagaindivided intothe tivesenses,with which wecome back to Panrutius sixfacultiesofthe soul.ECLECTICISM.CHAP.III.in itsapplicationtoindividualdetails;1inthisrespecthe wascertainly anticipatedby Diogenes;buttradition tells usnothingfurtherofthesephilosophers.Eathermorehas herncommunicated to us respecting Posidonius,2aSyrianofApame.a,3whos.-long activityseemstohaveextendedover,ornearlyover,the first halfof the lir.-tcentury.4Adisciple1J liil. d. df. III. i. LT.:>. _. one. or the most known(?i\8eMap/ceAAou),and thus showshimself(asin thestatementdiscussedxii/>ra,p. 41,i)tobeimperfectlyinformed ;;s toPosidonius:andpartlybecausewe-houldneces-arilyexpec!tofindsome trace of hispresencein Jioiiic inCicero,all of whose,philosophicalwritings,and agreatpartof hishitters, werewritten at a latertime. Perhapstheeirciimstanee thatunder M.Marcellus theleagueof thelilmdiaiis with 1, muewasremnved(Lenfuliis,in fi,-.adF/nnil. xii.1")) ---possibly,however,amerelyclericalei-mrmayhave caused thejnn;cywhichoccurred inthelast consulate of Marius(i />(/,ji.~>~, L)to beplacedunderthat of.Mareellus. Miiller(I.e.p. -Mf>)believesPosidonius tohave been tenyears youngerthan he isrepresentedaccordingto rheordinarytheory.Hebasesthispartlyon the assertion of Athen. xiv.057,/.,thatStrabo, I!,vii.,said that hehad knownPosidonius;partlyonStrabo,xvi.2,10,p.75;j(riofrfiS.TUIV xad-r)/j.as ^iAo-aotbuviro\v/j.adf(TTa.Tos); partlyon Pint. Unit,i.,wheresome-liqiriirI)odrin ; Af/nn. vi.L.il,) that,accordingtoSuidas,he cameto Home under the consulateof M. Marcellu.s(;,1 B.C.).Accordingly]!ake, and sub-e-(juentlyalmost all tin; authorities,believe t hat he sva> biirn in13") H.C. and died in 51J:.c.l!nt the sia eiueni of Suidas(notwithstanding Scheppi^r, p.10)seems to mesusjneious;partlybecause it isnotprobablethat Posidonius as an oldmanof more thaneiirhty yearsjourneyeda second time toRome;partlybecause Suidasspeaksas if this visit of I nsi-donius to RomeweretheonlyPOSIDONIUS.57ofPanfctius,1lie also visited the countries of theWest,asfarasGades,2butnottoseekaspherefor hisCHAP.III.tilingisquotedfromPosidoniuswhich seems to have beenwritten after Caesars death.But the last is not correct;thequotationfrom Posidoniuscontains no allusionto Civsarsmurder. Fromthexaff-rj/j-aswecanonlyinfer at most thatthe lifetimeof Posidonius hadtouched that ofStrabo,whichwould also havebeenthecaseif Posidonius had died in 50B.C. MeantimeWyttenbachinBake,p.2(>3arj.,showsthat theexpressionis not seldomused,evenbyStrabo in a widersense. TheacquaintanceofStrabo with Posidoniusmaystill be held withoutplacingthe death of Posidoniusmuchbeyond50 r,.c. For as Strabo(ride infra, p.73,//.)went toRomeas aboybefore theyear44,perhaps(as Schcppig, p.1 1sq, thinks,agreeingwith Ha-sen-Miiller,ZteStrab.Vita,18)in4(5-7,oreven in 48B.C.,hemight possiblyhave seen thePihodianphilosopherin hislaterdays. Scheppigthereforeplaceshisbirth in130B.C.andh:.s death in 40 B.C. Evenon thisassumptionsufficienttime would not be found fortheirstruction which Posidonius received fromPanretius.It isthereforequestionablewhetherwe candepend uponthestatement ofAthemtus.This statement occurs at thesameplacewhere Athenseusalsomaintainsthat PosidoniushadbeenwithScipioinEgypt(itujmi, p. 40,5),andmaybefoundeduponamistake aswell as the latter statement.Itrelates, perhaps,not to apassagein the lastpartofStrabos seventhbook,but toC.3, 4,p.297(ec-re j/ elTreTlofftiSuiiios),or c.5, 8,p.316,where areportof Posi-donius isquotedconcerninganeventthatoccurredinhisperiodofoffice,which an inaccuraterecollectionmighthaverepresented to Atherueusasan oralcommunication. But if thetwo statements which occasioned thedeath of Posidoniustobeplacedinorbefore51B.C.,concerninghis visit to PomeunderMarcellus andhismeetingwithStiabo,are bothuncertain,thepossibilityis notexcludedthat hemayhavebeenbornsomeyearsbefore135 B.C.and mayhave diedbefore51 B.C.1Cic.Off.iii.2,8;liirirt.i.3, 6;Suid. videsitjtra, p.41,9.2Thetraces of thisjourneyarepreservedin Strabosquotations from Posidonius. Wehere see that Posidonius remained alongtime inSpain,especiallyat Gades(iii. 1, 5,p. 138;c.5, 7-9, p.172,174;xiii.1,GO.p. 614);fromthencehe coastedalongthe Africanshores toHaly(iii. 2, 6;xvii.3, 4,p. 144,827);that hevisited Gaul(iv.4.5, p. 198),Liguria (iii. 3, 18,p. 165),Sicily (vi.2.7,p. 273),theLipariislands(vi.2,11,p. 277),theeast coast of the AdriaticSea(vii.5, 9,p. 316).That hedidnotneglectthisopportunityofvisitingHomemaybetaken58ECLECTICISM.CHAP.III.teaching;1this hefound inRhodes,2whore lie wassocompletelynaturalisedthat lie isfrequentlycalledaRhodian.3Hisnameattracted numerousscholars,andespeciallyRomans;therefore,althoughhe neverhimselftaughtinRome,he mustcertainlybereckonedamonglliemen who did most for thespreadofthe StoicphilosophyamongHu.Romans;4forgranted.II,.camea secondlimefromRhodesunderthelastconsulate of Alarms(St! n.c.)on busincs.-s to Home(Pint,Mr.-I:.), while,(Mi the otherhand,ihesupposedvisit in theyear.", I seems IDme,as 1 have.shown,improbable.1Atanyrate,we have nottheslijlitt s int iiiiatimi nt s;;eha design. 1 ho chiefpurposeof thisjourneyrather (.(insisted,as lar as \ve cangather,ingeographicalandhistoricalinvestigation.Thedate, seemstohe t he beiiinningofthe lir.-tcentury,soon alter the warwith the(linihri : cf. S,rabo,vii. L,L,L".i:;. For furtherconjectures,r;r/rScheppig,p.1.xv/y.-At what time he went tollhodesand \\iiat induced himto settle there,weare not told ;but as thejourneyin the westmust haveconsumed severalyears,it i> t . besupposedt hatheonlycommenced hi^activity;us ateacher.-ub--equcnt Hr.3Athen. vi. L."i2,c; Luc.Macrnh. Ill;Suid. From Luc./. c.;Strabo, xiv. L.l:;,p.>;:,:, :vii.5, 8,].HHJ: I lut.Mar. C,;we lind that hereceived theHhodiancitizenship,and tilledpublicollices even that of aTrytan is.4We can at onceperceivethis from the manner in which( icero men!ionshim,t realinghimthroughoutas a manwellknown to his Human readers;cf.,Torexample,,\". J>. i. 1L,1 Li! : I\i>ni/-itiri.t inn ilium /IHK-triniirallow sonuiehspaceexternalx/>/.)we haveevidence intotheworld,aswouldbeneces-trabosnumerousquotations.saryfor the worlds fW,W>Concernn- theenquiriesintoThecontrarystatement innaturalhistorywhich he com- 1hilo, JEtern.Mundi, wherel)int (1vvith hlsgeographicalinthepassage quoted ,nnr,,\soriptions,rufrI///A/,p.p. 44, I,was read(previously|L-> A -" "fhistorical toHernayscorrection),insteadhave lain in ofHOT;(for . i. :,,,,,.)tomyex>.elusion ol Iolybiusshistorytionof thetheory(,f 1 osido-(1 i.C.)to ss is.c. For])jllsfurtherdetails,r/^-Hake.p.-Knrtliordetailswill bei:W*//jr..IMS ,Ill :Trtpl Sijolvtlierelearn (hat 1osi.loniu^ h.-.lTT,SyfvtofusKO)T?,-;0opS.tTOVtreated ofpn.phecvnot onlvK..WVr,,rl Zfatavulv tv rin the2ndbook of hisQwiicbsv;ptb\ov, Xuun-iTTTruy 5 eV ro5Arfyos,but also in aseparatea-puTifTV-;QuiriK-uivKal UotreiSui-anlcomprehensivebook;thatno? tV irf>^rjTrir^i Kixrumi, Sec. IK;sought toestablish belief inHavalrios 5&luteven if this werenot initselfunnecessary,theconjectureiswhollyexcludedwhen ithas beenshown thatPosidonius entertained no doubtof theconflagrationof theworld.Posidonius"belief indemonswouldalreadypredisposehim tobelieve in afuture life(untiltheendoftheworld) ;forhewhoallowstheexistence ofimmortal soulsgenerallyhas nogroundfordenyinghuman souls to beimmortal. But we also learnfrom Cicero(/.c. c.31,63sq.)thatPosidoniusmaintainedthatdying personshad thegiftofprophecybecause(forthereis no doubt that thisargumentalsobelongstohim)thesoul which even insleepdetaches itself fromthebody,and thus isrenderedcapableoflookingintofuturity,miiltomagisfaohtpostinorient,cumomninocorporaesrci xscrit. Ita-q-ucadpropinqiiantemortemultoeatdivinior.As, moreover,it hasneverbeen said inanyquarterthatPosidoniusdoubted thelife of the soul afterdeath,thoughCiceroespeciallyhadeveryopportunityofassertingit,we have not theslightestgroundfor theassumption.Bat whether we arejustifiedingoingstillfarther,and ascribingto him thePlatonicdoctrineof theeternityof thesoul will bediscussedinfrap.07,4.3Phil. d.Gr. III. i.62,1.CHAP.III.ECLECTICISM.CHAP, if selfwasalreadylikelytocause acertainindiffer-_encetodogmaticcontroversies. Theadornment of7/V.s-!,;,>/ speechand thegeneralintelligibilityof discoursehad also forPosidonius a valuewhichtheyhadnot for theolder Stoics;he is notmerelyaphilosopherbut arhetorician,andeven in hisscien-tilieexpositionlie does not belie thischaracter.1If,Erudition,lastly,lieexcelled mostphilosophersilllearningthen-laytherein anattempttowork,even inphilosophy,rather on thesurface than in tin;depfhs;and it cannot begainsaidthat hewasinclined toignorethedifferencebetweenphilosophicenquiryand eruditeknowledge.2[f theinterest in naturalscience wasstrongerin him than was usual in theStoicschool,thiscircumstancemightalsocontributeto tarnish thepurityof hisStoicism, and to brim?3him nearer to thePeripatetics.3Hisadmirationfifrd\\aiv (inSpain;titaivuv KU!theGoldenage.IVrha]rVapf-ri/yaimawtxtTai T?)Vrrwi/-responsiIdealso forwhatStrabo7?0ousfaToptlas,a\\a truvtvOov-says,i.1,that asphilosophyisffia TCUJinrtp0u\ais.Kventho theknowledgeofthings humanfr..Amentawepossessaresome-anddivim-(/ /:58,times ornate instyle,butI!),soiri>\uu.d.0cia. canbelongtoalwayswellwritten,andshow nooneexcepttoaphilosopher ;notraceof thetasteless molegeographyisconsequentlyaofexpo-ition delightingmostlypartofphilosophy,in the form ofscholastic in-3Strabn,ii.3,8,p.104;i erenceemployed byXenoand iro\vyaptrm rbalrto\oyiKoifChrysippus.napavrw(Straboisspeaking-AccordingtoSeneca,/,/,.j)rimarilyhilosophy. Seneca,Stoics)5 to,-r^vtitiKpvtyivrSivE[>. !0,7ff/f/.,combats theairily. Somepanicularsbor-statement which Ttisidonius rowedbyPosidonius from Ariihad tried to establish thatstotlearegiven bySimpliciusDOCTRINES OFPOSIDONIUS.63for Platolwasjustasgreat(aftertheexampleofPanretius);and in hiscommentaryon theTim.Tiis,2wemaywellsupposethat he tried tocombinethe StoicdoctrinewiththePlatonic. EvenhisagreementwithPythagorasis ofconsequenceinhiseyes;3andDemocritushimself isreckonedbyhimamongthephilosophers;4towhichthe earlierStoicswouldhave demurred onaccount of the relationofDemocritustoEpicurus.5Henceit ismani-CHAP.III.Pkys.64,b. m.(fromGeminiusabstract of bisMeteorology.)De cfclo.309, It,2 K;Sckol. In,Arixt.517, a,31;Alex.Aphr.Meteorol.116, a,o.1Galen,Hipp,ct Plat. iv.7,421 : KOLITOI Kal TOV HXarcavos6avfj.a(rra>sypd^avros,ws Kal oTioffttStiviosfiTLcrriuaiferaidau-^.dfaiTOVavSpaKal delov airo-KaAe?,ws KalirpeffpevtavavrovTO.reirtplriav iradwv Soyjj.aTaKal raTTfpl-TUIVrrjstyvxfns Swduecaf,&c.Posid.ibid. v.6,p.472 :uia-rrep6H\drwvti/j.ase5i5ae.zSext. Jfatk. vii. 9.3;Plut.Procr. An.22,p. 1028;TheoSmyrn.JJo Mtis. c.40, p. 162,Bull.;Hermias in PitMdr.p.114, Ast.,if acommentary on thePhaedrusof bisownis notherereferred to. That heperhapswrote acommentaryon theParmenides hasalreadybeenobserved,supra,p. 43,1.3Galen,I. c. iv.7, p.425;v.6,p.478. WhatPlutarch,I.c.,quotesfromPosidonius{videPhil,d(Jr. II.i.659,1) belongstotheexpositionoftheTimseus,notdirectlytohisown theory;and thePythagorean opinionap.Sext. I,c.,asthecomparisonofthepassageinMatli.iv.2.917,7.shows,does notbelongtothecitationfromPosidonius.AlsotheremarkinTheoSmyrn.I.c.,thatdayandnightcorrespondwiththeeven anduneven,manifestly takenfromthe commentaryontheTimams,canonlyserve togiveaphysicalsensetothe Platonicutterances,andtherefore canprove nothinginregardtoPosidonius ownadhesion tothePythagoreannumbersystem. Hitteriii. 701.4Sen.Ep. DO, 32.5If iseclecticismwould havegonestillfurther ifPosidoniusreally,asHitter,iii.702,says,hadderivedGreekphilosophyfromOrientaltradition.This,however,isnotcorrect in souniversal asense;hemerelysaid ofDemocritusthat hisdoctrine ofatomswastakenfromthesupposed PhoenicianphilosopherMochus(PM.*Platonisinganthropology.2Whereasthe Stoic doc-antftrn-. .jMloyy.trine,inoppositionto that of Plato andAristotle,denied apluralityof facultiesbelongingto thesoul,and reduced all thephenomenaof life to the oneintellectual fundamentalfaculty,Posidonius was ofopinionthatthe facts ofthe souls life are not to beexplainedin reference to oneprinciple.Hefoundit,likePlato,inconceivable that reasonshould bethecause of that which iscontrarytoreason andofthepassions;3and he believed that the fact of our1To this thefollowing pus- definitions, thoug-htheydoubt-sagerefers(Diog.vii. I Ill):less containmany amplifica-5oK6i 5^avrotsyUT/re5io tions andrectifications of theT?;I/Sia(i)VLai> a.couldonlybeexplainedbyanoriginal oppositionofthefacultiesworkingin man;lheshowedthatpassionatemovementsof the mind could notarisemerelyfrom ournotions aboutgoodand evilthings,for as soon as thesenotionsare of arationalkind,theydo notproduceapassionatemovement,norhavetheythis result with allpersonsin the samemanner;and even anexistingemotion does notexclude asimultaneous andoppositeactivityofreason.2Finallyheremarked that thecircumstance that freshimpressionsaffect themind morestronglycannotbeexplainedonthepresuppositionsof theStoictheoryfor ourjudgmentconcernino-theworth ofthingsis notchanged byduration oftime.3For all thesereasons,Posidoniusdeclaredhimself for thePlatonicdoctrine thattheemotionsarose not from the rationalsoul butfromcourageanddesire,as fromtwoparticularfaculties,4which,atlength)iv.3,p.377s^.;v.5,questionsas the seat ofthesoul,andnotonlyinregard toLoc. c-!t. iv.7,421.SY/. pointswhichmaybedecidedLor. clt. iv.5,;]i)7;c.7,simplyfromimmediateper-116;v.6,473.SY/.ceptionorself-consciousnessL.c. iv.7,41G.SY/.Ipassover Asaninstanceof thelat torhosomefurtherarguments.When,bringsforwardmentalcondi-nowever,Ritter,iii.703,repre- tions,andsaysofthemthatsentsPosidoniusassaying:JntheyrequireouIMKO&V\6yuvordertounderstand the doc- ovSairoSfi^wi, /J.OVTIS5eavauvr,-trine ofthepassiveemotions aeus SivfKarrroreirdtrxo/J.fi. l?utthere isnoneed oflengthythisdoesnotmean,Jnordertoargumentsandproofs,I cannotinxh-Ma-ixlthemthereneedsnofind this intheutterance inproof;but,Theiractualconstitu-balen,v.178,ch.(502/c).Posi- tionis knowntousimmediatelydoniushereblamesChrysippusthroughself-consciousnessforappealingtopassagesfromGalen,I.e.v 1 429-XpiJcrthepoetsinregardto such anros^voSv. ..laroStut^muFECLECTICISM.CHAP.III.beingdistinct fromreason,aredeterminedbytheconstitution of thebody:1he would have theseforcesregarded,however,not aspartsof the soulbutonlyasseparatefaculties of oneand the sameessence,the seat ofwhich,accordingto theprevailingopinionof hisschool,heplacedin the heart.2Desire andcouragemustalso,hethought, belongtotheanimals;theformerto all;the latteronlytothosecapableofchangingtheirplace:3an indica-TTfiparai KpitffisTivds (Jvai rov\oyicrriKovrdirddr], 2,rjv(v5 ourdsKpi(T(isauras d\\d rds (TTL-yiyvof^evasavrdis ffuaro\ds KalAiireis(irdpfffisTf KalrdsirrtcfffisTT]S^/VXT)S ^vofju^fvtlvai TO.Trd^Tj.TloiTfiStjcvios 5a/j.OT(pois5ie-vf^dtls^TraiVft redfj.aKal-rrpocrif-rai rb n\dru>vos8oyfj.aKal dvri-\(yirotsirfplrbvXpvffiinrovovTfKpiffetsfl^at rdirdOriS(LK-i vwv ovTf(iTLyiyv6/j.fva Kpltreffi,d\\dKiviifffisrii/dstrtpiavSvvd-fj.twi a.\6ycav& & H\a.T1),(tptix.fim.1Luc. at. v.-,4(>4 : iis -rwviraSririKtJevKiv^rrf itifTTJs 4/vX^JETO-LLtvwvdilTT?Siatfffffi TOVad)[j.aTOS,-Lc. !-it. vi.>,:>\:> : o 5ApKTTOTeA^yre Kal 6 noffeiSuvwsf?5ri /Liff ^ /J-^Tl ^VXYJSOVK ovo-pd(ovcnv (whichlie haspt>r-}i;ijS dont! in iniiccunite lan-LTua_TC,inI I H]).(JS,5) 8vvd/j.eis5 flvai(paffL [Aiiisovaias (KTT)SKapSias 6p/j.w[i.tvris.When Tcr-tull.(DeAn.14), departingfrom the aboveexposition,savs : JHndittir autcm(sc.atiima)injHirtes. . . drct/na/nid quondamStoiconim,ct induasainjjiiunapudPosidonium,qitia ihialn/it t.rorxitxfift/Un,/iriin-ijidli, ijii/nl iijn/it riytuovi-Kitv,t t anitiinnili,(/u/nl iijunt\oyiK~bv,indiiiitliflm i .rludtj/,-i>-Kicuit,this discrimination oftheiiye/jLoviKbvfromthe\oytKovshowsthatwe have here to dowith amisunderstandingofhis own inreiranlto what behad found in hisauthority.Forconjectures;is to theoriginof thismisunderstanding,rideDiels,l)tt,ro. c. v.0, 47f> : Ztra.fjifvoiiv rwv^w(av SvffKiifrjr^earlKalTTpoffTTffpvKATaSiVrjj/fyv-rwvTaiSTTfTpaiJ^TlfflVfTfpOlST010V-TOIJ,f-mdv/^iafJ.6vpSiOLKf^ffdai\tyti avrd,TO. 5 &\\a rda\oya(T\ifj.iravraTO??SvvdfjLtffiv d/n(po-repais xprjtrdat rfjrtiridv^nKriKalTTJ dv/j.oti8t?,T\>v&v8pu>irov5e/j.6voi>rdisrpiffl, Trpa(Tti\T]indeed,theinfluence ontheotherdoctrinesofPosi-cthics-ii. 499.(JaJtrt.f.1879,p.\36gq.),whohereappealsto the observationofCicero,apparentlyderivedfromPosidonius,N.I).ii.12,:!U:^Plants areendowed(Qvffei(T\,v4xt2,})withanatura;tes-tiis mitnmsensm/ict moturndedit(sc.natura). . . hochominiampliux,quod addiditrationcm.4Ciceroremarks(DcMvin.i.51,Ho)inorder toestablishforeknowledgeindreams :Thespiritlives insleepliber atxensibus.Quiqmarixit atomniafternitateverstatusqueeatcum.innumerabilibusanimus,omniaqu>innaturarcrumaunt,ridtt,&c.;and in c.57,liU,he I eturns to thesubject:Cumqueaidndhominumsenijter67CHAP.IILcur U,,/,/,,,.qvoquepi-.r^nccrt--noninstant?If thiagreeswiththeothercon en sof the firstbookofPosidoniusthepre-existence ofthe soui(Corsscn,^Pthavebeenfoundthere.ButthetemperandahommvtcrmtatemustevenhenbelaidtoCicerosaccountforPosidoniuscouldadmTtsoulstoexistneitherbeforetheS^ningnoraftertheendof theworld towhichtheybeInIt is all themoreqStioMbfewhethertheexpositionoftillStoichasnotbeenherearm"fiedbyCicero,or whether somethingwhichhehypotheticlnyquotedfromPlat?maynothavebeentaken in amoredefinitesense.68 ECLECTICISM.CHAT,donius which \vemighthaveexpectedfromhis ownutterances;thoughhedecidedly recognisesthedependenceofethicsuponthetheoryoftheemotions,1there isnothingtold us of his ethics which wouldclashwith the Stoic moral doctrine: for the statementofDiogenes,-that he did not hold virtue tobe the onlyg;12^.a\ri6fia.iKalTOL^IVKaltrvyKara-3Videxti/ir/i, ]).17, 4.(TKfvd^fivaur^v /caret rbSvvarbv,*Cic.Ojff. i. !">. !">! . Kara/uT/Ser ayofAtvovvtru TOVMvcn tin contradictionakoyovpepovsT^S^vxjis,is.L 4 Ii: .l-:iian. I . II. xii. LT.;I lut. Iojtlh. ( .17,andAjiiijili-iJni/m.Jliij.CifK. Atii/.7,p.L (>7 :(,>u.Cn/ir. ii. 1, K!,.>,p.i;:)4 ; Di,. Cass. lii. M : Ivi. 4:! :Xosim.//iff. i. o5. ;^liiller. Iraijm.Hint. dr. iii.Is.i.vy.\\ hetlier thewritingsandsayinirs (|UotedfromAthenodorusbelongto himor to anotherjieison of thesamename,in most inMancescannot bediscovered with certainty,but it seems to meprobablethatbythe Athenodorus mentioned in Sen.iriin/in..1 u.3, 1-S, 7,2 ; !:/>.10, .1,without furtherdescription,is to be understood ourAthenodorus,since at thattime he wascertainlythebestknown man of the nameinHome;that he was likewisethesamewho wroteabout,i.e.airainst,the Aristotelian categories,and wdio wasopposedonparticularpointsbyConutus,wefind fromSimpl.5,a.15,8.41, 7. (/SV7W.in Arixt.47, b,20 :(U, ft;25.t/y.)32,e.47,(!Iorph. e|i77.^, ,-1. (X-ttol- inArixt.48, b, 12) ;cf.Urandis,Abhundl.d. lierl. Akad.1833;STOICSOF THEFIRSTCENTURYB.C.73in its learnedactivity,partlyinthepracticalapplicationof itsprinciples,cameinto amicablecontact .onmany pointswithotherschools.Anexampleshowingthe extentto whichthiseclecticismattainedin individualswill bepresentedto usin AriusCHAP.III.Pldl.-Hixt.-A.7.275;Prantl.tlesch.(I.Lot/,i.538,19.Somefragmentsof anhistoricalandgeographicalcharacterhavebeen collectedbyMfiller,i. c,TheethicsquotedinDiog.vii.68, 121,mayalsobelongtotheson ofSandon;and he is nodoubttheAthenodorusCalvus,whoinspiredCiceros treatiseon Duties(Cic.ad Ait.xvi.11, 14) ;while on the otherhand the author of theirepi-iraroi,whichDiogenesfrequentlycites,ismoreprobablythePeripateticof the samenamespokenofinfra,p.124.To this sameperiodbelongsTJieo of Alexandria,who accordingto Suidas.subrocc,livedunderAugustusandwastheauthorofaworkon lUieto-ric besidesanepitomeofApollodomsPhysics.Perhapshemaybe thepersonalluded to in the Intl.Here.col.79,inthewordsSiv AXec>-Spevs,thought by Comparettito be Dio of theAcademy(vide infra, p.100).In thatcasehde infra,106,1 : Suidassavs :ye yoc&sfirlAiryoucrrau/jie-ra Apeioi)he must, havelived to agreat agelike hismaster Stratocles.(OftwootherStoics of this name,oneof themfrom Antioch,mentionedbySuidas,ftav^vpv.,the otherfrom Titbora,mentionedby Diogenes,is.82,wedo not know the dates,butthe lattermust be olderthanJKnesidemns.)Lastly,Strabo,the famousgeographer,consideredhimselfasbelongingtothe Stoic school.Hisbirthmust beplaced,as Hasen-mullersays,De Strab.VitaDins., Bonn,1863, p.13sq.(whoalso discussesthevarioustheories),in or before58B.C.,asin44 B.C.hesawP. ServiliusIsauricus, whodiedinhisninetiethyear (Strabo,xii.6, 2,p. 568),andsawhiminHome,whither Strabocanscarcelyhave gonebeforehisfourteenthyear."His nativecitywasAmascain Pontns(Strabo,xii.3, 15,39,p.547, 561);helived,however,underAugustusandTiberiusatHome,(Attheendof his 6th book he namesTiberius as thepresentrulerand Germanicusas his son;thispassagemustaccordinglyhavebeen writtenbetween14and 19 afterChrist.)Hebetrayshimself to be a Stoicnotonlybyutterancessuchasi.1,p."2(theStoic definitionofphilosophy),i.2, 2,p.15,buthealsocallsZeno6^uereposi.2, 34,p.41,andxvi.4, 27,p.784;videsupra,p.62,3.ECLECTICISM.CHAPIII.Didymus,whoindeedcountedhimself amember oftheStoicschool,but whoapproximatessocloselytoAlexandertheAcademician,that itseemspreferabletospeakof himafter thatphilosopher.PerhapsAthenodorus,thesonofSandon,jn;iyliave introdun ,1him toStoicism;whom liecalls ?j,u. ""!).andconcerningwhomheshowshimself to he accuratelyinformed(xiv..14,p.fi~4). Meanwhile he hadalsoheard thePeripateticTyrannic(xii. :!,1C,p. 548)and Xen-archus(xiv. 4,4,p. 070)andhad had 1 he still more famousr.oethusciilicr as a fellow dis-cipleor morepn.hahly(for theword:>) or theSeleueian mentioned(/////. ,1. (ir. III. i.17)seemstlu1moredoubtful,as Philosownleadershipof the school(Kitj>r, p..">:!)canscarcelyhavebegunlater than that ofApollodorusofAthens,andasthepredecessorof thelatter,Mnosarehus,was tin: teacherof 1 hilospupilAntiochus(rnli-infra81,.1).That lie followedClitomachus as head of theschool,we find from the !(accordingto Nmnonius); andfrom Cic. Unit.M.:>(Mi,that hewasthemustimportant philosopheroftheAcademyof histime(jtrincepgActi-dcntiff);Acini, ii.,1).Besidesphilosophyhetaughtrhetoricvery zealously(Cic.DCUnit. iii.28,110).1Cic.Brut.80,.>nfi. Concerningthe instructions hegavethere inphilosophyand rhetoric, >/,//. ii. 40.3I hit. /. c. : Cic. Tiixt .. 1. c.;-V. 1). i.7,Hi;Brut.I.e.,totumi-i metrailiii i.1TheMithridaticwarbrokeout in SSji.c.,andprobablyI hilo cameimmediatelyafterthis toHome. We hear of atreatise lie hadcomposedwhileAntiochus was with LucullusinAlexandria(Cic.Acini, ii.4,11), which,accordingtoZumpt(Ah/i./I. Jlt-rl. Aend.1842;Ili^t. /////.AV.p.(!7),wouldfallintheyear84, according toHermann I. c. 1.4,in 87. WhenCicero cametoAthensin79B.C.hecannothavebeenthere,ashewouldotherwise have beenmentionedin 1 lut. Cic. 4;Cic.Jirut.1)1,:iir,;Fin. v.1,1.PerhapslieremainedinHome,or,as seemstome moreprobable,wasnolongerliving.Howthestatement as to thelengthofhis life is to becompletedcannot beascertained. iJiichelerPIIILO.77aretold,zealously defendedthedoctrine ofCarneadesCHAP.in its wholecontent;in thesequel, however,hebecame unsettled inregardto thisdoctrine,andwithoutexpresslyabandoningit,hesought greaterfixityof conviction than theprinciplesof hispredecessorsafforded.1Thoughitwasnotinitselfcontraryto thespiritofscepticismthat he shouldregardphilosophyfromthepractical pointofview,2Hi*pmc-yetthis mode oftreatingit received from him anapplicationwhich wentbeyond scepticism: hewasnotsatisfied,likePyrrho, bythe destruction ofdogmatismto clearaway hindrances,with the removal of which(accordingto thatphilosopher)happinesscameofitself;but in orderto attain thisendhefoundcompletedirections forrightconductto benecessary.Thephilosopher,hesays, maybecomparedwithaphysician;ashealthisforthelatter,so ishappinessfor theformer,the final end of hiswholeactivity;3andfromthis definition ofitsaim,prefers QJIKQVTO. rpia,forhepays firtQv^ei,fv o?