Chapter 21

[104]Philo,de somniis, i. 20, vol. i. p. 639.[105]Hom.Il.2. 204.[106]Ps-Justin (probably Apollonius, see Dräseke, in theJahrb. f. protestant. Theologie, 1885, p. 144), c. 17.[107]Hom.Il.18. 483.[108]Ps-Justin, c. 28.[109]Hom.Il.14. 206; Clem. Al.Strom.5. 14, p. 708.[110]Il.22. 8; Clem. Al.Strom.5. 14, p. 719; but it sometimes required a keen eye to see the Gospel in Homer. For example, inOdyss.9. 410, the Cyclopes say to Polyphemus:εἰ μὲν δὴ μή τίς σε βιάζεται οἶον ἐόντα,νοῦσόν γ’ οὔ πως ἔστι Διὸς μεγάλου ἀλέασθαι.Clement (Strom.5. 14) makes this to be an evident “divination” of the Father and the Son. His argument is, apparently, μήτις = μῆτις; but μῆτις = λόγος: therefore the νόσος Διός, which = μῆτις = (by a μαντείας εὐστόχου) the Son of God.[111]Hippol.Philosophumena, 6. 14.[112]Herod. 4. 8-10.[113]Hippol. 5. 21.[114]Clementin. Hom.2. 43, 44.[115]Ib.2. 51.[116]Clem. Alex.Strom.5. 4, p. 237.[117]These are given by J. G. Rosenmüller,Historia Interpretationis librorum sacrorum in ecclesia Christiana, vol. i. p. 63.[118]Athenag.Legat.c. 19: ps-Justin (Apollonius),Cohort. ad. Græc.c. 8, uses the analogous metaphor of a harp of which the Divine Spirit is theplectrum.[119]Tertull.adv. Marc.3. 5.[120]Justin M.Apol.i. 54.[121]Ib.i. 35.[122]Ib.i. 32.[123]Ib.Tryph.78.[124]Iren. 1. 8. 4, of the Valentinians.[125]Ib.1. 8. 2.[126]Clem. Al.Strom.1. 3, p. 329.[127]Ib.6. 11, p. 787.[128]Id.Pædag.2. 8, p. 76.[129]This was the contention of Marcion, whose influence upon the Christian world was far larger than is commonly supposed. By far the best account of him, in both this and other respects, is that of Harnack,Dogmengeschichte, 1er Th. B. i. c. 5.[130]Euseb.H. E.6. 19. 8.[131]Origen,de princip.1. 16.[132]Ib.c. 15.[133]Clement.Recogn.10. 36.[134]Clement.Hom.6. 18.[135]Tatian,Orat. ad. Græc.21.[136]Euseb.Præp. Evang.2. 6, vol. iii. p 74: θεραπεία became a technical term in this sense; cf. Gräfenhan,Geschichte des klass. Philologie im Alterthum, vol. i. p. 215.[137]Porphyr. ap. Euseb.H. E.6. 19. 5.[138]Origen,c. Cels.4. 48-50.[139]Origen,in Gen. Hom.13. 3, vol. ii. p. 94;in Joann. Hom.10. 13, vol. iv. p. 178.[140]Euseb.H. E.7. 24.[141]Kihn,Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten, Freib. im Breisg. 1880, p. 7.[142]J. G. Rosenmüller,Hist. Interpret.iii. p. 161. The letter is printed, with the other remains of Julius Africanus, in Routh,Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. ii.[143]See the chapter on “Scripture and its Mystical Interpretation” in Newman’s “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” especially p. 324 (2nd ed.), “It may almost be laid down as an historical fact that the mystical interpretation and orthodoxy will stand or fall together.”[144]I have endeavoured to confine the above account to what is true ofGreekRhetoric: the accounts which are found in Roman writers, especially in Quintilian, though in the main agreeing with it, differ in some details. The best modern summary of Greek usages is that of Kayser’s Preface to his editions of Philostratus (Zürich, 1844; Leipzig, 1871, vol. ii.).[145]E. Rohde,der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer, Leipzig, 1876, p. 297.[146]There is a distinction between τὰ δικανικὰ and τὰ ἀμφὶ μελέτην, and both are distinguished from τὰ πολιτικὰ in Philostratus,V. S.2. 20, p. 103. Elsewhere Philostratus speaks of a sophist as being δικανικοῦ μὲν σοφιστικώτερος σοφιστοῦ δὲ δικανικώτερος, “too much of alitterateurto be a good lawyer, and too much of a lawyer to be a goodlitterateur,” 2. 23. 4, p. 108.[147]θέσις is defined by Hermogenes as ἀμφισβητημένου πράγματος ζήτησις,Progymn.11, Walz, i. p. 50: ὑπόθεσις as τῶν ἐπὶ μέρους ζήτησις, Sext. Emp.adv. Geom.3. 4: so τὰς εἰς ὄvομα ὑποθέσεις, Philostr.V.S.proœm. The distinction is best formulated by Quintilian, 3. 5. 5, who gives the equivalent Latin terms, “infinitæ (quæstiones) sunt quæ remotis personis et temporibus et locis cæterisque similibus in utramque partem tractantur quod Græci θέσιν dicunt, Cicero propositum ... finitæ autem sunt ex complexu rerum personarum temporum cæterorumque: hæ ὑποθέσεις a Græcis dicuntur, caussæ a nostris, in his omnis quæstio videtur circa res personasque consistere.”[148]Philostr.V.S.1. 25. 7, 16.[149]Ib.2. 5. 3.[150]Dio Chrysost. lvi. vol. ii. p. 176.[151]προσωποποιΐα, for which see Theon.Progymnasmata, c. 10, ed. Spengel, vol. ii. 115: Quintil. 3. 8. 49; 9. 2. 29. The word ὑποκρίνεσθαι was sometimes applied, e.g. Philostr.V.S.1. 21. 5, of Scopelianus, whose action in subjects taken from the Persian wars was so vehement that a partizan of one of his rivals accused him of beating a tambourine, “Yes, I do,” he said; “but my tambourine is the shield of Ajax.”[152]“They made their voice sweet with musical cadences, and modulations of tone, and echoed resonances:” Plut.de aud.7, p. 41. So at Rome Favorinus is said to have “charmed even those who did not know Greek by the sound of his voice, and the significance of his look, and the cadence of his sentences:” Philostr.V. S.1. 7, p. 208.[153]Orat.lix.[154]Rohde, pp. 336 sqq.[155]This trained habit of composing in different styles is of importance in relation to Christian as well as to non-Christian literature. A good study of the latter is afforded by Arrian, whose “chameleon-like style” (Kaibel,Dionysios von Halikarnass und die Sophistik, Hermes, Bd. xx. 1875, p. 508) imitates Thucydides, Herodotus, and Xenophon, by turns.[156]Philostratus, V. S. 1. P. 202, τὴν ἀρχαίαν σοφιστικὴνῥητορικὴνἡγεῖσθαι χρὴφιλοσοφοῦσαν. διαλέγεται μὲν γὰρ ὑπὲρ ὧν οἱ φιλοσοφοῦντες ἃ δὲ ἐκεῖνοι τὰς ἐρωτήσεις ὑποκαθήμενοι καὶ τὰ σμικρὰ τῶν ζητουμένων προβιβάζοντες οὔπω φασὶ γιγνώσκειν ταῦτα ὁ παλαιὸς σοφιστὴς ὡς εἰδὼς λέγει:ib.p. 4, σοφιστὰς δὲ οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐπωνόμαζον οὐ μόνον τῶν ῥητόρων τοὺς ὑπερφωνοῦντάς τε καὶ λαμπρούς, ἀλλὰ καὶτῶν φιλοσόφων τοὺς ξὺν εὐροίᾳ ἑρμηνεύοντας.[157]On the distinction, see Kayser’s preface to his editions of Philostratus, p. vii.[158]Philostratus,V. S.2. 3, p. 245, says that the famous sophist Aristocles lived the earlier part of his life as a Peripatetic philosopher, “squalid and unkempt and ill-clothed,” but that when he passed into the ranks of the sophists he brushed off his squalor, and brought luxury and the pleasures of music into his life. On the philosopher’s dress, see below,Lecture VI. p. 151.[159]Epictetus,Diss.3. 21. 6; 3. 23. 6, 23, 28: so Pliny,Epist.3. 18 (of invitations to recitations), “non per codicillos (cards of invitation), non per libellos (programmes, probably containing extracts), sed ‘si commodum esset,’ et ‘si valde vacaret’ admoniti.” Cf. Lucian,Hermotimus, 11, where a sophist is represented as hanging up a notice-board over his gateway, “No lecture to-day.”[160]Philostratus,V.S.2. 10. 5, says that the enthusiasm at Rome about the sophist Adrian was such that when his messenger (τοῦ τῆς ἀκροάσεως ἀγγέλου) appeared on the scene with a notice of lecture, the people rose up, whether from the senate or the circus, and flocked to the Athenæum to hear him. Synesius,Dio(in Dio Chrys. ed. Dind, vol. ii. 342), speaks of θυροκοπήσαντα καὶ ἐπαγγείλαντα τοῖς ἐv ἄστες μειρακίοις ἀκρόαμα ἐπιδέξιον.[161]Orat.23, p. 360, ed. Dind.[162]De sanit. præc.16, p. 131.[163]V. S.2. 5. 3.[164]Pseudolog.5 sqq.[165]Orat.viii. vol. i. 145.[166]Epict.Diss.3. 23. 35, ἐν κομψῷ στολίῳ ἢ τριβωνίῳ ἀναβάντα ἐπὶ πούλβινον: but Pliny,Epist.2. 3. 2, says of Isæus, “surgit,amicitur, incipit,” as though he robed himself in the presence of the audience.[167]Pliny,Epist.2. 3, says of Isæus: “præfationes tersæ, graciles, dulces: graves interdum et erectæ. Poscit controversias plures, electionem auditoribus permittit, sæpe etiam partes.” Philostratus,V.S.1. 24. 4, tells a story of Mark of Byzantium going into Polemo’s lecture-room and sitting down among the audience: some one recognized him, and the whisper went round who he was, so that, when Polemo asked for a subject, all eyes were turned to Mark. “What is the use of looking at a rustic like that?” said Polemo, referring to Mark’s shaggy beard; “hewill not give you a subject.” “I will both give you a subject,” said Mark, “and will discourse myself.” Plutarch,de audiendo, 7, p. 42, advises those who go to a “feast of words” to propose a subject that will be useful, and not to ask for a discourse on the bisection of unlimited lines.[168]Plin.Epist.2. 3. 4; cf. Philostr.V.S.1. 20. 2. His disciple Dionysius of Miletus had so wonderful a memory, and so taught his pupils to remember, as to be suspected of sorcery: Philostr.V.S.1. 22. 3.[169]Rhet. præc.18.[170]V.S.2. 26. 3.[171]Orat.xxxiii. vol. i. p. 422.[172]Epict.Diss.3. 23. 24.[173]Plut.de audiendo, 15, p. 46, speaks of the strange and extravagant words which had thus come into use, ‘θείως’ καὶ ‘θεοφορήτως’ καὶ ‘ἀπροσίτως,’ the old words, τοῦ ‘καλῶς’ καὶ τοῦ ‘σοφῶς’ καὶ τοῦ ‘ἀληθῶς,’ being no longer strong enough.[174]Rhet. præc.21.[175]De audiendo, 4, p. 39.[176]Diss.3. 23. 11.[177]Diss.3. 23. 19.[178]ἐτυράννει γε τῶν Ἀθηνῶν, says Eunapius of the sophist Julian,Vit. Julian, p. 68.[179]Philostr.V. S.1. 21. 6, of Scopelianus, βασίλειοι δὲ αὐτοῦ πρεσβεῖαι πολλαὶ μέν, καὶ γάρ τις καὶ ἀγαθὴ τύχη ξυνηκολούθει πρεσβεύοντι:ib.1. 24, 2, of Mark of Byzantium: 1. 25. 1, 5, of Polemo: 2. 5. 2, of Alexander Peloplaton.[180]Philostr.V. S.1. 22, of Dionysius of Miletus, Ἀδριανὸς σατράπην μὲν αὐτὸν ἀπέφηνεν οὐκ ἀφανῶν ἐθνῶν ἐγκατέλεξε δὲ τοῖς δημοσίᾳ ἱππεύουσι καὶ τοῖς ἐν τῷ Μουσείῳ σιτουμένοις: so of Polemo,ib.1. 25. 3.[181]The inscription of one of the statues which are mentioned by Philostratus,V. S.1. 23, 2, as having been erected to Lollianus at Athens, was found a few years ago near the Propylæa: Dittenberger, C. I. A. vol. iii. No. 625: see also Welcker,Rhein. Mus.N. F. i. 210, and a monograph by Kayser,P. Hordeonius Lollianus, Heidelberg, 1841. It is followed by the epigram:ἀμφότερον ῥητῆρα δικῶν μελέτησί τ’ ἄριστονΛολλιανὸν πληθὺς εὐγενέων ἑτάρων.εἰ δ’ ἐθέλεις τίνες εἰσὶ δαήμεναι οὔνομα πατρὸςκαὶ πάτρης, αὐτῶν τ’ οὔνομα δίσκος ἔχει.Philostratus,V. S.1. 25. 26, discredits the story that Polemo died at Smyrna, because there was no monument to him there; whereas if he had died there, “not one of the wonderful temples of that city would have been thought too great for his burial.”[182]ἡ βασιλεύουσα Ῥωμὴ τὸν βασιλεύοντα τῶν λόγων, Eunap.Vit. Prohæres.p. 90.[183]Μόδεστος σοφιστὴς εἷς μετὰ τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν μὴ γεμίσας εἰκοσι πέντε ἔτη,Bulletin de correspondence Hellénique, 1886. p. 157.[184]ὅσ πάντα λόγοις ὑποτάσσει,Mittheilungen des deutsches archæol. Institut, 1884, p. 61.[185]Philostratus,V. S.1. 25. 3, p. 228, narrates the incident with graphic humour, and adds two anecdotes which show that the Emperor was rather amused than annoyed by it. It was said of the same sophist that “he used to talk to cities as a superior, to kings as not inferior, and to gods as an equal,”ibid.4.[186]Dio Cassius, 71. 35. 2, παμπληθεῖς φιλοσοφεῖν ἐπλάττοντο ἵν’ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ πλουτίζωνται.[187]For example, the father of Herodes Atticus gave Scopelianus a fee of twenty-five talents, to which Atticus himself added another twenty-five: Philostr.V. S.1. 21. 7, p. 222.[188]Dio Chrysost.Orat.xxxii. p. 403: so Seneca,Epist.29, says of them, “philosophiam honestius neglexissent quam vendunt:” Maximus of Tyre,Diss.33. 8, ἀγορὰ πρόκειται ἀρετῆς, ὤνιον τὸ πρᾶγμα.[189]Orat.xxiii. p. 351. The whole speech is a plea against the disrepute into which the profession had fallen.[190]ap.Aul. Gell. 5. 1. 1.[191]De audiendo, 12, p. 43.[192]It is clear that the word “sophist” had under the Early Empire, as in both earlier and later times, two separate streams of meaning. It was used as a title of honour, e.g. Lucian,Rhet. Præc.1, τὸ σεμνότατον τοῦτο καὶ πάντιμον ὄνομα σοφιστής; Philostr.V. S.2. 31. 1, when Ælian was addressed as σοφιστής, he was not elated ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος οὕτω μεγάλου ὄντος; Eunap.Vit. Liban.p. 100, when emperors offered Libanius great titles and dignities, he refused them, φήσας τὸν σοφιστὴν εἶναι μείζονα. But the disparagement of the class to whom the word was applied runs through a large number of writers, e.g. Dio Chrys.Orat.iv. vol. i. 70, ἀγνοοῦντι καὶ ἀλαζόνι σοφιστῇ;ib.viii. vol. i 151, they croak like frogs in a marsh;ib.x. vol. i. 166, they are the wretchedest of men, because, though ignorant, they think themselves wise;ib.xii. vol. i. 214, they are like peacocks, showing off their reputation and the number of their disciples as peacocks do their tails. Epict.Diss.2. 20. 23; M. Aurel. 1. 16; 6. 30. Lucian,Fugitiv.10, compares them to hippocentaurs, σύνθετόν τι καὶ μικτὸν ἐν μέσῳ ἀλαζονείας καὶ φιλοσοφίας πλαζόμενον. Maximus Tyr.Diss.33. 8, τὸ τῶν σοφιστῶν γένος, τὸ πολυμαθὲς τοῦτο καὶ πολυλόγον καὶ πολλῶν μεστὸν μαθημάτων, καπηλεῦον ταῦτα καὶ ἀπεμπολοῦν τοῖς δεομένοις. Among the Christian Fathers, especial reference may be made to Clem. Alex.Strom.1, chapters 3 and 8, pp. 328, 343.[193]Epict.Diss.3. 23.[194]The functions are clearly separable in theTeaching of the Apostles, 15, αὐτοὶ [sc. ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι] γάρ εἰσιν οἱ τετιμημένοι ὑμῶν μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων; but they are combined in the second book of theApostolical Constitutions, pp. 16, 49, 51, 58, 84, ed. Lagarde.[195]Euseb.H. E.6. 36. 1.[196]Sozom.H. E.8. 2.[197]Eusebius,H. E.6. 36. 1, speaks of Origen’s sermons as διαλέξεις, whereas the original designation was ὁμιλίαι. So in Latin, Augustine uses the termdisputationesof Ambrose’s sermons,Confess.5. 13, vol. i, 118, and of his ownTract.lxxxix.in Johann. Evang.c. 5, vol. iii, pars 2, p. 719.[198]Phot.Biblioth.172.[199]Sozomen.H. E.8. 5. Augustine makes a fine point of the analogy between the church and the lecture-room (schola): “tanquam vobis pastores sumus, sed sub illo Pastore vobiscum oves sumus. Tanquam vobis ex hoc loco doctores sumus sed sub illo Magistro in hac schola vobiscum condiscipuli sumus:”Enarrat. in Psalm.cxxvi. vol. iv. 1429, ed. Ben.[200]Adv. Jud.7. 6, vol. i. 671;Conc.vii.adv. eos qui ad lud. circ. prof.vol. i. 790;Hom.ii.ad pop. Antioch.c. 4, vol. ii. 25;adv. eos qui ad Collect. non occur.vol. iii. 157;Hom.liv.in cap.xxvii.Genes.vol. iv. 523;Hom.lvi.in cap.xxix.Genes.vol. iv. 541.[201]S. Chrys.Hom.xxx.in Act. Apost.c. 3, vol. ix. 238.[202]Greg. Naz.Orat.xlii.[203]Socrates,H. E.6. 11; Sozomen,H. E.8. 10.[204]An indication of this may be seen in the fact that words which have come down to modern times as technical terms of geometry were used indifferently in the physical and moral sciences, e.g.theorem(θεώρημα), Philo,Leg. alleg.3. 27 (i. 104), θεωρήμασι τοῖς περὶ κόσμου καὶ τῶν μερῶν αὐτοῦ: Epict.Diss.2. 17. 3; 3. 9. 2; 4. 8. 12, &c., of the doctrines of moral philosophy: sometimes co-ordinated or interchanged with δόγμα, e.g. Philo,de fort.3 (ii. 877), διὰ λογικῶν καὶ ἠθικῶν καὶ φυσικῶν δογμάτων καὶ θεωρημάτων: Epictet.Diss.4. 1. 137, 139, and as a variantEnch.52. 1. Sodefinition(ὁρισμός) is itself properly applicable to the marking out of the boundaries of enclosed land. So also ἀπόδειξις was not limited to ideal or “necessary” matter, but was used of all explanations of the less by the more evident; e.g. Musonius,Frag. ap. excerpt. e Joann. Damasc., in Stob.Ecl.ii. 751, ed. Gaisf., after defining it, gives as an example a proof that pleasure is not a good.[205]ὁ δὲ νόμος βασιλέως δόγμα, Dio Chrys. vol. i. p. 46, ed. Dind.[206]The use of the word in Epictetus is especially instructive: δόγματα fill a large place in his philosophy. They are the inner judgments of the mind (κρίματα ψυχῆς,Diss.4. 11. 7) in regard to both intellectual and moral phenomena. They are especially relative to the latter. They are the convictions upon which men act, the moral maxims which form the ultimate motives of action and the resolution to act or not act in a particular case. They are the most personal and inalienable part of us. See especially,Diss.1. 11. 33, 35, 38; 17. 26; 29. 11, 12; 2. 1. 21, 32; 3. 2. 12; 9. 2;Ench.45. Hence ἀπὸ δογμάτων λαλεῖν, “to speak from conviction,” is opposed to ἀπὸ τῶν χειλῶν λαλεῖν, “to speak with the lip only,”Diss.3. 16. 7. If a man adopts the δόγμα of another person, e.g. of a philosopher, so as to make it his own, he is said, δόγματι συμπαθῆσαι, “to feel in unison with the conviction,”Diss.1. 3. 1. Sextus Empiricus,Pyrrh. Hypot.1. 13, distinguishes two philosophical senses of δόγμα, (1) assent to facts of sensation, τὸ εὐδοκεῖν τινι πράγματι, (2) assent to the inferences of the several sciences: in either sense it is (a) a strictly personal feeling, and (b) a firm conviction, not a mere vague impression: it was in the latter of the two senses that the philosophers of research laid it down as their maxim, μὴ δογματίζειν: they did away, not with τὰ φαινόμενα, but with assertions about them,ibid.1. 19, 22: their attitude in reference to τὰ ἄδηλα was simply οὐχ ὁρίζω, “I abstain from giving a definition of them,”ibid.1. 197, 198.[207]Sext. Empir.Pyrrh. Hypot.1. 3.[208]Ibid.4, δογματική, ἀκαδημαϊκή, σκεπτική.[209]For example, Sextus Empiricus, in spite of his constant formula, οὐχ ὁρίζω, maintains the necessity of having definable conceptions, τῶν ἐννοουμένων ἡμῖν πραγμάτων τὰς οὐσίας ἐπινοεῖν ὀφείλομεν, and he argues that it is impossible for a man to have an ἔννοια of God because He has no admitted οὐσία,Pyrrh. Hypot.3. 2, 3.[210]Origen,c. Cels.3. 44: see also the references given in Keim,Celsus’ wahres Wort, pp. 11, 40.[211]Origen,c. Cels.1. 9.[212]Apol.i. 20.[213]De testim. animæ, 1.[214]Apol.46.[215]Apol.2. 13.[216]Octav.34.[217]Apol.47.[218]Strom.2. 1.[219]Origen,c. Cels.3. 16.[220]Origen,c. Cels.5. 65; 6. 1, 7, 15, 19: see also the references in Keim, p. 77.[221]Ibid.7. 58. So Minucius Felix, in Keim, p. 157.[222]The above slight sketch of some of the leading tendencies which have been loosely grouped together under the name of Gnosticism has been left unelaborated, because a fuller account, with the distinctions which must necessarily be noted, would lead us too far from the main track of the Lecture: some of the tendencies will re-appear in detail in subsequent Lectures, and students will no doubt refer to the brilliant exposition of Gnosticism in Harnack,Dogmengeschichte, i. pp. 186-226, ed. 2.[223]Strom.1. 1: almost the whole of the first book is valuable as a vindication of the place of culture in Christianity.[224]Adv. Prax.3.[225]Quoted by Euseb.H. E.5. 28. 13.[226]Orat. ad Græc.2.[227]Apol.46.[228]Refut. omn. hæres.5. 18.[229]H. E.5. 13.[230]The evidence for the above statements has not yet been fully gathered together, and is too long to be given even in outline here: the statements are in full harmony with the view of the chief modern writer on the subject, Friedländer,Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms, see especially Bd. iii. p. 676, 5te aufl.

[104]Philo,de somniis, i. 20, vol. i. p. 639.

[105]Hom.Il.2. 204.

[106]Ps-Justin (probably Apollonius, see Dräseke, in theJahrb. f. protestant. Theologie, 1885, p. 144), c. 17.

[107]Hom.Il.18. 483.

[108]Ps-Justin, c. 28.

[109]Hom.Il.14. 206; Clem. Al.Strom.5. 14, p. 708.

[110]Il.22. 8; Clem. Al.Strom.5. 14, p. 719; but it sometimes required a keen eye to see the Gospel in Homer. For example, inOdyss.9. 410, the Cyclopes say to Polyphemus:εἰ μὲν δὴ μή τίς σε βιάζεται οἶον ἐόντα,νοῦσόν γ’ οὔ πως ἔστι Διὸς μεγάλου ἀλέασθαι.Clement (Strom.5. 14) makes this to be an evident “divination” of the Father and the Son. His argument is, apparently, μήτις = μῆτις; but μῆτις = λόγος: therefore the νόσος Διός, which = μῆτις = (by a μαντείας εὐστόχου) the Son of God.

[110]Il.22. 8; Clem. Al.Strom.5. 14, p. 719; but it sometimes required a keen eye to see the Gospel in Homer. For example, inOdyss.9. 410, the Cyclopes say to Polyphemus:

εἰ μὲν δὴ μή τίς σε βιάζεται οἶον ἐόντα,νοῦσόν γ’ οὔ πως ἔστι Διὸς μεγάλου ἀλέασθαι.

εἰ μὲν δὴ μή τίς σε βιάζεται οἶον ἐόντα,

νοῦσόν γ’ οὔ πως ἔστι Διὸς μεγάλου ἀλέασθαι.

Clement (Strom.5. 14) makes this to be an evident “divination” of the Father and the Son. His argument is, apparently, μήτις = μῆτις; but μῆτις = λόγος: therefore the νόσος Διός, which = μῆτις = (by a μαντείας εὐστόχου) the Son of God.

[111]Hippol.Philosophumena, 6. 14.

[112]Herod. 4. 8-10.

[113]Hippol. 5. 21.

[114]Clementin. Hom.2. 43, 44.

[115]Ib.2. 51.

[116]Clem. Alex.Strom.5. 4, p. 237.

[117]These are given by J. G. Rosenmüller,Historia Interpretationis librorum sacrorum in ecclesia Christiana, vol. i. p. 63.

[118]Athenag.Legat.c. 19: ps-Justin (Apollonius),Cohort. ad. Græc.c. 8, uses the analogous metaphor of a harp of which the Divine Spirit is theplectrum.

[119]Tertull.adv. Marc.3. 5.

[120]Justin M.Apol.i. 54.

[121]Ib.i. 35.

[122]Ib.i. 32.

[123]Ib.Tryph.78.

[124]Iren. 1. 8. 4, of the Valentinians.

[125]Ib.1. 8. 2.

[126]Clem. Al.Strom.1. 3, p. 329.

[127]Ib.6. 11, p. 787.

[128]Id.Pædag.2. 8, p. 76.

[129]This was the contention of Marcion, whose influence upon the Christian world was far larger than is commonly supposed. By far the best account of him, in both this and other respects, is that of Harnack,Dogmengeschichte, 1er Th. B. i. c. 5.

[130]Euseb.H. E.6. 19. 8.

[131]Origen,de princip.1. 16.

[132]Ib.c. 15.

[133]Clement.Recogn.10. 36.

[134]Clement.Hom.6. 18.

[135]Tatian,Orat. ad. Græc.21.

[136]Euseb.Præp. Evang.2. 6, vol. iii. p 74: θεραπεία became a technical term in this sense; cf. Gräfenhan,Geschichte des klass. Philologie im Alterthum, vol. i. p. 215.

[137]Porphyr. ap. Euseb.H. E.6. 19. 5.

[138]Origen,c. Cels.4. 48-50.

[139]Origen,in Gen. Hom.13. 3, vol. ii. p. 94;in Joann. Hom.10. 13, vol. iv. p. 178.

[140]Euseb.H. E.7. 24.

[141]Kihn,Theodor von Mopsuestia und Junilius Africanus als Exegeten, Freib. im Breisg. 1880, p. 7.

[142]J. G. Rosenmüller,Hist. Interpret.iii. p. 161. The letter is printed, with the other remains of Julius Africanus, in Routh,Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. ii.

[143]See the chapter on “Scripture and its Mystical Interpretation” in Newman’s “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” especially p. 324 (2nd ed.), “It may almost be laid down as an historical fact that the mystical interpretation and orthodoxy will stand or fall together.”

[144]I have endeavoured to confine the above account to what is true ofGreekRhetoric: the accounts which are found in Roman writers, especially in Quintilian, though in the main agreeing with it, differ in some details. The best modern summary of Greek usages is that of Kayser’s Preface to his editions of Philostratus (Zürich, 1844; Leipzig, 1871, vol. ii.).

[145]E. Rohde,der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer, Leipzig, 1876, p. 297.

[146]There is a distinction between τὰ δικανικὰ and τὰ ἀμφὶ μελέτην, and both are distinguished from τὰ πολιτικὰ in Philostratus,V. S.2. 20, p. 103. Elsewhere Philostratus speaks of a sophist as being δικανικοῦ μὲν σοφιστικώτερος σοφιστοῦ δὲ δικανικώτερος, “too much of alitterateurto be a good lawyer, and too much of a lawyer to be a goodlitterateur,” 2. 23. 4, p. 108.

[147]θέσις is defined by Hermogenes as ἀμφισβητημένου πράγματος ζήτησις,Progymn.11, Walz, i. p. 50: ὑπόθεσις as τῶν ἐπὶ μέρους ζήτησις, Sext. Emp.adv. Geom.3. 4: so τὰς εἰς ὄvομα ὑποθέσεις, Philostr.V.S.proœm. The distinction is best formulated by Quintilian, 3. 5. 5, who gives the equivalent Latin terms, “infinitæ (quæstiones) sunt quæ remotis personis et temporibus et locis cæterisque similibus in utramque partem tractantur quod Græci θέσιν dicunt, Cicero propositum ... finitæ autem sunt ex complexu rerum personarum temporum cæterorumque: hæ ὑποθέσεις a Græcis dicuntur, caussæ a nostris, in his omnis quæstio videtur circa res personasque consistere.”

[148]Philostr.V.S.1. 25. 7, 16.

[149]Ib.2. 5. 3.

[150]Dio Chrysost. lvi. vol. ii. p. 176.

[151]προσωποποιΐα, for which see Theon.Progymnasmata, c. 10, ed. Spengel, vol. ii. 115: Quintil. 3. 8. 49; 9. 2. 29. The word ὑποκρίνεσθαι was sometimes applied, e.g. Philostr.V.S.1. 21. 5, of Scopelianus, whose action in subjects taken from the Persian wars was so vehement that a partizan of one of his rivals accused him of beating a tambourine, “Yes, I do,” he said; “but my tambourine is the shield of Ajax.”

[152]“They made their voice sweet with musical cadences, and modulations of tone, and echoed resonances:” Plut.de aud.7, p. 41. So at Rome Favorinus is said to have “charmed even those who did not know Greek by the sound of his voice, and the significance of his look, and the cadence of his sentences:” Philostr.V. S.1. 7, p. 208.

[153]Orat.lix.

[154]Rohde, pp. 336 sqq.

[155]This trained habit of composing in different styles is of importance in relation to Christian as well as to non-Christian literature. A good study of the latter is afforded by Arrian, whose “chameleon-like style” (Kaibel,Dionysios von Halikarnass und die Sophistik, Hermes, Bd. xx. 1875, p. 508) imitates Thucydides, Herodotus, and Xenophon, by turns.

[156]Philostratus, V. S. 1. P. 202, τὴν ἀρχαίαν σοφιστικὴνῥητορικὴνἡγεῖσθαι χρὴφιλοσοφοῦσαν. διαλέγεται μὲν γὰρ ὑπὲρ ὧν οἱ φιλοσοφοῦντες ἃ δὲ ἐκεῖνοι τὰς ἐρωτήσεις ὑποκαθήμενοι καὶ τὰ σμικρὰ τῶν ζητουμένων προβιβάζοντες οὔπω φασὶ γιγνώσκειν ταῦτα ὁ παλαιὸς σοφιστὴς ὡς εἰδὼς λέγει:ib.p. 4, σοφιστὰς δὲ οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐπωνόμαζον οὐ μόνον τῶν ῥητόρων τοὺς ὑπερφωνοῦντάς τε καὶ λαμπρούς, ἀλλὰ καὶτῶν φιλοσόφων τοὺς ξὺν εὐροίᾳ ἑρμηνεύοντας.

[157]On the distinction, see Kayser’s preface to his editions of Philostratus, p. vii.

[158]Philostratus,V. S.2. 3, p. 245, says that the famous sophist Aristocles lived the earlier part of his life as a Peripatetic philosopher, “squalid and unkempt and ill-clothed,” but that when he passed into the ranks of the sophists he brushed off his squalor, and brought luxury and the pleasures of music into his life. On the philosopher’s dress, see below,Lecture VI. p. 151.

[159]Epictetus,Diss.3. 21. 6; 3. 23. 6, 23, 28: so Pliny,Epist.3. 18 (of invitations to recitations), “non per codicillos (cards of invitation), non per libellos (programmes, probably containing extracts), sed ‘si commodum esset,’ et ‘si valde vacaret’ admoniti.” Cf. Lucian,Hermotimus, 11, where a sophist is represented as hanging up a notice-board over his gateway, “No lecture to-day.”

[160]Philostratus,V.S.2. 10. 5, says that the enthusiasm at Rome about the sophist Adrian was such that when his messenger (τοῦ τῆς ἀκροάσεως ἀγγέλου) appeared on the scene with a notice of lecture, the people rose up, whether from the senate or the circus, and flocked to the Athenæum to hear him. Synesius,Dio(in Dio Chrys. ed. Dind, vol. ii. 342), speaks of θυροκοπήσαντα καὶ ἐπαγγείλαντα τοῖς ἐv ἄστες μειρακίοις ἀκρόαμα ἐπιδέξιον.

[161]Orat.23, p. 360, ed. Dind.

[162]De sanit. præc.16, p. 131.

[163]V. S.2. 5. 3.

[164]Pseudolog.5 sqq.

[165]Orat.viii. vol. i. 145.

[166]Epict.Diss.3. 23. 35, ἐν κομψῷ στολίῳ ἢ τριβωνίῳ ἀναβάντα ἐπὶ πούλβινον: but Pliny,Epist.2. 3. 2, says of Isæus, “surgit,amicitur, incipit,” as though he robed himself in the presence of the audience.

[167]Pliny,Epist.2. 3, says of Isæus: “præfationes tersæ, graciles, dulces: graves interdum et erectæ. Poscit controversias plures, electionem auditoribus permittit, sæpe etiam partes.” Philostratus,V.S.1. 24. 4, tells a story of Mark of Byzantium going into Polemo’s lecture-room and sitting down among the audience: some one recognized him, and the whisper went round who he was, so that, when Polemo asked for a subject, all eyes were turned to Mark. “What is the use of looking at a rustic like that?” said Polemo, referring to Mark’s shaggy beard; “hewill not give you a subject.” “I will both give you a subject,” said Mark, “and will discourse myself.” Plutarch,de audiendo, 7, p. 42, advises those who go to a “feast of words” to propose a subject that will be useful, and not to ask for a discourse on the bisection of unlimited lines.

[168]Plin.Epist.2. 3. 4; cf. Philostr.V.S.1. 20. 2. His disciple Dionysius of Miletus had so wonderful a memory, and so taught his pupils to remember, as to be suspected of sorcery: Philostr.V.S.1. 22. 3.

[169]Rhet. præc.18.

[170]V.S.2. 26. 3.

[171]Orat.xxxiii. vol. i. p. 422.

[172]Epict.Diss.3. 23. 24.

[173]Plut.de audiendo, 15, p. 46, speaks of the strange and extravagant words which had thus come into use, ‘θείως’ καὶ ‘θεοφορήτως’ καὶ ‘ἀπροσίτως,’ the old words, τοῦ ‘καλῶς’ καὶ τοῦ ‘σοφῶς’ καὶ τοῦ ‘ἀληθῶς,’ being no longer strong enough.

[174]Rhet. præc.21.

[175]De audiendo, 4, p. 39.

[176]Diss.3. 23. 11.

[177]Diss.3. 23. 19.

[178]ἐτυράννει γε τῶν Ἀθηνῶν, says Eunapius of the sophist Julian,Vit. Julian, p. 68.

[179]Philostr.V. S.1. 21. 6, of Scopelianus, βασίλειοι δὲ αὐτοῦ πρεσβεῖαι πολλαὶ μέν, καὶ γάρ τις καὶ ἀγαθὴ τύχη ξυνηκολούθει πρεσβεύοντι:ib.1. 24, 2, of Mark of Byzantium: 1. 25. 1, 5, of Polemo: 2. 5. 2, of Alexander Peloplaton.

[180]Philostr.V. S.1. 22, of Dionysius of Miletus, Ἀδριανὸς σατράπην μὲν αὐτὸν ἀπέφηνεν οὐκ ἀφανῶν ἐθνῶν ἐγκατέλεξε δὲ τοῖς δημοσίᾳ ἱππεύουσι καὶ τοῖς ἐν τῷ Μουσείῳ σιτουμένοις: so of Polemo,ib.1. 25. 3.

[181]The inscription of one of the statues which are mentioned by Philostratus,V. S.1. 23, 2, as having been erected to Lollianus at Athens, was found a few years ago near the Propylæa: Dittenberger, C. I. A. vol. iii. No. 625: see also Welcker,Rhein. Mus.N. F. i. 210, and a monograph by Kayser,P. Hordeonius Lollianus, Heidelberg, 1841. It is followed by the epigram:ἀμφότερον ῥητῆρα δικῶν μελέτησί τ’ ἄριστονΛολλιανὸν πληθὺς εὐγενέων ἑτάρων.εἰ δ’ ἐθέλεις τίνες εἰσὶ δαήμεναι οὔνομα πατρὸςκαὶ πάτρης, αὐτῶν τ’ οὔνομα δίσκος ἔχει.Philostratus,V. S.1. 25. 26, discredits the story that Polemo died at Smyrna, because there was no monument to him there; whereas if he had died there, “not one of the wonderful temples of that city would have been thought too great for his burial.”

ἀμφότερον ῥητῆρα δικῶν μελέτησί τ’ ἄριστονΛολλιανὸν πληθὺς εὐγενέων ἑτάρων.εἰ δ’ ἐθέλεις τίνες εἰσὶ δαήμεναι οὔνομα πατρὸςκαὶ πάτρης, αὐτῶν τ’ οὔνομα δίσκος ἔχει.

ἀμφότερον ῥητῆρα δικῶν μελέτησί τ’ ἄριστον

Λολλιανὸν πληθὺς εὐγενέων ἑτάρων.

εἰ δ’ ἐθέλεις τίνες εἰσὶ δαήμεναι οὔνομα πατρὸς

καὶ πάτρης, αὐτῶν τ’ οὔνομα δίσκος ἔχει.

Philostratus,V. S.1. 25. 26, discredits the story that Polemo died at Smyrna, because there was no monument to him there; whereas if he had died there, “not one of the wonderful temples of that city would have been thought too great for his burial.”

[182]ἡ βασιλεύουσα Ῥωμὴ τὸν βασιλεύοντα τῶν λόγων, Eunap.Vit. Prohæres.p. 90.

[183]Μόδεστος σοφιστὴς εἷς μετὰ τῶν ἑπτὰ σοφῶν μὴ γεμίσας εἰκοσι πέντε ἔτη,Bulletin de correspondence Hellénique, 1886. p. 157.

[184]ὅσ πάντα λόγοις ὑποτάσσει,Mittheilungen des deutsches archæol. Institut, 1884, p. 61.

[185]Philostratus,V. S.1. 25. 3, p. 228, narrates the incident with graphic humour, and adds two anecdotes which show that the Emperor was rather amused than annoyed by it. It was said of the same sophist that “he used to talk to cities as a superior, to kings as not inferior, and to gods as an equal,”ibid.4.

[186]Dio Cassius, 71. 35. 2, παμπληθεῖς φιλοσοφεῖν ἐπλάττοντο ἵν’ ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ πλουτίζωνται.

[187]For example, the father of Herodes Atticus gave Scopelianus a fee of twenty-five talents, to which Atticus himself added another twenty-five: Philostr.V. S.1. 21. 7, p. 222.

[188]Dio Chrysost.Orat.xxxii. p. 403: so Seneca,Epist.29, says of them, “philosophiam honestius neglexissent quam vendunt:” Maximus of Tyre,Diss.33. 8, ἀγορὰ πρόκειται ἀρετῆς, ὤνιον τὸ πρᾶγμα.

[189]Orat.xxiii. p. 351. The whole speech is a plea against the disrepute into which the profession had fallen.

[190]ap.Aul. Gell. 5. 1. 1.

[191]De audiendo, 12, p. 43.

[192]It is clear that the word “sophist” had under the Early Empire, as in both earlier and later times, two separate streams of meaning. It was used as a title of honour, e.g. Lucian,Rhet. Præc.1, τὸ σεμνότατον τοῦτο καὶ πάντιμον ὄνομα σοφιστής; Philostr.V. S.2. 31. 1, when Ælian was addressed as σοφιστής, he was not elated ὑπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος οὕτω μεγάλου ὄντος; Eunap.Vit. Liban.p. 100, when emperors offered Libanius great titles and dignities, he refused them, φήσας τὸν σοφιστὴν εἶναι μείζονα. But the disparagement of the class to whom the word was applied runs through a large number of writers, e.g. Dio Chrys.Orat.iv. vol. i. 70, ἀγνοοῦντι καὶ ἀλαζόνι σοφιστῇ;ib.viii. vol. i 151, they croak like frogs in a marsh;ib.x. vol. i. 166, they are the wretchedest of men, because, though ignorant, they think themselves wise;ib.xii. vol. i. 214, they are like peacocks, showing off their reputation and the number of their disciples as peacocks do their tails. Epict.Diss.2. 20. 23; M. Aurel. 1. 16; 6. 30. Lucian,Fugitiv.10, compares them to hippocentaurs, σύνθετόν τι καὶ μικτὸν ἐν μέσῳ ἀλαζονείας καὶ φιλοσοφίας πλαζόμενον. Maximus Tyr.Diss.33. 8, τὸ τῶν σοφιστῶν γένος, τὸ πολυμαθὲς τοῦτο καὶ πολυλόγον καὶ πολλῶν μεστὸν μαθημάτων, καπηλεῦον ταῦτα καὶ ἀπεμπολοῦν τοῖς δεομένοις. Among the Christian Fathers, especial reference may be made to Clem. Alex.Strom.1, chapters 3 and 8, pp. 328, 343.

[193]Epict.Diss.3. 23.

[194]The functions are clearly separable in theTeaching of the Apostles, 15, αὐτοὶ [sc. ἐπίσκοποι καὶ διάκονοι] γάρ εἰσιν οἱ τετιμημένοι ὑμῶν μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων; but they are combined in the second book of theApostolical Constitutions, pp. 16, 49, 51, 58, 84, ed. Lagarde.

[195]Euseb.H. E.6. 36. 1.

[196]Sozom.H. E.8. 2.

[197]Eusebius,H. E.6. 36. 1, speaks of Origen’s sermons as διαλέξεις, whereas the original designation was ὁμιλίαι. So in Latin, Augustine uses the termdisputationesof Ambrose’s sermons,Confess.5. 13, vol. i, 118, and of his ownTract.lxxxix.in Johann. Evang.c. 5, vol. iii, pars 2, p. 719.

[198]Phot.Biblioth.172.

[199]Sozomen.H. E.8. 5. Augustine makes a fine point of the analogy between the church and the lecture-room (schola): “tanquam vobis pastores sumus, sed sub illo Pastore vobiscum oves sumus. Tanquam vobis ex hoc loco doctores sumus sed sub illo Magistro in hac schola vobiscum condiscipuli sumus:”Enarrat. in Psalm.cxxvi. vol. iv. 1429, ed. Ben.

[200]Adv. Jud.7. 6, vol. i. 671;Conc.vii.adv. eos qui ad lud. circ. prof.vol. i. 790;Hom.ii.ad pop. Antioch.c. 4, vol. ii. 25;adv. eos qui ad Collect. non occur.vol. iii. 157;Hom.liv.in cap.xxvii.Genes.vol. iv. 523;Hom.lvi.in cap.xxix.Genes.vol. iv. 541.

[201]S. Chrys.Hom.xxx.in Act. Apost.c. 3, vol. ix. 238.

[202]Greg. Naz.Orat.xlii.

[203]Socrates,H. E.6. 11; Sozomen,H. E.8. 10.

[204]An indication of this may be seen in the fact that words which have come down to modern times as technical terms of geometry were used indifferently in the physical and moral sciences, e.g.theorem(θεώρημα), Philo,Leg. alleg.3. 27 (i. 104), θεωρήμασι τοῖς περὶ κόσμου καὶ τῶν μερῶν αὐτοῦ: Epict.Diss.2. 17. 3; 3. 9. 2; 4. 8. 12, &c., of the doctrines of moral philosophy: sometimes co-ordinated or interchanged with δόγμα, e.g. Philo,de fort.3 (ii. 877), διὰ λογικῶν καὶ ἠθικῶν καὶ φυσικῶν δογμάτων καὶ θεωρημάτων: Epictet.Diss.4. 1. 137, 139, and as a variantEnch.52. 1. Sodefinition(ὁρισμός) is itself properly applicable to the marking out of the boundaries of enclosed land. So also ἀπόδειξις was not limited to ideal or “necessary” matter, but was used of all explanations of the less by the more evident; e.g. Musonius,Frag. ap. excerpt. e Joann. Damasc., in Stob.Ecl.ii. 751, ed. Gaisf., after defining it, gives as an example a proof that pleasure is not a good.

[205]ὁ δὲ νόμος βασιλέως δόγμα, Dio Chrys. vol. i. p. 46, ed. Dind.

[206]The use of the word in Epictetus is especially instructive: δόγματα fill a large place in his philosophy. They are the inner judgments of the mind (κρίματα ψυχῆς,Diss.4. 11. 7) in regard to both intellectual and moral phenomena. They are especially relative to the latter. They are the convictions upon which men act, the moral maxims which form the ultimate motives of action and the resolution to act or not act in a particular case. They are the most personal and inalienable part of us. See especially,Diss.1. 11. 33, 35, 38; 17. 26; 29. 11, 12; 2. 1. 21, 32; 3. 2. 12; 9. 2;Ench.45. Hence ἀπὸ δογμάτων λαλεῖν, “to speak from conviction,” is opposed to ἀπὸ τῶν χειλῶν λαλεῖν, “to speak with the lip only,”Diss.3. 16. 7. If a man adopts the δόγμα of another person, e.g. of a philosopher, so as to make it his own, he is said, δόγματι συμπαθῆσαι, “to feel in unison with the conviction,”Diss.1. 3. 1. Sextus Empiricus,Pyrrh. Hypot.1. 13, distinguishes two philosophical senses of δόγμα, (1) assent to facts of sensation, τὸ εὐδοκεῖν τινι πράγματι, (2) assent to the inferences of the several sciences: in either sense it is (a) a strictly personal feeling, and (b) a firm conviction, not a mere vague impression: it was in the latter of the two senses that the philosophers of research laid it down as their maxim, μὴ δογματίζειν: they did away, not with τὰ φαινόμενα, but with assertions about them,ibid.1. 19, 22: their attitude in reference to τὰ ἄδηλα was simply οὐχ ὁρίζω, “I abstain from giving a definition of them,”ibid.1. 197, 198.

[207]Sext. Empir.Pyrrh. Hypot.1. 3.

[208]Ibid.4, δογματική, ἀκαδημαϊκή, σκεπτική.

[209]For example, Sextus Empiricus, in spite of his constant formula, οὐχ ὁρίζω, maintains the necessity of having definable conceptions, τῶν ἐννοουμένων ἡμῖν πραγμάτων τὰς οὐσίας ἐπινοεῖν ὀφείλομεν, and he argues that it is impossible for a man to have an ἔννοια of God because He has no admitted οὐσία,Pyrrh. Hypot.3. 2, 3.

[210]Origen,c. Cels.3. 44: see also the references given in Keim,Celsus’ wahres Wort, pp. 11, 40.

[211]Origen,c. Cels.1. 9.

[212]Apol.i. 20.

[213]De testim. animæ, 1.

[214]Apol.46.

[215]Apol.2. 13.

[216]Octav.34.

[217]Apol.47.

[218]Strom.2. 1.

[219]Origen,c. Cels.3. 16.

[220]Origen,c. Cels.5. 65; 6. 1, 7, 15, 19: see also the references in Keim, p. 77.

[221]Ibid.7. 58. So Minucius Felix, in Keim, p. 157.

[222]The above slight sketch of some of the leading tendencies which have been loosely grouped together under the name of Gnosticism has been left unelaborated, because a fuller account, with the distinctions which must necessarily be noted, would lead us too far from the main track of the Lecture: some of the tendencies will re-appear in detail in subsequent Lectures, and students will no doubt refer to the brilliant exposition of Gnosticism in Harnack,Dogmengeschichte, i. pp. 186-226, ed. 2.

[223]Strom.1. 1: almost the whole of the first book is valuable as a vindication of the place of culture in Christianity.

[224]Adv. Prax.3.

[225]Quoted by Euseb.H. E.5. 28. 13.

[226]Orat. ad Græc.2.

[227]Apol.46.

[228]Refut. omn. hæres.5. 18.

[229]H. E.5. 13.

[230]The evidence for the above statements has not yet been fully gathered together, and is too long to be given even in outline here: the statements are in full harmony with the view of the chief modern writer on the subject, Friedländer,Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms, see especially Bd. iii. p. 676, 5te aufl.

Back to Index Next