Chapter 22

155This reminds one of the ‘pèlerinages,’ which figure along with ‘pigeon-shooting’ among the attractions offered by French country hotels to idle visitors.156Republic, II., 364, C, ff; Jowett’s transl., III., 234-5. Elsewhere Plato proposes that these ‘bestial persons’ who persuade others that the gods can be induced by magical incantations to pardon crime, should be punished by imprisonment for life (Legg, X., 909, A, f.).157Villemain,Life of Gregory VII., Engl, transl., I., p. 305. As a further illustration of the same subject, it may be mentioned that there is a cemetery near Innsbruck (and probably many more like it throughout the Tyrol) freely adorned with rude representations of souls in purgatory, stretching out their hands for help from amid the flames. The help is of course to be obtained by purchase from the priesthood.158Lucret., I., 108-12.159Agamemnon, 369 (Dindorf).160Zeller, pp. 428-9.161Prof. Sellar observes, as we think, with perfect truth, that ‘there is no necessary connexion between the atomic theory of philosophy and that view of the ends and objects of life which Lucretius derived from Epicurus.’—Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 348, 2nd ed.162Lucret., I., 1020 ff.; V., 835 ff; IV., 780 ff.; V., 1023; V., 1307 ff.163That Democritus attributed weight to his atoms has been proved, in opposition to Lewes and others, by Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., I., p. 713 (3rd ed.)164Woltjer,Lucr. Phil., p. 38.165Arist.,Phys., IV., viii., 216, a, 20.166II., 257 ff.167Lucret., IV., 875 ff.168Lucret., V., 437 ff.169Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., III., a, pp. 397-8. Reichel’s transl., pp. 412-3 (1st ed.)170Woltjer (Lucret. Ph., p. 126) charges Lucretius with having misunderstood his master on this point. As the sun and moon appear larger when near the horizon than at other times, Epicurus thought that we then see them either as they really are or a little larger. This, Lucretius, according to Woltjer, took to mean that their general apparent size may be a little over or under their real size.171Zeller, p. 413.172See, for instance, Woltjer,op. cit., p. 88.173Zeller, p. 443, note 3.174Zeller, pp. 417-8.175Diog., X., 125.176III., 922.177Cicero,De Fin., I., ix., 30.178‘Aeque enim timent ne apud inferos sint, quam ne nusquam.’—Seneca,Epp., lxxxii., 16.179Cf. Plutarch,Non posse suaviter vivi, cap. xxvii.180Among other feelings consequent on the first experience of death among the posterity of Cain, the following are specified:—‘It seemed the light was never loved before,Now each man said, “‘Twill go and come no more.”No budding branch, no pebble from the brook,No form, no shadow but new dearness tookFrom the one thought that life must have an end;And the last parting now began to sendDiffusive dread through love and wedded bliss,Thrilling them into finer tenderness.‘181III., 59 ff.182Ethic., Pars. IV., Prop. vii.183Ethic. Nic., III., xii., 1117, b, 10 ff. Sir Alexander Grant, in his note on the passage, appositely compares the character of Wordsworth’s Happy Warrior, who is ‘More brave for this that he has much to love.’184For the authorities, see Zeller, p. 388.185Lucret., IV., 354, 728, 761.186Such at least seems to be the theory rather obscurely set forth in Diog., X., 32.187Diog., X., 33, Sextus Emp.,Adv. Math., VII., 211-16; Zeller, p. 391.188For additional authorities see Zeller, pp. 385-95, and Wallace’sEpicureanism, chap. x.189See Woltjer,Lucr. Ph., p. 141 ff.190Morale d’Épicure, p. 157.191In a fragment quoted by Sextus Empiricus,Adv. Math., IX., 54.192Fragmenta Tragicorum, Didot, p. 140.193Zeller, p. 416, note 1.194See the whole concluding portion of Lucr., bk. V.195Chiefly by Ritter,Gesch. d. Phil., IV., p. 94, on which see the clear and convincing reply of Zeller,op. cit., p. 47.196For details we must refer to the masterly treatise of Dr. Woltjer, already cited more than once in the course of this chapter.197Cf. II., 18, with II., 172.198The single exception to this rule that can be quoted is, we believe, the argument against impassioned love derived from its enslaving influence (quod alterius sub nutu degitur aetas, V., 1116). But to live under another’s nod is a condition eminently unfavourable to the mental tranquillity which an Epicurean prized before all things; nor, in any case, does it seem to have counted for so much with Lucretius as the ‘damnation of expenses’ which was no less formidable a deterrent to him than to the ‘unco guid’ of Burns’s satire.199V., 1153-4.200V., 1125.201Ziegler (Gesch. a. Ethik, I., p. 203) quotes Lucret., III., 136, to prove that the poet recognised the existence of mental pleasures as such. But Lucretius only says that the mind has pleasures not derived from an immediate external stimulus. This would apply perfectly to the imagination of sensual pleasure.202Woltjer,op. cit., p. 5.203IV., 966.204Woltjer,op. cit., pp. 178 ff.205There is an unquestionable coincidence between Lucretius, II., 69 ff. and Plato,Legg., 776 B, pointed out by Teichmüller,Geschichte der Begriffe, p. 177. Both may have drawn from some older source.206We think, however, that Prof. Sellar attributes more importance to this element in the Lucretian philosophy than it will bear. His words are: ‘The doctrine proclaimed by Lucretius was, that creation was no result of a capricious or benevolent exercise of power, but of certain processes extending through infinite time, by means of which the atoms have at length been able to combine and work together in accordance with their ultimate conditions. The conception of these ultimate conditions and of their relations to one another involves some more vital agency than that of blind chance or an iron fatalism. The foedera Naturai are opposed to the foedera fati. The idea of law in Nature as understood by Lucretius is not merely that of invariable sequence or concomitance of phenomena. It implies at least the further idea of a “secreta facultas” in the original elements.‘ (Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 335, 2nd ed.) The expressionsecreta facultasoccurs, we believe, only once in the whole poem (I., 174), and is used on that single occasion without any reference to the atoms, which do not appear until a later stage of the exposition. Lucretius is proving that whatever begins to exist must have a cause, and in support of this principle he appeals to the fixed laws which govern the growth of plants. Each plant springs from a particular kind of seed, and so, he argues, each seed must have a distinct or specific virtue of its own, which virtue he expresses by the wordssecreta facultas. But, according to his subsequent teaching, this specific virtue depends on a particular combination of the atoms, not on any spontaneous power which they possess of grouping themselves together so as to form organic compounds. With regard to the properties of the atoms themselves, Lucretius enumerates them clearly enough. They are extension, figure, resistance, and motion; the last mentioned being divided into downward gravitation, lateral deflection, and the momenta produced by mutual impact. Here we have nothing more than the two elements of ‘iron fatalism’ and ‘blind chance’ which Prof. Sellar regards as insufficient to account for the Lucretian scheme of creation; gravitation and mutual impact give the one, lateral deflection gives the other. Any faculty over and above these could only be conceived under the form of conscious impulse, or of mutual attractions and repulsions exercised by the atoms on one another. The first hypothesis is expressly rejected by the poet, who tells us (I., 1020) that the primordial elements are destitute of consciousness, and have fallen into their present places through the agency of purely mechanical causes. The second hypothesis is nowhere alluded to in the most distant manner, it is contrary to the whole spirit of Epicurean physics, it never occurred to a single thinker of antiquity, and to have conceived it at that time would have needed more than the genius of a Newton. As a last escape it may be urged that Lucretius believed in ‘a sort of a something’ which, like the fourth element in the soul, he was not prepared to define. But besides the utter want of evidence for such a supposition, what necessity would there have been for the infinite chances which he postulates in order to explain how the actual system of things came to be evolved, had the elements been originally endowed with the disposition to fall into such a system rather than into any other? For Prof. Sellar’s vital agency must mean this disposition if it means anything at all.While on this subject we must also express our surprise to find Prof. Sellar saying of Lucretius that ‘in no ancient writer’ is ‘the certainty and universality of law more emphatically and unmistakably expressed’ (p. 334). This would, we think, be much truer of the Stoics, who recognised in its absolute universality that law of causation on which all other laws depend, but which Lucretius expressly tells us (II., 255) is broken through by theclinamen. A more accurate statement of the case, we think, would be to say that the Epicurean poet believed unreservedly in uniformities of co-existence, but not, to the same extent, in uniformities of sequence; while apart from these two classes neither he nor modern science knows of any laws at all.207V., 695-73, 730-49.208Cicero,De Nat. Deor., I., xxiv., 66.209Comm., IX., 28.210Coleridge’sFriend, Section II., Essay II.,sub in.211‘In the higher ranks of French society there are men who merit to be called professors of the art of happiness; who have analysed its ingredients with careful fingers and scrutinising eyes; who have consummated their experience of means and ends; who, like able doctors, can apply an immediate remedy to the daily difficulties of home-life; whose practice is worthy of their theory, and who prove it by maintaining in their wives’ hearts and in their own a perennial never-weakening sentiment of gratitude and love.‘ (French Home Life, p. 324.) Although Mr. Marshall’s observations are directly applicable to the happiness of married life only, they tend to prove that all happiness may be reduced to an art.212Wallace’sEpicureanism, p. 37.213Cicero,De Rep., III., vi.-xx.214Plutarch,Cato Major, xxii. ff.215Pindar,Pyth., III., 96.216Vol. I., p. 46.217It is said that the same ironical attitude continues to characterise the Greeks of our time. Col. Leake (quoted by Welcker,Gr. Götterl., II., p. 127) informs us that travellers in Greece are continually entertained with local fables which are everywhere repeated, but believed by nobody, least of all by the inhabitants of the district where they first originated. And Welcker adds, from his own experience, that the young Greeks who act as guides in the religious houses related the miraculous legends of the place with an enthusiasm and an eloquence which left him in doubt whether or not they themselves believed what they expected him to believe.218Il., II., 80; XII., 238; XVI., 859;Od., I., 215; XI., 363; XXIII., 166;Agamem., 477 ff.219Sextus Empiricus,Adv. Math., VII., 89 ff; Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., I., pp. 464, 652, 743, 828. (3rd ed.)220For the theses of Gorgias see Sextus Empiricus,Adv. Math., VII., 65 ff.221Sext. Emp.,Adv. Math., VII., 170 ff.222Xen.,Mem., IV., iii., 14.223Timaeus, 37, B, 43, D ff.224Examples of these questions are: ‘Have you lost your horns?’ and, ‘Did Electra know that Orestes was her brother?’ Stated in words, she knew that he was; but she did not recognise him as her brother when he came to her in disguise.225Plutarch,Adv. Col., xxii.-xxiii.; Seneca,Epp., ix.226Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., III., a, 481; Diog. L., IX., xi.227Zeller,op. cit., p. 484; Ritter and Preller,Hist. Ph., p. 336.228ὡς χαλεπὸν εἴη ὁλοσχερῶς ἐκδῦναι ἄνθρωπον. For this and the other stories, see Diog. L., IX., 66-8.229Pyrrh. Hyp., I., 28 ff.230Diog. L., VII., 171.231Cicero,Acad., II., xxiv., 77; Sext. Emp.,Adv. Math., VII., 150-7; Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., III., a, pp. 492 ff.232Plutarch,De Comm. Notit., i., 4; Zeller,op. cit., p. 81 (where, however, the reference to Plutarch is wrongly given).233Εἰ μὴ γὰρ ἦν Χρύσιππος οὐκ ἂν ἦν ἐγώ. (Diog. L., IV., 62.) The original line ran, εἰ μὴ γὰρ ἦν Χρύσιππος οὐκ ἂν ἦν στοά.234Sext. Emp.,Adv. Math., VII., 159-65.235That Carneades was the first to start this difficulty cannot be directly proved, but is conjectured with great probability by Zeller (op. cit., p. 504).236Sext.Pyrrh. Hyp., II., 186.Adv. Math., VIII., 463.237Pyrrh. Hyp., II., 195, 204.238Cicero,De Nat. Deor., I., xxiii., 62; III., iv., 11; xvi., 42; xxi., 53.239Sext.,Adv. Math., IX., 182-3.240Cic.,De Nat. Deor., III., xviii., 47.241Cic.,Acad., II., xxxviii., 120; Zeller,op. cit., p. 506.242Cic.,Acad.,ibid., 121; Zeller,op. cit., p. 507.243Cic.,De Nat. Deor., III., x., 24.244ibid., III., xi., 27.245ibid., ix., 21.246ibid., III., xii., 29; I., xxxix., 109.247Sext.Adv. Math., IX., 139-47.248ibid., 152-77.249Cic.,De Nat. Deor., III., vi.;De Divin., II.,passim;De Nat. Deor., III., xxvi. ff.250Le Christianisme et ses Origines, II., p. 3.251Sext.,Pyrrh. Hyp., III., 2.252Sext.,Adv. Math., VII., 166-89.253Cic.,De Fin., III., xii., 41; Zeller,op. cit., p. 519.254According to Zeller’s interpretation of Cicero,Acad., II., xi., 34.255Zeller,op. cit., p. 602.256ibid., p. 603.257For the authorities see Zeller,op. cit., pp. 599-601.258Zeller,op. cit., pp. 603-8.259Zeller,op. cit., pp. 554, 561 ff.260Zeller,op. cit., p. 575.261Zeller,op. cit., p. 621.262Cic.,Acad., II., xlv.263The treatises entitledDe Stoicorum RepugnantiâandDe Communibus Notiliis.264Lucret., IV., 1154-64; Juven., VI., 186-95.265Varro observes that for 170 years the ancient Romans worshipped their gods without images; ‘quod si adhuc,’ inquit, ‘mansisset castius Dii observarentur.’ And in the same passage, speaking of mythology, he says, ‘hoc omnia Diis attribuuntur quae non modo in hominem, sed etiam in contemtissimum hominem cadere possunt.’ Augustin.,De Civit. Dei, IV., iii., and xxxi., quoted by Zeller,op. cit., p. 674.266Ritter and Preller,Hist. Phil., p. 426; Woltjer,Lucretii Philosophia, p. 5.267The services of Posidonius seem to have been overlooked by M. Gaston Boissier when he implies in his work on Roman Religion (vol. ii., p. 13) that Fabianus, a Roman declaimer under Augustus, was the first to give an eloquent expression to Stoicism.268Zeller,op. cit., pp. 597-8.269Acad., II., xxii., 69.270ibid., xxxi., 99.271De Fin., V., xxi., 59.272Acad., II., xxxix.273For the literary studies of Socrates, see Xenoph.,Mem., I., vi., 14; those of Cicero are too manifest to need any special reference.274See the passages quoted by Zeller,op. cit., pp. 659-60.275Acad., I., x.276De Fin., IV., viii.277De Off., III., iii., 11.278The passage occurs near the beginning of his Essay on Bacon.279See theSomnium Scipionis, De Repub., VI., xvii.280ibid., xxvi.281De Divin., II., lxxii., 148; Zeller,op. cit., p. 667.282l. 724 ff.283l. 5-7, and 34-36.284I., 231-51.285The very passage (Georg., II., 475-92) which is supposed to refer to Lucretius contains a line (frigidus obstiterit circum praecordia sanguis) embodying the Stoic theory that the soul has its seat in the heart, and is nourished by a warm exhalation from the blood. See Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., III., a, p. 197.286Zeller does indeed call Seneca and Marcus Aurelius ‘Platonising Stoics’ (Ph. d. Gr., III., b, p. 236, 3rd. ed.); but the evidence adduced hardly seems to justify the epithet.287Metamorph., XV., 60.288Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., III., a, p. 681.289Epp., I., i., 18.290M. Gaston Boissier (Religion Romaine, I., p. 206), on the strength of a passage in one of Horace’sSatires(II., iii., 11), where the poet speaks of carrying Plato about with him on his travels, infers that the study of theDialogueshad a good deal to do with his conversion. It is, however, more than probable that the Plato mentioned is not the philosopher, but the comic poet, for we find that his companions in Horace’s trunk were Menander, Eupolis, and Archilochus.291Zeller is inclined to place Aenesidêmus a hundred years earlier than the date here assigned to him (Ph. d. Gr., III., b, p. 9); but two pieces of evidence which he himself quotes seem to militate strongly against this view. One is a statement of Aristocles the Peripatetic, who flourished 160-190A.D., that Scepticism had been revived not long before his time (ἐχθὲς καὶ πρώην;apudEuseb.,Pr. Ev., XIV., xviii., 22; Zeller,op. cit., p. 9); the other is Seneca’s question,Quis est qui tradat praecepta Pyrrhonis?(Nat. Quaest., VII., xxxii. 2; Zeller, p. 11). On the other hand, Epictêtus, lecturing towards the end of the first century, alludes to Scepticism as something then living and active. The natural inference is that Aenesidêmus flourished before his time and after Seneca, that is about the period mentioned in the text; and we cannot make out that there are any satisfactory data pointing to a different conclusion.292Zeller, III., b, p. 18.293Zeller, III., a, pp. 495 and 514; Cic.,Acad., I., xii., 45;ibid., II., ix., 28.294With all deference to so great a scholar as Zeller, it seems to us that he has misinterpreted a passage in which Sextus Empiricus observes that a particular argument of his own against the possibility of reaching truth either by sense or by reason, is virtually (δυνάμει) contained in the difficulties raised by Aenesidêmus (Adv. Math., VIII., 40). Zeller (op. cit., III., b, p. 20, note 5) translates δυνάμει, ‘dem Sinne nach,’ ‘in substance,’ a meaning which it will hardly bear. What Sextus says is that the untrustworthiness of reason follows on the untrustworthiness of sense, for the notions supplied by the latter must either be common to all the senses—which is impossible, owing to their specialised character—or limited to some, and therefore equally liable with them to dispute and contradiction. Moreover, he argues, rational notions (τά νοητά) cannot all be true, as they conflict both with each other and with sensation. And the reference to Aenesidêmus means simply that this kind of argument amounts to a further extension of his attack on the credibility of the senses; it does not imply that Aenesidêmus had ever attacked reason himself. The whole passage is quite in the usual style of exhaustive alternation followed by Sextus, and its extreme awkwardness seems to show that he is forcing his arguments into parallelism with those of his predecessor. It is possible also that the different members of the argument have been transposed; for the part connecting reason with sense (44) ought logically to stand last, and that relating to the discrepancy of different notions with one another (45-7), second. Cf.Adv. Math., VII., 350, where Aenesidêmus is said to have identified the understanding with the senses, quite in the style of Protagoras and quite unlike the New Academy.

155This reminds one of the ‘pèlerinages,’ which figure along with ‘pigeon-shooting’ among the attractions offered by French country hotels to idle visitors.

156Republic, II., 364, C, ff; Jowett’s transl., III., 234-5. Elsewhere Plato proposes that these ‘bestial persons’ who persuade others that the gods can be induced by magical incantations to pardon crime, should be punished by imprisonment for life (Legg, X., 909, A, f.).

157Villemain,Life of Gregory VII., Engl, transl., I., p. 305. As a further illustration of the same subject, it may be mentioned that there is a cemetery near Innsbruck (and probably many more like it throughout the Tyrol) freely adorned with rude representations of souls in purgatory, stretching out their hands for help from amid the flames. The help is of course to be obtained by purchase from the priesthood.

158Lucret., I., 108-12.

159Agamemnon, 369 (Dindorf).

160Zeller, pp. 428-9.

161Prof. Sellar observes, as we think, with perfect truth, that ‘there is no necessary connexion between the atomic theory of philosophy and that view of the ends and objects of life which Lucretius derived from Epicurus.’—Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 348, 2nd ed.

162Lucret., I., 1020 ff.; V., 835 ff; IV., 780 ff.; V., 1023; V., 1307 ff.

163That Democritus attributed weight to his atoms has been proved, in opposition to Lewes and others, by Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., I., p. 713 (3rd ed.)

164Woltjer,Lucr. Phil., p. 38.

165Arist.,Phys., IV., viii., 216, a, 20.

166II., 257 ff.

167Lucret., IV., 875 ff.

168Lucret., V., 437 ff.

169Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., III., a, pp. 397-8. Reichel’s transl., pp. 412-3 (1st ed.)

170Woltjer (Lucret. Ph., p. 126) charges Lucretius with having misunderstood his master on this point. As the sun and moon appear larger when near the horizon than at other times, Epicurus thought that we then see them either as they really are or a little larger. This, Lucretius, according to Woltjer, took to mean that their general apparent size may be a little over or under their real size.

171Zeller, p. 413.

172See, for instance, Woltjer,op. cit., p. 88.

173Zeller, p. 443, note 3.

174Zeller, pp. 417-8.

175Diog., X., 125.

176III., 922.

177Cicero,De Fin., I., ix., 30.

178‘Aeque enim timent ne apud inferos sint, quam ne nusquam.’—Seneca,Epp., lxxxii., 16.

179Cf. Plutarch,Non posse suaviter vivi, cap. xxvii.

180Among other feelings consequent on the first experience of death among the posterity of Cain, the following are specified:—‘It seemed the light was never loved before,Now each man said, “‘Twill go and come no more.”No budding branch, no pebble from the brook,No form, no shadow but new dearness tookFrom the one thought that life must have an end;And the last parting now began to sendDiffusive dread through love and wedded bliss,Thrilling them into finer tenderness.‘

180Among other feelings consequent on the first experience of death among the posterity of Cain, the following are specified:—

‘It seemed the light was never loved before,Now each man said, “‘Twill go and come no more.”No budding branch, no pebble from the brook,No form, no shadow but new dearness tookFrom the one thought that life must have an end;And the last parting now began to sendDiffusive dread through love and wedded bliss,Thrilling them into finer tenderness.‘

‘It seemed the light was never loved before,

Now each man said, “‘Twill go and come no more.”

No budding branch, no pebble from the brook,

No form, no shadow but new dearness took

From the one thought that life must have an end;

And the last parting now began to send

Diffusive dread through love and wedded bliss,

Thrilling them into finer tenderness.‘

181III., 59 ff.

182Ethic., Pars. IV., Prop. vii.

183Ethic. Nic., III., xii., 1117, b, 10 ff. Sir Alexander Grant, in his note on the passage, appositely compares the character of Wordsworth’s Happy Warrior, who is ‘More brave for this that he has much to love.’

184For the authorities, see Zeller, p. 388.

185Lucret., IV., 354, 728, 761.

186Such at least seems to be the theory rather obscurely set forth in Diog., X., 32.

187Diog., X., 33, Sextus Emp.,Adv. Math., VII., 211-16; Zeller, p. 391.

188For additional authorities see Zeller, pp. 385-95, and Wallace’sEpicureanism, chap. x.

189See Woltjer,Lucr. Ph., p. 141 ff.

190Morale d’Épicure, p. 157.

191In a fragment quoted by Sextus Empiricus,Adv. Math., IX., 54.

192Fragmenta Tragicorum, Didot, p. 140.

193Zeller, p. 416, note 1.

194See the whole concluding portion of Lucr., bk. V.

195Chiefly by Ritter,Gesch. d. Phil., IV., p. 94, on which see the clear and convincing reply of Zeller,op. cit., p. 47.

196For details we must refer to the masterly treatise of Dr. Woltjer, already cited more than once in the course of this chapter.

197Cf. II., 18, with II., 172.

198The single exception to this rule that can be quoted is, we believe, the argument against impassioned love derived from its enslaving influence (quod alterius sub nutu degitur aetas, V., 1116). But to live under another’s nod is a condition eminently unfavourable to the mental tranquillity which an Epicurean prized before all things; nor, in any case, does it seem to have counted for so much with Lucretius as the ‘damnation of expenses’ which was no less formidable a deterrent to him than to the ‘unco guid’ of Burns’s satire.

199V., 1153-4.

200V., 1125.

201Ziegler (Gesch. a. Ethik, I., p. 203) quotes Lucret., III., 136, to prove that the poet recognised the existence of mental pleasures as such. But Lucretius only says that the mind has pleasures not derived from an immediate external stimulus. This would apply perfectly to the imagination of sensual pleasure.

202Woltjer,op. cit., p. 5.

203IV., 966.

204Woltjer,op. cit., pp. 178 ff.

205There is an unquestionable coincidence between Lucretius, II., 69 ff. and Plato,Legg., 776 B, pointed out by Teichmüller,Geschichte der Begriffe, p. 177. Both may have drawn from some older source.

206We think, however, that Prof. Sellar attributes more importance to this element in the Lucretian philosophy than it will bear. His words are: ‘The doctrine proclaimed by Lucretius was, that creation was no result of a capricious or benevolent exercise of power, but of certain processes extending through infinite time, by means of which the atoms have at length been able to combine and work together in accordance with their ultimate conditions. The conception of these ultimate conditions and of their relations to one another involves some more vital agency than that of blind chance or an iron fatalism. The foedera Naturai are opposed to the foedera fati. The idea of law in Nature as understood by Lucretius is not merely that of invariable sequence or concomitance of phenomena. It implies at least the further idea of a “secreta facultas” in the original elements.‘ (Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 335, 2nd ed.) The expressionsecreta facultasoccurs, we believe, only once in the whole poem (I., 174), and is used on that single occasion without any reference to the atoms, which do not appear until a later stage of the exposition. Lucretius is proving that whatever begins to exist must have a cause, and in support of this principle he appeals to the fixed laws which govern the growth of plants. Each plant springs from a particular kind of seed, and so, he argues, each seed must have a distinct or specific virtue of its own, which virtue he expresses by the wordssecreta facultas. But, according to his subsequent teaching, this specific virtue depends on a particular combination of the atoms, not on any spontaneous power which they possess of grouping themselves together so as to form organic compounds. With regard to the properties of the atoms themselves, Lucretius enumerates them clearly enough. They are extension, figure, resistance, and motion; the last mentioned being divided into downward gravitation, lateral deflection, and the momenta produced by mutual impact. Here we have nothing more than the two elements of ‘iron fatalism’ and ‘blind chance’ which Prof. Sellar regards as insufficient to account for the Lucretian scheme of creation; gravitation and mutual impact give the one, lateral deflection gives the other. Any faculty over and above these could only be conceived under the form of conscious impulse, or of mutual attractions and repulsions exercised by the atoms on one another. The first hypothesis is expressly rejected by the poet, who tells us (I., 1020) that the primordial elements are destitute of consciousness, and have fallen into their present places through the agency of purely mechanical causes. The second hypothesis is nowhere alluded to in the most distant manner, it is contrary to the whole spirit of Epicurean physics, it never occurred to a single thinker of antiquity, and to have conceived it at that time would have needed more than the genius of a Newton. As a last escape it may be urged that Lucretius believed in ‘a sort of a something’ which, like the fourth element in the soul, he was not prepared to define. But besides the utter want of evidence for such a supposition, what necessity would there have been for the infinite chances which he postulates in order to explain how the actual system of things came to be evolved, had the elements been originally endowed with the disposition to fall into such a system rather than into any other? For Prof. Sellar’s vital agency must mean this disposition if it means anything at all.While on this subject we must also express our surprise to find Prof. Sellar saying of Lucretius that ‘in no ancient writer’ is ‘the certainty and universality of law more emphatically and unmistakably expressed’ (p. 334). This would, we think, be much truer of the Stoics, who recognised in its absolute universality that law of causation on which all other laws depend, but which Lucretius expressly tells us (II., 255) is broken through by theclinamen. A more accurate statement of the case, we think, would be to say that the Epicurean poet believed unreservedly in uniformities of co-existence, but not, to the same extent, in uniformities of sequence; while apart from these two classes neither he nor modern science knows of any laws at all.

While on this subject we must also express our surprise to find Prof. Sellar saying of Lucretius that ‘in no ancient writer’ is ‘the certainty and universality of law more emphatically and unmistakably expressed’ (p. 334). This would, we think, be much truer of the Stoics, who recognised in its absolute universality that law of causation on which all other laws depend, but which Lucretius expressly tells us (II., 255) is broken through by theclinamen. A more accurate statement of the case, we think, would be to say that the Epicurean poet believed unreservedly in uniformities of co-existence, but not, to the same extent, in uniformities of sequence; while apart from these two classes neither he nor modern science knows of any laws at all.

207V., 695-73, 730-49.

208Cicero,De Nat. Deor., I., xxiv., 66.

209Comm., IX., 28.

210Coleridge’sFriend, Section II., Essay II.,sub in.

211‘In the higher ranks of French society there are men who merit to be called professors of the art of happiness; who have analysed its ingredients with careful fingers and scrutinising eyes; who have consummated their experience of means and ends; who, like able doctors, can apply an immediate remedy to the daily difficulties of home-life; whose practice is worthy of their theory, and who prove it by maintaining in their wives’ hearts and in their own a perennial never-weakening sentiment of gratitude and love.‘ (French Home Life, p. 324.) Although Mr. Marshall’s observations are directly applicable to the happiness of married life only, they tend to prove that all happiness may be reduced to an art.

212Wallace’sEpicureanism, p. 37.

213Cicero,De Rep., III., vi.-xx.

214Plutarch,Cato Major, xxii. ff.

215Pindar,Pyth., III., 96.

216Vol. I., p. 46.

217It is said that the same ironical attitude continues to characterise the Greeks of our time. Col. Leake (quoted by Welcker,Gr. Götterl., II., p. 127) informs us that travellers in Greece are continually entertained with local fables which are everywhere repeated, but believed by nobody, least of all by the inhabitants of the district where they first originated. And Welcker adds, from his own experience, that the young Greeks who act as guides in the religious houses related the miraculous legends of the place with an enthusiasm and an eloquence which left him in doubt whether or not they themselves believed what they expected him to believe.

218Il., II., 80; XII., 238; XVI., 859;Od., I., 215; XI., 363; XXIII., 166;Agamem., 477 ff.

219Sextus Empiricus,Adv. Math., VII., 89 ff; Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., I., pp. 464, 652, 743, 828. (3rd ed.)

220For the theses of Gorgias see Sextus Empiricus,Adv. Math., VII., 65 ff.

221Sext. Emp.,Adv. Math., VII., 170 ff.

222Xen.,Mem., IV., iii., 14.

223Timaeus, 37, B, 43, D ff.

224Examples of these questions are: ‘Have you lost your horns?’ and, ‘Did Electra know that Orestes was her brother?’ Stated in words, she knew that he was; but she did not recognise him as her brother when he came to her in disguise.

225Plutarch,Adv. Col., xxii.-xxiii.; Seneca,Epp., ix.

226Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., III., a, 481; Diog. L., IX., xi.

227Zeller,op. cit., p. 484; Ritter and Preller,Hist. Ph., p. 336.

228ὡς χαλεπὸν εἴη ὁλοσχερῶς ἐκδῦναι ἄνθρωπον. For this and the other stories, see Diog. L., IX., 66-8.

229Pyrrh. Hyp., I., 28 ff.

230Diog. L., VII., 171.

231Cicero,Acad., II., xxiv., 77; Sext. Emp.,Adv. Math., VII., 150-7; Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., III., a, pp. 492 ff.

232Plutarch,De Comm. Notit., i., 4; Zeller,op. cit., p. 81 (where, however, the reference to Plutarch is wrongly given).

233Εἰ μὴ γὰρ ἦν Χρύσιππος οὐκ ἂν ἦν ἐγώ. (Diog. L., IV., 62.) The original line ran, εἰ μὴ γὰρ ἦν Χρύσιππος οὐκ ἂν ἦν στοά.

234Sext. Emp.,Adv. Math., VII., 159-65.

235That Carneades was the first to start this difficulty cannot be directly proved, but is conjectured with great probability by Zeller (op. cit., p. 504).

236Sext.Pyrrh. Hyp., II., 186.Adv. Math., VIII., 463.

237Pyrrh. Hyp., II., 195, 204.

238Cicero,De Nat. Deor., I., xxiii., 62; III., iv., 11; xvi., 42; xxi., 53.

239Sext.,Adv. Math., IX., 182-3.

240Cic.,De Nat. Deor., III., xviii., 47.

241Cic.,Acad., II., xxxviii., 120; Zeller,op. cit., p. 506.

242Cic.,Acad.,ibid., 121; Zeller,op. cit., p. 507.

243Cic.,De Nat. Deor., III., x., 24.

244ibid., III., xi., 27.

245ibid., ix., 21.

246ibid., III., xii., 29; I., xxxix., 109.

247Sext.Adv. Math., IX., 139-47.

248ibid., 152-77.

249Cic.,De Nat. Deor., III., vi.;De Divin., II.,passim;De Nat. Deor., III., xxvi. ff.

250Le Christianisme et ses Origines, II., p. 3.

251Sext.,Pyrrh. Hyp., III., 2.

252Sext.,Adv. Math., VII., 166-89.

253Cic.,De Fin., III., xii., 41; Zeller,op. cit., p. 519.

254According to Zeller’s interpretation of Cicero,Acad., II., xi., 34.

255Zeller,op. cit., p. 602.

256ibid., p. 603.

257For the authorities see Zeller,op. cit., pp. 599-601.

258Zeller,op. cit., pp. 603-8.

259Zeller,op. cit., pp. 554, 561 ff.

260Zeller,op. cit., p. 575.

261Zeller,op. cit., p. 621.

262Cic.,Acad., II., xlv.

263The treatises entitledDe Stoicorum RepugnantiâandDe Communibus Notiliis.

264Lucret., IV., 1154-64; Juven., VI., 186-95.

265Varro observes that for 170 years the ancient Romans worshipped their gods without images; ‘quod si adhuc,’ inquit, ‘mansisset castius Dii observarentur.’ And in the same passage, speaking of mythology, he says, ‘hoc omnia Diis attribuuntur quae non modo in hominem, sed etiam in contemtissimum hominem cadere possunt.’ Augustin.,De Civit. Dei, IV., iii., and xxxi., quoted by Zeller,op. cit., p. 674.

266Ritter and Preller,Hist. Phil., p. 426; Woltjer,Lucretii Philosophia, p. 5.

267The services of Posidonius seem to have been overlooked by M. Gaston Boissier when he implies in his work on Roman Religion (vol. ii., p. 13) that Fabianus, a Roman declaimer under Augustus, was the first to give an eloquent expression to Stoicism.

268Zeller,op. cit., pp. 597-8.

269Acad., II., xxii., 69.

270ibid., xxxi., 99.

271De Fin., V., xxi., 59.

272Acad., II., xxxix.

273For the literary studies of Socrates, see Xenoph.,Mem., I., vi., 14; those of Cicero are too manifest to need any special reference.

274See the passages quoted by Zeller,op. cit., pp. 659-60.

275Acad., I., x.

276De Fin., IV., viii.

277De Off., III., iii., 11.

278The passage occurs near the beginning of his Essay on Bacon.

279See theSomnium Scipionis, De Repub., VI., xvii.

280ibid., xxvi.

281De Divin., II., lxxii., 148; Zeller,op. cit., p. 667.

282l. 724 ff.

283l. 5-7, and 34-36.

284I., 231-51.

285The very passage (Georg., II., 475-92) which is supposed to refer to Lucretius contains a line (frigidus obstiterit circum praecordia sanguis) embodying the Stoic theory that the soul has its seat in the heart, and is nourished by a warm exhalation from the blood. See Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., III., a, p. 197.

286Zeller does indeed call Seneca and Marcus Aurelius ‘Platonising Stoics’ (Ph. d. Gr., III., b, p. 236, 3rd. ed.); but the evidence adduced hardly seems to justify the epithet.

287Metamorph., XV., 60.

288Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., III., a, p. 681.

289Epp., I., i., 18.

290M. Gaston Boissier (Religion Romaine, I., p. 206), on the strength of a passage in one of Horace’sSatires(II., iii., 11), where the poet speaks of carrying Plato about with him on his travels, infers that the study of theDialogueshad a good deal to do with his conversion. It is, however, more than probable that the Plato mentioned is not the philosopher, but the comic poet, for we find that his companions in Horace’s trunk were Menander, Eupolis, and Archilochus.

291Zeller is inclined to place Aenesidêmus a hundred years earlier than the date here assigned to him (Ph. d. Gr., III., b, p. 9); but two pieces of evidence which he himself quotes seem to militate strongly against this view. One is a statement of Aristocles the Peripatetic, who flourished 160-190A.D., that Scepticism had been revived not long before his time (ἐχθὲς καὶ πρώην;apudEuseb.,Pr. Ev., XIV., xviii., 22; Zeller,op. cit., p. 9); the other is Seneca’s question,Quis est qui tradat praecepta Pyrrhonis?(Nat. Quaest., VII., xxxii. 2; Zeller, p. 11). On the other hand, Epictêtus, lecturing towards the end of the first century, alludes to Scepticism as something then living and active. The natural inference is that Aenesidêmus flourished before his time and after Seneca, that is about the period mentioned in the text; and we cannot make out that there are any satisfactory data pointing to a different conclusion.

292Zeller, III., b, p. 18.

293Zeller, III., a, pp. 495 and 514; Cic.,Acad., I., xii., 45;ibid., II., ix., 28.

294With all deference to so great a scholar as Zeller, it seems to us that he has misinterpreted a passage in which Sextus Empiricus observes that a particular argument of his own against the possibility of reaching truth either by sense or by reason, is virtually (δυνάμει) contained in the difficulties raised by Aenesidêmus (Adv. Math., VIII., 40). Zeller (op. cit., III., b, p. 20, note 5) translates δυνάμει, ‘dem Sinne nach,’ ‘in substance,’ a meaning which it will hardly bear. What Sextus says is that the untrustworthiness of reason follows on the untrustworthiness of sense, for the notions supplied by the latter must either be common to all the senses—which is impossible, owing to their specialised character—or limited to some, and therefore equally liable with them to dispute and contradiction. Moreover, he argues, rational notions (τά νοητά) cannot all be true, as they conflict both with each other and with sensation. And the reference to Aenesidêmus means simply that this kind of argument amounts to a further extension of his attack on the credibility of the senses; it does not imply that Aenesidêmus had ever attacked reason himself. The whole passage is quite in the usual style of exhaustive alternation followed by Sextus, and its extreme awkwardness seems to show that he is forcing his arguments into parallelism with those of his predecessor. It is possible also that the different members of the argument have been transposed; for the part connecting reason with sense (44) ought logically to stand last, and that relating to the discrepancy of different notions with one another (45-7), second. Cf.Adv. Math., VII., 350, where Aenesidêmus is said to have identified the understanding with the senses, quite in the style of Protagoras and quite unlike the New Academy.

Back to Index Next