CHAPTER XI.THE KINGDOM OF THE SOUL.

Man a part of the universe.

262.From the contemplation of the universe as a whole, both from the purely scientific standpoint in the study of physics, and from the more imaginative point of view in the dogmas of religion, we now pass on to the more intimate study of the individual man, consisting of body and soul. In its main outlines the Stoic theory has already been sketched. Thus it follows from the monistic standpoint that man is not ultimately an ‘individual’ or unit of the universe; for the universe itself is the only true unit, and a man is a part of it which cannot even for a moment break itself off completely from the whole. It is therefore only in a secondary and subordinate sense, and with special reference to the inculcation of ethics, that we can treat Zeno or Lucilius as separate and independent beings. Again, when we say that man ‘consists of body and soul,’ we are merely adopting popular language; for body and soul are ultimately one, and differ only in the gradation of spirit or tone which informs them. Then we have already learnt in dialectics that the highest power of man is that of ‘assent’ or free choice, which is displayed in every exercise of reason; and the same power, though in a different aspect, is at work in every moral act. The doctrine of the universe is based upon the postulate that it is a living rational being on the largest scale; and it follows, that each man is a ‘microcosm,’ and contains in himself a complete representation of the universe in miniature. Lastly, we see that man takes his place in the universe, a little lower than gods anddaemons, and as greatly higher than animals as these in their turn surpass plants and inanimate objects; and that his nature, considered as composite, includes all the varying gradations of spirit to which these orders correspond within the universe. In all his parts alike the divine element is immanent and it binds them together in a coherent unity (συμπάθεια τῶν μέρων). It remains for us to put together from these and like points of departure a complete picture of human nature.

The soul’s kingdom.

263.To indicate the general trend of Stoic thought on this subject we propose the title ‘the kingdom of soul.’ Starting with the popular distinction between body and soul, we find that the biologist and the physician alike are preoccupied with the study of the body, that is, of physiology. Only as an afterthought and supplement to their work are the functions of soul considered; and they are treated as far as possible by the methods suggested by the study of the body. All this is reversed in the Stoic philosophy. The study of the soul stands in the front, and is treated by methods directly suggested by observation of the soul’s functions. The body is not entirely ignored, but is considered of comparatively small importance. Further, the soul itself is manifold, and is likened to a State, in which all is well if the governing part have wisdom and benevolence proportionate to its power, and if the lower parts are content to fulfil their respective duties; but if the balance of the State is upset, all becomes disorder and misery[1]. Lastly, this kingdom is itself a part of a greater whole, namely of the Cosmopolis or universal State. By the comparison with a kingdom we are also directed towards right moral principle. For as the citizen of Corinth or Sparta ought not to repine because his city is of less grandeur than Athens, so no man should be anxious because his external opportunities are limited. He has a kingdom in his own mind and soul and heart. Let him be content to find his happiness in rightly administering it.

Man a picture of the universe.

264.The doctrine that man is a representation or reflection of the universe is of unknown antiquity. It seems to be clearly implied by the teaching of Heraclitus, in so far as he lays it down that both the universe and man are vivified and controlled by the Logos[2]. The technical terms ‘macrocosm’ (μέγας κόσμος) and ‘microcosm’ (μικρὸς κόσμος), are, as we have seen, employed by Aristotle[3]. But even if we suppose that this conception is a commonplace of Greek philosophy, it is in Stoicism alone that it is of fundamental importance, and knit up with the whole framework of the system. And accordingly we find that all the Stoic masters laid stress upon this principle. The words of Zeno suggest to Cicero that ‘the universe displays all impulses of will and all corresponding actions just like ourselves when we are stirred through the mind and the senses[4].’ Cleanthes used the dogma of the soul of the universe to explain the existence of the human soul as a part of it[5]. Chrysippus found a foundation for ethics in the doctrine that man should study and imitate the universe[6]. Diogenes of Babylon says boldly that God penetrates the universe, as soul the man[7]; and Seneca that the relation of God to matter is the same as that of the soul to the body[8]. It is little wonder therefore if by Philo’s time the analogy had become a commonplace, and philosophers of more than one school were accustomed to say that ‘man is a little universe, and the universe a big man[9].’ God is therefore the soul of the universe[10]; on the other hand the soul is God within the human body[11], a self-moving force encased in relatively inertmatter, providence at work within the limitations of natural necessity.

Soul and body.

265.The dualism of body and soul appears in a sharply defined shape in Persism, and upon it depends the popular dogma of the immortality of the soul, which (as we have already noticed) reached the Greco-Roman world from a Persian source[12]. It appears to be rooted in the more primitive ways of thinking termed ‘Animism’ and ‘Spiritism,’ in which men felt the presence both in natural objects and within themselves of forces which they conceived as distinct beings. According to this system a man’s soul often assumes bodily shape, and quits his body even during life, either in sleep or during a swoon; sometimes indeed it may be seen to run away and return in the shape of a mouse or a hare. At death it is seen to leave the man as a breath of air, and to enter the atmosphere. But besides his soul a man possesses a shadow, a likeness, a double, a ghost, a name; and all these in varying degrees contribute to form what we should call his personality. In the animistic system the soul survives the man, and why not? But this survival is vaguely conceived, and only credited so far as the evidence of the senses supports it. Its formulation in the doctrine of immortality belongs to a more advanced stage of human thought[13].

Soul and body are one.

266.This dualistic conception could be and was incorporated in the Stoic system to the same extent as the dualism of God and matter, but no further. Ultimately, as we have already learnt, soul and body are one; or, in the language of paradox, ‘soul is body[14].’ This follows not only from the general principles of our philosophy, but also specifically from observation of the facts of human life. ‘The incorporeal,’ argued Cleanthes, ‘cannot be affected by the corporeal, nor the corporeal by the incorporeal, but only the corporeal by the corporeal. But the soul is affectedby the body in disease and in mutilation, and the body by the soul, for it reddens in shame and becomes pale in fear: therefore the soul is body[15].’ And similarly Chrysippus argues: ‘death is the separation of soul from body. Now the incorporeal neither joins with nor is separated from body, but the soul does both. The soul therefore is body[16].’ This doctrine is commonly adduced as evidence of the ‘materialism’ of the Stoics: yet the Stoics do not say that ‘soul is matter,’ and (as we shall see) they explain its workings upon principles quite different to the laws of physics or chemistry. The essential unity of body and soul follows also from the way in which we acquire knowledge of them. For we perceive body by the touch; and we learn the workings of the soul by a kind of touch, called the inward touch (ἐντὸς ἁφή)[17].

Mind, soul and body.

267.Having realised that the division of man into soul and body is not ultimate, we may more easily prepare ourselves to make other divisions. A division into three parts, (i) body, (ii) soul or life (ψυχή,anima), and (iii) mind (νοῦς,animus), was widely accepted in Stoic times, and in particular by the school of Epicurus; the mind being that which man has, and the animals have not[18]. The Stoics develope this division by the principle of the microcosm. Mind is that which man has in common with the deity; life that which he has in common with the animals; growth (φύσις,natura), that which he has in common with the plants, as for instance is shown in the hair and nails[19]. Man also possessescohesion (ἕξις,unitas) but never apart from higher powers. Further these four, mind, soul, growth, and cohesion, are not different in kind, but all are spirits (πνεύματα) which by their varying degrees of tension (τόνος,intentio) are, to a less or greater extent, removed from the divine being, the primal stuff. In this sense man is not one, nor two, but multiple, as the deity is multiple[20].

The soul is fire and air.

268.The soul in its substance or stuff is fire, identical with the creative fire which is the primal stuff of the universe[21]. But the popular conception, according to which the soul is air or breath, and is seen to leave the body at death, is also not without truth[22]. There is a very general opinion that the soul is a mixture of fire and air, or is hot air[23]. By this a Stoic would not mean that the soul was a compound of two different elements, but that it was a variety of fire in the first stage of the downward path, beginning to form air by relaxation of its tension: but even so this form of the doctrine was steadily subordinated to the older doctrine of Heraclitus, that the soul is identical with the divine fire. Formally the soul is defined, like the deity himself, as a ‘fiery intelligent spirit[24]’; and in this definition it would seem that we have no right to emphasize the connexion between the word ‘spirit’ (πνεῦμα) and its original meaning ‘breath,’ since the word has in our philosophy many other associations. It is further a Stoic paradox that ‘the soul is an animal,’ just as God is an animal. But the soul and the man are not on that account twoanimals; all that is meant is that men and the brutes, by reason of their being endowed with soul, become animals[25].

The temperaments.

269.According to another theory, which is probably not specifically Stoic, but derived from the Greek physicians, the soul is compounded of all four elements in varying proportion, and the character of each soul (subject, in the Stoic theory, to the supreme control of reason[26]) is determined by the proportion or ‘temperament’ (κρᾶσις,temperatura) of the four elements. There are accordingly four temperaments, the fervid, the frigid, the dry, and the moist, according to the preponderance of fire, air, earth, and water respectively[27]. Dull and sleepy natures are those in which there is an excess of the gross elements of earth and water[28]; whilst an excess of cold air makes a man timorous, and an excess of fire makes him passionate[29]. These characters are impressed upon a man from birth and by his bodily conditions, and within the limits indicated above are unalterable[30]. The ‘temperaments’ have always been a favourite subject of discussion in popular philosophy[31].

The soul’s parts.

270.The characteristic attribute of the soul is that it is self-moved (αὐτοκίνητον)[32]. Although in this point the Stoics agree with Plato, they do not go on toname life as another attribute, for they do not agree with the argument of thePhaedothat the soul, having life as an inseparable attribute, is incapable of mortality. We pass on to the dispositions of the soul, which correspond to its ‘parts’ in other philosophies, and are indeed often called its parts. But the soul has not in the strict sense parts[33]; what are so called are its activities[34], which are usually reckoned as eight in number, though the precise reckoning is of no importance[35]. The eight parts of the soul are the ruling part or ‘principate[36],’ the five senses, and the powers of speech and generation. The seven parts or powers other than the principate are subject to it and do its bidding, so that the soul is, as we have called it, a kingdom in itself. These seven parts are associated each with a separate bodily organ, but at the same time each is connected with the principate. They may therefore be identified with ‘spirits which extend from the principate to the organs, like the arms of an octopus[37],’ where by a ‘spirit’ we mean a pulsation or thrill, implying incessant motion and tension. The principate itself, that is the mind, is also a spirit possessed of a still higher tension; and the general agreement of the Stoics places its throne conveniently at the heart and in the centre of the body[38].Accordingly Posidonius defined the soul’s parts as ‘powers of one substance seated at the heart[39].’

Aspects of the principate.

271.If we now fix our attention on the principate itself, we find it no more simple than the universe, the deity, the man, or the soul. In particular it resembles the deity in that, although essentially one, it is called by many names. It is the soul in its reasoning aspect, the reason, the intellect (λογικὴ ψυχή, νοῦς, διάνοια)[40]; it is also the ‘ego,’ that is, the will, the energy, the capacity for action[41]. It is in one aspect the divinity in us, world-wide, universal; in another the individual man with his special bent and character; so that we may even be said to have two souls in us, the world-soul and each man’s particular soul[42]. The principate becomes also in turn each of the other functions or parts of the soul, for each of them is an aspect of the principate (ἡγεμονικόν πως ἔχον)[43]. In addition the principate has many titles of honour, as when Marcus Aurelius terms it the Pilot[44], the King and Lawgiver[45], the Controller and Governor[46], the God within[47].

The principate as reason.

272.Although for the purpose of discussion we may distinguish between reason and will, they are in fact everywhere intermingled. Thus the principate as the reasoning part of the soul includes the powers of perception, assent, comprehension, and of reason in the narrower sense, that is, the power of combining the various conceptions of the mind, so as ultimately to form a consistentsystem[48]. But amongst these powers assent is equally an act of the will; and on the other hand the judgments formed by the reasoning mind are not purely speculative, but lead up to action; so that it is the reasoning power which must be kept pure, in order that it may duly control the soul’s inclinations and aversions, its aims and shrinkings, its plans, interests and assents[49]. If in the Stoic theory the greater emphasis always appears to be laid on the reason, it is the more necessary in interpreting it to bear in mind that we are speaking of the reason of an active and social being.

The principate as will.

273.The maintenance of the principate as will in a right condition is the problem of ethics; and it is important to understand what this right condition is. The answer is to be found in a series of analogies, drawn from all departments of philosophy. Thus from the standpoint of physics the right condition is a proper strain or tension, as opposed to slackness or unsteadiness[50]. In theology it is the agreement of the particular will with the divine or universal will[51]. From the point of view of the will itself it is the strength and force (ἰσχὺς καὶ κράτος) of the will, the attitude that makes a man say ‘I can[52].’ Again it is that state of the soul which corresponds to health in the body[53]; and in a quiet mood the Stoic may describe it as a restful and calm condition[54]. Finally, if the soul as a whole is compared to a State, the principate in its function as the will may at its best be compared to a just and kind sovereign; but if thisaim is missed, it may turn into a greedy and ungovernable tyrant[55].

The principate, divine and human.

274.The principate, as it is of divine origin[56], and destined, as we shall see, to be re-absorbed in the deity, may rightly be called god: it is a god making its settlement and home in a human body[57]: it keeps watch within over the moral principle[58]. In the language of paradox we may say to each man, ‘You are a god[59].’ Of this principle we see the proof in that man interests himself in things divine[60], and in it we find the first incentive to a lofty morality[61]. As however the deity is not conceived in human form, and is not subject to human weaknesses, there comes a point at which, in the study of the human principate, we part company with the divine; and this point we reach both when we consider the principate with regard to its seven distinctly human manifestations, and when we consider its possible degradation from the standard of health and virtue. We now turn to the seven parts or powers of the human soul which are subordinate to the reasoning faculty.

Powers of the principate.

275.The first five powers of the principate are those which are recognised in popular philosophy as the ‘five senses.’ To materialistic philosophers nothing is plainer than that these are functions of the body;is it not the eye which sees, and the ear which hears[62]? This the Stoic denies. The eye does not see, but the soul sees through the eye as through an open door. The ear does not hear, but the soul hears through the ear. Sensation therefore is an activity of the principate, acting in the manner already described in the chapter on ‘Reason and Speech[63].’ The soul is actively engaged, and sends forth its powers as water from a fountain; the sense-organs are passively affected by the objects perceived[64]. Subject to this general principle, sensation (αἴσθησις,sensus) may be variously defined. It is ‘a spirit which penetrates from the principate to the sensory processes’; it includes alike the mind-picture (φαντασία,visum), that is, the first rough sketch which the mind shapes when stimulated by the sense-organ; the assent (συγκατάθεσις,adsensus), which the mind gives or refuses to this sketch; and the final act of comprehension (κατάληψις,comprehensio) by which this assent is sealed or ratified[65]. Of these the middle stage is the most important, so that we may say paradoxically ‘sense is assent[66].’ Only in a secondary and popular way can we use the word sensation to denote the physical apparatus of the sensory organs (αἰσθητήρια), as when we say of a blind man ‘he has lost the sense of sight[67].’

The five senses.

276.The nature of sensation is more particularly described in the case of sight and hearing. In the first case there proceed from the eyes rays, which cause tension in the air, reaching towards the object seen[68]; thistension is cone-shaped, and as the distance from the pupil of the eye increases, the base of the cone is increased in size, whilst the vigour of the sight diminishes. This human activity effects vision of itself in one case; for we say ‘darkness is visible,’ when the eye shoots forth light at it, and correctly recognises that it is darkness[69]. But in complete vision there is an opposing wave-motion coming from the object, and the two waves become mutually absorbed: hence Posidonius called sight ‘absorption’ (σύμφυσις)[70]. Similarly, in the case of hearing, the pulsation (which, as we have seen, comes in the first instance from the principate) spreads from the ear to the speaker, and (as is now more distinctly specified) from the speaker to the hearer; this reverse pulsation being circular in shape, like the waves excited on the surface of a lake by throwing a stone into the water[71]. Of the sensations of smell, taste and touch we only hear that they are respectively (i) a spirit extending from the principate to the nostrils, (ii) a spirit extending from the principate to the tongue, and (iii) a spirit extending to the surface of the body and resulting in the easily-appreciated touch of an object[72].

Other activities.

277.The Stoic account of the functions of the soul displayed in the ordinary activities of life is either defective or mutilated; for even a slight outline of the subject should surely include at least breathing, eating (with drinking), speech, walking, and lifting. We need not however doubt that these, equally with the five senses, are all ‘spirits stretching from the principate’ to the bodily organs. This is expressly stated of walking[73]. Of all such activities we must consider voice to be typical, when it is described as the sixth function of the soul. Voice is described as ‘pulsating air[74],’ set in motion by the tongue[75]; but we can trace it back through thethroat to some source below, which we can without difficulty identify with the heart, the seat of the principate[76]. The voice is indeed in a special relationship to the principate, since the spoken word is but another aspect of the thought which is expressed by it[77].

Procreation.

278.The seventh and last of the subordinate powers of the soul, according to the Stoics, is that of procreation. This part of their system is of great importance, not only for the study of human nature, but even in a higher degree for its indirect bearing upon the question of the development of the universe through ‘procreative principles’ (σπερματικοὶ λόγοι), or, as we have termed them above, ‘seed powers[78].’ That all things grow after their kind is of course matter of common knowledge; no combination of circumstances, no scientific arrangement of sustenance can make of an acorn anything but an oak, or of a hen’s egg anything but a chicken. But in the common view this is, at least primarily, a corporeal or material process; whereas the Stoics assert that it is not only a property of the soul, but one so primary and fundamental that it must be also assumed as a first principle of physical science. Before approaching the subject from the Stoic standpoint, it may be well to see how far materialistic theories, ancient and modern, can carry us.

Heredity.

279.Lucretius finds this a very simple matter:

‘Children often resemble not only their parents, but also their grandparents and more remote ancestors. The explanation is that the parents contain in their bodies a large number of atoms, which they have received from their ancestors and pass on to their descendants. In the chance clashing of atoms in procreation Venus produces all kinds of effects, bringing about resemblances between children and their forebears, not only in the face and person, but also in the look, the voice, and the hair[79].’

This account has a generally plausible sound until we bear in mind that it is the fundamental property of atoms that,though their own variety is limited, they can form things in infinite variety by changes in their combination and arrangement. They are like the letters out of which words, sentences, and poems are made up; and we can hardly expect to reproduce the voice or the spirit of an Aeschylus by a fresh shuffling of the letters contained in theAgamemnon. On the contrary, seeing that the atoms contained in the bodies of parents have largely been drawn from plants and animals, we could confidently reckon upon finding the complete fauna and flora of the neighbourhood amongst their offspring. Lucretius in effect postulates in his theory that particular atoms have a representative and creative character, passing from father to child in inseparable association with the marks of the human race, and endowed with a special capacity of combining with other like atoms to form the substratum of specifically human features. In giving his atoms these properties he is insensibly approximating to the Stoic standpoint.

Modern theories.

280.Modern biologists deal with this subject with the minuteness of detail of which the microscope is the instrument, and with the wealth of illustration which results from the incessant accumulation of ascertained facts. But they are perhaps open to the criticism that where they reach the borders of their own science, they are apt to introduce references to the sciences of chemistry and physics as explaining all difficulties, even in regions to which these sciences do not apply. The following account is taken from one of the most eminent of them:

‘Hertwig discovered that the one essential occurrence in impregnation is the coalescence of the two sexual cells and their nuclei. Of the millions of male spermatozoa which swarm round a female egg-cell, only one forces its way into its plasmic substance. The nuclei of the two cells are drawn together by a mysterious force which we conceive as achemical sense-activity akin to smell, approach each other and melt into one. So there arises through the sensitiveness of the two sexual nuclei,as a result of erotic chemotropism, a new cell which unites the inherited capacities of both parents; the spermatozoon contributes the paternal, the egg-cell the maternal characteristics to the primary-cell, from which the child is developed[80].’

In another passage the same author sums up his results in bold language from which all qualifications and admissions of imperfect knowledge have disappeared:

‘Physiology has proved that allthe phenomena of life may be reduced to chemical and physical processes. The cell-theory has shown us that all the complicated phenomena of the life of the higher plants and animals may be deduced from the simple physico-chemical processes in the elementary organism of the microscopic cells, and the material basis of them is the plasma of the cell-body[81].’

Their inadequacy.

281.These utterances may be considered typical of modern materialistic philosophy in its extreme form. We may nevertheless infer from the references to a ‘mysterious force,’ ‘chemical sense-activity akin to smell,’ and ‘erotic chemotropism,’ that the analogies to biological facts which the writer finds in chemical science stand in need of further elucidation. We may notice further that the ‘atom’ has entirely disappeared from the discussion, and that the ‘material basis’ of the facts is a ‘plasma’ or ‘plasmic substance,’ something in fact which stands related to a ‘protoplasm’ of which the chemical and physical sciences know nothing, but which distinctly resembles the ‘fiery creative body’ which is the foundation of the Stoic physics. Further we must notice that the old problem of ‘the one and the many’ reappears in this modern description; for the cell and its nucleus are neither exactly one nor exactly two, but something which passes from two to one and from one to two; further the nuclei of the two cells, being drawn together, coalesce, and from their union is developed a ‘new cell’ which unites the capacities of its ‘parents.’ Modern science, therefore, although it has apparently simplified the history of generation by reducing it to the combination of two units out of many millions that are incessantly being produced by parent organisms, has left the philosophical problem of the manner of their combination entirely unchanged. In these microscopic cells is latent the whole physical and spiritual inheritance of the parents, whether men, animals or plants, from which they are derived; just as the atoms of Epicurus possess the germ of freewill[82], so the cells of Haeckel smell and love, struggle for marriage union, melt away in each other’s embrace, and lose their own individuality at the moment that a new being enters the universe.

Creation and procreation.

282.If then the phenomena of reproduction are essentially the same, whether we consider the relations of two human beings or those of infinitesimal elements which seem to belong to another order of being, we are already prepared for the Stoic principle that the creation of the universe is repeated in miniature in the bringing into life of each individual amongst the millions of millions of organic beings which people it. From this standpoint we gain fresh light upon the Stoic theory of creation, and particularly of the relation of the eternal Logos to the infinite multitude of procreative principles or ‘seed-powers.’ Again, it is with the general theory of creation in our minds that we must revert to the Stoic explanation of ordinary generation. This is to him no humble or unclean function of the members of the body; it is the whole man, in his divine and human nature, that is concerned[83]. The ‘procreative principle’ in each man is a part of his soul[84]; ‘the seed is a spirit’ (or pulsation) ‘extending from the principate to the parts of generation[85].’ It is an emanation from the individual in which one becomes two, and two become one. Just as the human soul is a ‘fragment’ of the divine, so is the seed a fragment torn away, as it were, from the souls of parents and ancestors[86].

Motherhood.

283.In the seed is contained the whole build of the man that is to be[87]. It is therefore important to know whether the procreative principle in the embryo is derived from one or both parents, and if the latter, whether in equal proportion. The Stoics do not appear to have kept entirely free from the common prepossession, embodied in the law of paternal descent, according to which the male element is alone active in the development of the organism; and so they allege that the female seed is lacking in tone and generative power[88]. On the other hand observation appeared to them to show that children inherit the psychical and bodily qualities of both parents, and the general tendency of their philosophy was towards the equalization of the sexes. On the whole the latter considerations prevailed, so that the doctrine of Stoicism, as of modern times, was that qualities, both of body and soul, are inherited from the seed of both parents[89]; wherein the possibility remains open, that in particular cases the debt to one parent may be greater than to the other[90].

Impulses.

284.The Stoic psychology is in its fundamental principles wholly distinct from that of Plato; which does not at all prevent its exponents, and least of all those like Panaetius and Posidonius who were admirers of Plato, from making use of his system as an auxiliary to their own. Plato divided the soul into three parts; the rational part, the emotional (and volitional) part, and the appetitive[91]. Both the two latter parts need the control of the reason, but the emotional partinclines to virtue, the appetitive to vice[92]. The rational part, as with the Stoics, is peculiar to man; the other two are also possessed by the animals, and the appetitive soul even by plants. The Stoics do not however seriously allow any kinship between virtue and the emotions, and they deal with this part of the subject as follows. Nature has implanted in all living things certain impulses which are directed towards some object. An impulse towards an object is called ‘appetite’ (ὁρμή,appetitusorimpetus); an impulse to avoid an object is called ‘aversion’ (ἀφορμή,alienatio)[93]. In man appetite should be governed by reason; if this is so, it becomes ‘reasonable desire’ (ὄρεξις εὔλογος,recta appetitio)[94]; if otherwise, it becomes ‘unreasonable desire’ (ὄρεξις ἀπειθὴς λόγῳ) or ‘concupiscence’ (ἐπιθυμία,libido). To living things lower in the scale than man terms that are related to reason can of course not apply.

Back to Index Next