FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTES[1]πᾶσα διδασκαλία καὶ πᾶσα μάθησις διανοητικὴ ἐκ προϋπαρχούσης γένεται γνώσεως (Arist.Anal. post.i. 1, P. 71). John Philoponus, in his note on the passage, points out that emphasis is laid upon the word διανοητική, in antithesis to sensible knowledge, ἡ γὰρ αἰσθητικὴ γνῶσις οὐκ ἔχει προϋποκειμένην γνῶσιν (Schol.ed. Brandis, p. 196b).[2]Tertullian (adv. Valentin.c. 5) singles out four writers of the previous generation whom he regards as standing on an equal footing: Justin, Miltiades, Irenæus, Proculus. Of these, Proculus has entirely perished; of Miltiades, only a few fragments remain; Justin survives in only a single MS. (see A. Harnack,Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. i. 1,die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahrhunderts); and the greater part of Irenæus remains only in a Latin translation.[3]Marcion, in the sad tone of one who bitterly felt that every man’s hand was against him, addresses one of his disciples as “my partner in hate and wretchedness” (συμμισούμενον καὶ συνταλαίπωρον, Tert.adv. Marc.4. 9).[4]Examples are the accounts of Basilides in Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus, compared with those in Irenæus and Epiphanius; and the accounts of the Ophites in Hippolytus, compared with those of Irenæus and Epiphanius. The literature of the subject is considerable: see especially A. Hilgenfeld,die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums(e.g. p. 202); R. A. Lipsius,zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios; and A. Harnack,zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus.[5]The very names of most of the heathen opponents are lost: Lactantius (5. 4) speaks of “plurimos et multis in locis et non modo Græcis sed etiam Latinis litteris.” But for the ordinary student, Keim’s remarkable restoration of the work of Celsus from the quotations of Origen, with its wealth of illustrative notes, compensates for many losses (Th. Keim,Celsus’ Wahres Wort, Zürich, 1873).[6]This was the common view of the Stoics, probably following Anaxagoras or his school; cf. Plutarch [Aetius],de Plac. Philos.4. 3 (Diels,Doxographi Græci, p. 387). It was stated by Chrysippus, οὐδὲν ἀσώματον συμπάσχει σώματι οὐδὲ ἀσωμάτῳ σῶμα ἀλλὰ σῶμα σώματι· συμπάσχει δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ τῷ σώματι ... σῶμα ἄρα ἡ ψυχή (Chrysipp.Fragm. ap. Nemes. de Nat. Hom.33); by Zeno, inCic. Academ.1. 11. 39; by their followers, Plutarch [Aetius],de Plac. Philos.1. 11. 4 (Diels, p. 310), οἱ Στωικοὶ πάντα τὰ αἴτια σωματικά· πνεύματα γάρ; so by Seneca,Epist.117. 2, “quicquid facit corpus est;” so among some Christian writers, e.g. Tertullian,de Anima, 5.[7]The conception underlies the whole of Tertullian’s treatise,de Baptismo: it accounts for the rites of exorcism and benediction of both the oil and the water which are found in the older Latin service-books, e.g. in what is known as the Gelasian Sacramentary, i. 73 (in Muratori,Liturgia Romana vetus, vol. i. p. 594), “exaudi nos omnipotens Deus etin hujus aquæ substantiam immitte virtutemut abluendus per eam et sanitatem simul et vitam mereatur æternam.” This prayer is immediately followed by an address to the water, “exorcizo te creatura aquæ per Deum vivum ... adjuro te per Jesum Christum filium ejus unicum dominum nostrum ut efficiaris in eo qui in te baptizandus erit fons aquæ salientis in vitam æternam, regenerans eum Deo Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto....” So in the Gallican Sacramentary published by Mabillon (de Liturgia Gallicana libri tres, p. 362), “exorcizo te fons aquæ perennis per Deum sanctum et Deum verum qui te in principio ab arida separavit et in quatuor fluminibus terram rigore præcepit: sis aqua sancta, aqua benedicta,abluens sordes et dimittens peccata....”[8]These conceptions are found in Xenophon’s account of Socrates, who quotes more than once the Delphic oracle, ἥ τε γὰρ Πυθία νόμῳ πόλεως ἀναιρεῖ ποιοῦντας εὐσεβῶς ἂν ποιεῖν, Xen.Mem.1. 3. 1, and again 4. 3. 16: in Epictet.Ench.31, σπένδειν δὲ καὶ θύειν καὶ ἀπάρχεσθαι κατὰ τὰ πάτρια ἑκάστοις προσήκει: repeatedly in Plutarch, e.g.de Defect. Orac.12, p. 416,de Comm. Notit.31. 1, p. 1074: in theAureum Carmenof the later Pythagoreans, ἀθανάτους μὲν πρῶτα θεούς νόμῳ ὡς διάκεινται, τίμα (Frag. Philos. Græc.i. p. 193): and in the Neoplatonist Porphyry (ad Marcell.18, p. 286, ed. Nauck), οὗτος γὰρ μέγιστος καρπὸς εὐσεβείας τιμᾶν τὸ θεῖον κατὰ τὰ πάτρια. The intellectual opponents of Christianity laid stress upon its desertion of the ancestral religion; e.g. Cæcilius in Minucius Felix,Octav.5, “quanto venerabilius ac melius....majorum excipere disciplinam, religiones traditas colere;” and Celsus in Origen,c. Cels.5. 25, 35; 8. 57.[9]The following is designed to be a short account, not of all the elements of later Greek education, but only of its more prominent and important features: nothing has been said of those elements of the ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία which constituted the mediævalquadrivium. The works bearing on the subject will be found enumerated in K. F. Hermann,Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitäten, Bd. iv. p. 302, 3te aufl. ed. Blumner: the most important of them is Grasberger,Erziehung und Unterricht im classischen Alterthum, Bd. i. and ii. Würzburg, 1864: the shortest and most useful for an ordinary reader is Ussing,Erziehung und Jugendunterricht bei den Griechen und Römern, Berlin, 1885.[10]Litteraturais the Latin for γραμματική: Quintil. 2. 1. 4.[11]Adv. Gramm.1. 44.[12]γραμματιστική, which was taught by the γραμματιστής, whereas γραμματικὴ was taught by the γραμματικός. The relation between the two arts is indicated by the fact that in the Edict of Diocletian the fee of the former is limited to fifty denarii, while that of the latter rises to two hundred;Edict. Dioclet.ap. Haenel,Corpus Legum, No. 1054, p. 178.[13]Adv. Gramm.1. 91 sqq., cf.ib.250. This is quoted as being most representative of the period with which these Lectures have mainly to do. With it may be compared the elaborate account given by Quintilian, 1. 4 sqq.[14]1. 10.[15]The substance of Basil’s letter,Ep.339 (146), tom. iii. p. 455. There is a charming irony in Libanius’s answer,Ep.340 (147),ibid.[16]προφῆτις, Sext. Emp.adv. Gramm.1. 279.[17]Strabo, 1. 2. 3, οὐ ψυχαγωγίας χάριν δήπουθεν ψιλῆς ἀλλὰ σωφρονισμοῦ.[18]Dio Chrys.Orat.xxxvi. vol. ii p. 51, ed. Dind.[19]These are printed in Walz,Rhetores Græci, vol. i.: the account here followed is mainly that of theProgymnasmataof Theo of Smyrna (circ.A.D.130). There is a letter of Dio Chrysostom, printed among his speeches,Orat.xvii. περὶ λόγον ἀσκήσεως, ed. Dind. i, 279, consisting of advice to a man who was beginning the study of Rhetoric late in life, which, without being a formal treatise, gives as good a view as could be found of the general course of training.[20]Diss.3. 23. 20.[21]Philostr.V. S.2. 21. 3, of Proclus.[22]Lucian,Dial. Mort.10. 10.[23]Hermotim.81.[24]There is a good example of the former of these methods in Maximus of Tyre,Dissert.33, where § 1 is part of a student’s essay, and the following sections are the professor’s comments; and of the latter in Epictetus,Diss.1. 10. 8, where the student is said ἀναγνῶναι,legere, the professor ἐπαναγνῶναι,prælegere.[25]Enchir.49: see alsoDiss.3. 21, quoted below,p. 102.[26]Orat.iv. vol. i. p. 69, ed. Dind.[27]i. 7.[28]This higher education was not confined to Rome or Athens, but was found in many parts of the empire: Marseilles in the time of Strabo was even more frequented than Athens. There were other great schools at Antioch and Alexandria, at Rhodes and Smyrna, at Ephesus and Byzantium, at Naples and Nicopolis, at Bordeaux and Autun. The practice of resorting to such schools lasted long. In the fourth century and among the Christian Fathers, Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, Augustine and Jerome, are recorded to have followed it: the general recognition of Christianity did not seriously affect the current educational system: “Through the whole world,” says Augustine (de utilitate credendi, 7, vol. viii. 76, ed. Migne), “the schools of the rhetoricians are alive with the din of crowds of students.”[29]There is an interesting instance, at a rather later time, of the poverty of two students, one of whom afterwards became famous, Prohæresius and Hephæstion: they had only one ragged gown between them, so that while one went to lecture, the other had to stay at home in bed (Eunap.Prohæres.p. 78).[30]Diss.1. 9. 19.[31]Ib.2, 21. 12; 3. 24. 54.[32]Ib.2. 21. 12, 13, 15; 3. 24. 22, 24.[33]Ib.3. 16. 14, 15.[34]Ib.1. 26. 9.[35]De audiendo, 13, vol. ii. p. 45. The passage is abridged above.[36]Quis rer. div. heres.3, vol. i. p. 474.[37]For example, Verrius Flaccus, the father of the system of “prize essays,” who received an annual salary of 100,000 sesterces from Augustus (Suet.de illustr. Gramm.17). The inscriptions of Asia Minor furnish several instances of teachers who had left their homes to teach in other provinces of the Empire, and had returned rich enough to make presents to their native cities.[38]The evidence for the above paragraph, with ample accounts of additional facts relative to the same subject, but unnecessary for the present purpose, will be found in F. H. L. Ahrens,de Athenarum statu politico et literario inde ab Achaici fœderis interitu usque ad Antoninorum tempora, Göttingen, 1829; K. O. Müller,Quam curam respublica apud Græcos et Romanos literis doctrinisque colendis et promovendis impenderit, Göttingen (Programm zur Säcularfeier), 1837; P. Seidel,de scholarum quæ florente Romanorum imperio Athenis exstiterunt conditione, Glogau, 1838; C. G. Zumpt,Ueber den Bestand der philosophischen Schulen in Athen und die Succession der Scholarchen, Berlin (Abhandl. der Akademie der Wissenschaften), 1843; L. Weber,Commentatio de academia literaria Atheniensium, Marburg, 1858. There is an interesting Roman inscription of the end of the second centuryA.D.which almost seems to show that the endowments were sometimes diverted for the benefit of others besides philosophers: it is to anathlete, who was at once “canon of Serapis,” and entitled to free commons at the museum, νεωκόρον τοῦ μεγά[λου Σαράπιδ]ος καὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ Μουσείῳ [σειτου]μένων ἀτελῶν φιλοσόφων,Corpus Inscr. Græc.5914.[39]The edict of Antoninus Pius is contained in L. 6, § 2, D.de excusat.27. l: the number of philosophers is not prescribed, “quia rari sunt qui philosophantur:” and if they make stipulations about pay, “inde iam manifesti fient non philosophantes.” The nature of the immunities is described,ibid.§ 8: “a ludorum publicorum regimine, ab ædilitate, a sacerdotio, a receptione militum, ab emtione frumenti, olei, et neque judicare neque legatos esse neque in militia numerari nolentes neque ad alium famulatum cogi.” The immunities were sometimes further extended to the lower classes of teachers, e.g. theludi magistriat Vipascum in Portugal: cf. Hübner and Mommsen in theEphemeris Epigraphica, vol. iii. pp. 185, 188. For the regulations of the later empire, seeCod. Theodos.14. 9,de studiis liberalibus urbis Romæ et Constantinopolitanæ; and for a good popular account of the whole subject, see G. Boissier,L’instruction publique dans l’empire Romain, in theRevue des Deux Mondes, mars 15, 1884.[40]Lucian’sConviviumis a humorous and satirical description of such a dinner. The philosopher reads his discourse from a small, finely-written manuscript, c. 17. TheDeipnosophistæof Athenæus, and theQuæstiones Convivialesof Plutarch, are important literary monuments of the practice.[41]An interesting corroboration of the literary references is afforded by the mosaic pavement of a large villa at Hammâm Grous, near Milev, in North Africa, where “the philosopher’s apartment,” or “chaplain’s room” (filosophi locus), is specially marked, and near it is a lady (the mistress of the house?) sitting under a palm-tree. (The inscription is given in theCorpus Inscr. Lat.vol. viii. No. 10890, where reference is made to a drawing of the pavement in Rousset,Les Bains de Pompeianus, Constantine, 1879).[42]Lucian,de merc. cond.32.[43]Ib.34.[44]Ib.36.[45]Ib.38.[46]Timon, 50, 51.[47]Profiteri,professio, are the Latin translations of ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι, ἐπαγγελία: the latter words are found as early as Aristotle in connection with the idea of teaching, τὰ δὲ πολιτικὰ ἐπαγγέλλονται μὲν διδάσκειν οἱ σοφισταὶ πράττει δ’ αὐτῶν οὐδείς, Arist.Eth. N.10. 10, p. 1180b, and apparently τοὺς ἐπαγγελλομέvους is used absolutely for “professors” inSoph. Elench.13, p. 172a. The first use ofprofiteriin an absolute sense in Latin is probably in Pliny, e.g.Ep.4. 11. 1, “audistine V. Licinianum in Sicilia profiteri,” “is teaching rhetoric.”[48]Seenote on p. 33: an early use ofprælegerein this sense is Quintil. 1. 8. 13.[49]Facultasis the translation of δύναμις in its meaning of an art or a branch of knowledge, which is found in Epictetus and elsewhere, e.g.Diss.1. 8. tit., 8, 15, chiefly of logic or rhetoric: a writer of the end of the third century draws a distinction between δυνάμεις and τέχναι, and classes rhetoric under the former: Menander, Περὶ ἐπιδεικτικῶν, in Walz,Rhett. Gr.vol. ix. 196.[50]Instances of this practice are: (1)grammaticus, in Hispania Tarraconensis,Corpus Inscr. Lat.ii. 2892, 5079;magister artis grammaticæ, at Saguntum,ibid.3872;magister grammaticus Græcus, at Cordova,ibid.2236;grammaticus Græcus, at Trier,Corpus Inscr. Rhenan.801: (2)philosophus, in Greece,Corpus Inscr. Græc.1253; in Asia Minor,ibid.3163 (datedA.D.211), 3198, 3865,add.4366t2; in Egypt,ibid.4817; sometimes with the name of the school added, e.g. at Chæronea, φιλόσοφον Πλατωνικόν,ibid.1628; at Brundisium,philosophus Epicureus,ibid.5783.[51]Marcus Aurelius himself nominated Theodotus to be “Regius Professor of Rhetoric,” but he entrusted the nomination of the Professors of Philosophy to Herodes Atticus, Philostrat.V. S.2. 3, p. 245; and Commodus nominated Polydeuces,ibid.2. 12, p. 258.[52]Lucian,Eunuchus, 3, after mentioning the endowment of the chairs, says, ἔδει δὲ ἀποθανόντος ἀυτῶν τινος ἄλλον ἀντικαθίστασθαι δοκιμασθένταψήφῳ τῶν ἀρίστων, which last words have been variously understood: see the treatises mentioned above,note 1, p. 38, especially Ahrens, p. 74, Zumpt, p. 28. In the case of Libanius, there was a ψήφισμα (Liban.de fort. sua, vol. i. p. 59), which points to an assimilation of Athenian usage in his time to that which is mentioned in the following note.[53]This was fixed by a law of Julian in 362, which, however, states it as a concession on the part of the Emperor: “quia singulis civitatibus adesse ipse non possum, jubeo quisquis docere vult non repente nec temere prosiliat ad hoc munus sed judicio ordinis probatus decretum curialium mereatur, optimorum conspirante consilio,”Cod. Theodos.13. 3. 5; but the nomination was still sometimes left to the Emperor or his chief officer, the prefect of the city. This has an especial interest in connection with the history of St. Augustine: a request was sent from Milan to the prefect of the city at Rome for the nomination of amagister rhetoricæ: St. Augustine was sent, and so came under the influence of St. Ambrose, S. Aug.Confess.5. 13.[54]This is mentioned in a law of Gordian: “grammaticos seu oratores decreto ordinis probatos, si non se utiles studentibus præbeant, denuo ab eodem ordine reprobari posse incognitum non est,”Cod. Justin.10. 52. 2. A professor was sometimes removed for other reasons besides incompetency, e.g. Prohæresius was removed by Julian for being a Christian, Eunap.Prohæres.p. 92.[55]Alexander of Aphrodisias,de Fato, 1, says that he obtained his professorship on thetestimony, ὑπὸ τῆς μαρτυρίας, of Severus and Caracalla.[56]The existence of a competition appears in Lucian,Eunuchus, 3, 5: the fullest account is that of Eunapius,Prohæres.pp. 79 sqq.[57]Eunapius,ibid.p. 84.[58]Olympiodorus, ap. Phot.Biblioth.80; S. Greg. Naz.Orat.43 (20). 15, vol. i. p. 782; Liban.de fort. sua, vol. i. p. 14. The admission was probably the occasion of some academical sport: the novice was marched in mock procession to the baths, whence he came out with his gown on. It was something like initiation into a religious guild or order. There was a law against any one who assumed the philosopher’s dress without authority, “indebite et insolenter,”Cod. Theodos.13. 3. 7.[59]The last traces are in the Christian poets: for example, in Sidonius Apollinaris († 482),Carm.xxiii. 211, ed. Luetjohann, “quicquid rhetoricæ institutionis, quicquid grammaticalis aut palæstræ est;” in Ennodius († 521),Carm.ccxxxiv. p. 182, ed. Vogel, and inEp.94, which is a letter of thanks to a grammarian for having successfully instructed the writer’s nephew; in Venantius Fortunatus († 603), who speaks of himself as “Parvula grammaticæ lambens refluamina guttæ, Rhetorici exiguum prælibans gurgitis haustum,”V. Martini, i. 29, 30, ed. Leo; but there are traces in the same poets of the antagonism between classical and Christian learning which ultimately led to the disappearance of the former, e.g. Fortunatus speaks of Martin as “doctor apostolicus vacuans ratione sophistas,”V. Martini, i. 139.[60]“La période bénédictine,” Leon Maitre,Les écoles épiscopales et monastiques de l’Occident, p. 173.[61]“Dictæ per carmina sortes,” Hor.A. P.403. But it may be inferred from the title of Plutarch’s treatise, Περὶ τοῦ μὴ χρᾶν ἔμμετρα νῦν τὴν Πυθίαν, that the practice had ceased in the second century.[62]Cf. e.g.. Pindar,Frag.127 (118), μαντεύεο μοῖσα προφατεύσω δ’ ἐγώ; and, in later times, Ælius Aristides, vol. iii. p. 22, ed. Cant.[63]Dio Chrysostom,Orat.i. vol. i. p. 12, ed. Dind.[64]Id.Orat.xxxvi. vol. ii. p. 59: καί πού τις ἐπίπνοια θείας φύσεώς τε καὶ ἀληθείας καθάπερ αὐγὴ πυρὸς ἐξ ἀφανοῦς λάμψαντος.[65]It was a natural result of the estimation in which he was held that he should sometimes have been regarded as being not only inspired, but divine: the passages which refer to this are collected in G. Cuper,Apotheosis vel consecratio Homeri(in vol. ii. of Polenus’s Supplement to Gronovius’s Thesaurus), which is primarily a commentary on the bas-relief by Archelaus of Priene, now in the British Museum (figured, e.g. in Overbeck,Geschichte der griechischen Plastik, ii. 333). The idea has existed in much more recent times, not indeed that he was divine, but that so much truth and wisdom could not have existed outside Judæa. There is, for example, a treatise by G. Croesus, entitled, ομηρος εβραιοςsive historia Hebræorum ab Homero Hebraicis nominibus ac sententiis conscripta in Odyssea et Iliade, Dordraci, 1704, which endeavours to prove both that the name Homer is a Hebrew word, that the Iliad is an account of the conquest of Canaan, and that the Odyssey is a narrative of the wanderings of the children of Israel up to the death of Moses.[66]Plat.Protag.72, p. 339a.[67]Ibid.22, p. 317b: ὁμολογῶ τε σοφιστὴς εἶναι καὶ παιδεύειν ἀνθρώπους. For detailed information as to the relation between the early sophists and Homer, reference may be made to a dissertation by W. O. Friedel,de sophistarum studiis Homericis, printed in theDissertationes philologicæ Halenses, Halis, 1873.[68]Cf. H. Schrader,über die porphyrianischen Ilias Scholien, Hamburg, 1872.[69]Strab, 1. 2. 8.[70]Id. 1. 2. 3.[71]Dio Chrys.Orat.2, vol. i. pp. 19, 20.[72]Dio Chrys.Orat.1, vol. i. p. 3.[73]Plat.Theæt.9, p. 152d, quoting Hom.Il.14. 201-302. In later times, the same verse was quoted as having suggested and supported the theory of Thales, Irenæus, 2.14; Theodoret,Græc. Affect. Cur.2. 9.[74]Celsus in Origen,c. Cels.6. 42, referring to Hom.Il.15. 18 sqq.[75]Cic.N. D.1. 15: “ut etiam veterrimi pœtæ, qui hæc ne quidem suspicati sint, Stoici fuisse videantur.”[76]Xen.Sympos.4. 6; 3. 5.[77]Ps-Plutarch,de vita et poesi Homeri, vol. v. pp. 1056 sqq., chapters 148, 164, 182, 192, 216.[78]The earliest expression of this feeling is that of Xenophanes, which is twice quoted by Sextus Empiricus,adv. Gramm.1. 288,adv. Phys.9. 193:πάντα θεοῖς ἀνέθηκαν Ὅμηρος θ’ Ἡσίοδός τεὅσσα παρ’ ἀνθρώποισιν ὀνείδεα καὶ ψόγος ἐστί.[79]Plutarch,de aud. poet.c. 4, pp. 24, 25.[80]Lucian,Jupit. confut.2.[81]The connection of allegory with the mysteries was recognized: Heraclitus Ponticus, c. 6, justifies his interpretation of Apollo as the sun, ἐk τῶν μυστικῶν λόγων οὓς αἱ ἀπόρρητοι τελετὰι θεολογοῦσι: ps-Demetrius Phalereus,de interpret.c. 99, 101,ap.Walz,Rhett. Gr.ix. p. 47, μεγαλεῖόν τί ἐστι καὶ ἡ ἀλληγορία ... πᾶν γὰρ τὸ ὑπονοούμενον φοβερώτατον καὶ ἄλλος εἰκάζει ἄλλο τι ... διὸ καὶ τὰ μυστήρια ἐν ἀλληγορίαις λέγεται πρὸς ἔκπληξιν καὶ φρίκην: so Macrobius, inSomn. Scip.1. 2, after an account of the way in which the poets veiled truths in symbols, “sic ipsa mysteria figurarum cuniculis operiuntur ne vel hæc adeptis nuda rerum talium se natura præbeat.” That a physical explanation lay behind the scenery of the mysteries is stated elsewhere, e.g. by Theodoret,Græc. Affect. Cur.i. vol. iv. p. 721, without being connected with the allegorical explanation of the poets.[82]Pausan. 3. 25. 4-6.[83]Plat.Phædr.p. 229c.[84]Plat.Resp.p. 378d.[85]Diogenes Laertius, 2. 11, quotes Favorinus as saying that Anaxagoras was the first who showed that the poems of Homer had virtue and righteousness for their subject. If the later traditions (Georg. Syncellus,Chronogr.p. 149c) could be trusted, the disciples of Anaxagoras were the authors of the explanations which Plato attributes to οἱ νῦν περὶ Ὅμηρον δεινοί, and which tried by a fanciful etymology to prove that Athené was voῦv τε καὶ διάνοιαν (Plat.Cratyl.407b).[86]Diog. Laert. 2. 11: Tatian,Orat. ad Græcos, c. 21, Μητρόδωρος δὲ ὁ Λαμψακηνὸς ἐν τῷ περὶ Ὁμήρου λίαν εὐήθως διείλεκται πάντα εἰς ἀλληγορίαν μετάγων. A later tradition used the name of Pherecydes: Isidore, sun of Basilides, in Clem. Alex.Strom.6, p. 767.[87]On the general subject of allegorical interpretation, especially in regard to Homer, reference may be made to N. Schow in the edition of Heraclitus Ponticus mentioned below; L. H. Jacob,Dissertatio philosophica de allegoria Homerica, Halæ, 1785; C. A. Lobeck,Aglaophamus, pp. 155, 844, 987; Gräfenhan,Geschichte der klassischen Philologie, Bd. i. p. 211. It has been unnecessary for the present purpose to make the distinction which has sometimes (e.g. Lauer,Litterarischer Nachlass, ed. Wichmann, Bd. ii. p, 105) been drawn between allegory and symbol.[88]The most recent edition is HeraclitiAllegoriæ Homericæ, ed. E. Mehler, Leyden, 1851: that of N. Schow, Göttingen, 1782, contains a Latin translation, a good essay on Homeric allegory, and a critical letter by Heyne. It seems probable that the treatise is really anonymous, and that the name Heraclitus was intended to be that of the philosopher of Ephesus: see Diels,Doxoyraphi Græci, p. 95n.[89]The most recent, and best critical, edition is by C. Lang, ed. 1881, in Teubner’s series. More help is afforded to an ordinary student by that which was edited from the notes of de Villoison by Osann, Göttingen, 1844.[90]c. 1, πάντως γὰρ ἠσέβησεν εἰ μηδὲν ἀλληγόρησεν: he defines allegory, c. 5, ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλα μὲν ἀγορεύων τρόπος ἕτερα δὲ ὧν λέγει σημαίνων ἐπωνύμως ἀλληγορία καλεῖται.[91]c. 2.[92]c. 8.[93]c. 61.[94]c. 66.[95]c. 69.[96]c. 16.[97]c. 18.[98]Sallust,de diis et mundo, c. 4, in Mullach,Fragmenta Philosophorum Græcorum, vol. iii. p. 32.[99]Incerti Scriptoris Græci Fabulæ aliquot Homericæ de Ulixis erroribus ethice explicatæ, ed. J. Columbus, Leiden, 1745.[100]Clem. Alex.Strom.5. 8, p. 673.[101]Marcellinus,Vita Thucydidis, c. 35, ἀσαφῶς δὲ λέγων ἀνὴρ ἐπιτηδὲς ἵνα μὴ πᾶσιν εἴη βατὸς μηδὲ εὐτελὴς φαίνηται παντὶ τῷ βουλομένῳ νοούμενος εὐχερῶς ἀλλὰ τοῖς λίαν σοφοῖς δοκιμαζόμενος παρὰ τούτοις θαυμάζηται.[102]The analogy is drawn by Clem. Alex.Strom.5, chapters 4 and 7.[103]It is impossible not to mention Aristobulus: he is quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Strom.1. 15, 22; 5. 14; 6. 3), and extracts from him are given by Eusebius (Præp. Evang.8. 10; 13. 12); but the genuineness of the information that we possess about him is much controverted and has given rise to much literature, of which an account will be found in Schürer,Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 2er Th. p. 760; Drummond,Philo-Judæus, i. 242.

FOOTNOTES

[1]πᾶσα διδασκαλία καὶ πᾶσα μάθησις διανοητικὴ ἐκ προϋπαρχούσης γένεται γνώσεως (Arist.Anal. post.i. 1, P. 71). John Philoponus, in his note on the passage, points out that emphasis is laid upon the word διανοητική, in antithesis to sensible knowledge, ἡ γὰρ αἰσθητικὴ γνῶσις οὐκ ἔχει προϋποκειμένην γνῶσιν (Schol.ed. Brandis, p. 196b).

[2]Tertullian (adv. Valentin.c. 5) singles out four writers of the previous generation whom he regards as standing on an equal footing: Justin, Miltiades, Irenæus, Proculus. Of these, Proculus has entirely perished; of Miltiades, only a few fragments remain; Justin survives in only a single MS. (see A. Harnack,Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. i. 1,die Ueberlieferung der griechischen Apologeten des zweiten Jahrhunderts); and the greater part of Irenæus remains only in a Latin translation.

[3]Marcion, in the sad tone of one who bitterly felt that every man’s hand was against him, addresses one of his disciples as “my partner in hate and wretchedness” (συμμισούμενον καὶ συνταλαίπωρον, Tert.adv. Marc.4. 9).

[4]Examples are the accounts of Basilides in Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus, compared with those in Irenæus and Epiphanius; and the accounts of the Ophites in Hippolytus, compared with those of Irenæus and Epiphanius. The literature of the subject is considerable: see especially A. Hilgenfeld,die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums(e.g. p. 202); R. A. Lipsius,zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios; and A. Harnack,zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosticismus.

[5]The very names of most of the heathen opponents are lost: Lactantius (5. 4) speaks of “plurimos et multis in locis et non modo Græcis sed etiam Latinis litteris.” But for the ordinary student, Keim’s remarkable restoration of the work of Celsus from the quotations of Origen, with its wealth of illustrative notes, compensates for many losses (Th. Keim,Celsus’ Wahres Wort, Zürich, 1873).

[6]This was the common view of the Stoics, probably following Anaxagoras or his school; cf. Plutarch [Aetius],de Plac. Philos.4. 3 (Diels,Doxographi Græci, p. 387). It was stated by Chrysippus, οὐδὲν ἀσώματον συμπάσχει σώματι οὐδὲ ἀσωμάτῳ σῶμα ἀλλὰ σῶμα σώματι· συμπάσχει δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ τῷ σώματι ... σῶμα ἄρα ἡ ψυχή (Chrysipp.Fragm. ap. Nemes. de Nat. Hom.33); by Zeno, inCic. Academ.1. 11. 39; by their followers, Plutarch [Aetius],de Plac. Philos.1. 11. 4 (Diels, p. 310), οἱ Στωικοὶ πάντα τὰ αἴτια σωματικά· πνεύματα γάρ; so by Seneca,Epist.117. 2, “quicquid facit corpus est;” so among some Christian writers, e.g. Tertullian,de Anima, 5.

[7]The conception underlies the whole of Tertullian’s treatise,de Baptismo: it accounts for the rites of exorcism and benediction of both the oil and the water which are found in the older Latin service-books, e.g. in what is known as the Gelasian Sacramentary, i. 73 (in Muratori,Liturgia Romana vetus, vol. i. p. 594), “exaudi nos omnipotens Deus etin hujus aquæ substantiam immitte virtutemut abluendus per eam et sanitatem simul et vitam mereatur æternam.” This prayer is immediately followed by an address to the water, “exorcizo te creatura aquæ per Deum vivum ... adjuro te per Jesum Christum filium ejus unicum dominum nostrum ut efficiaris in eo qui in te baptizandus erit fons aquæ salientis in vitam æternam, regenerans eum Deo Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto....” So in the Gallican Sacramentary published by Mabillon (de Liturgia Gallicana libri tres, p. 362), “exorcizo te fons aquæ perennis per Deum sanctum et Deum verum qui te in principio ab arida separavit et in quatuor fluminibus terram rigore præcepit: sis aqua sancta, aqua benedicta,abluens sordes et dimittens peccata....”

[8]These conceptions are found in Xenophon’s account of Socrates, who quotes more than once the Delphic oracle, ἥ τε γὰρ Πυθία νόμῳ πόλεως ἀναιρεῖ ποιοῦντας εὐσεβῶς ἂν ποιεῖν, Xen.Mem.1. 3. 1, and again 4. 3. 16: in Epictet.Ench.31, σπένδειν δὲ καὶ θύειν καὶ ἀπάρχεσθαι κατὰ τὰ πάτρια ἑκάστοις προσήκει: repeatedly in Plutarch, e.g.de Defect. Orac.12, p. 416,de Comm. Notit.31. 1, p. 1074: in theAureum Carmenof the later Pythagoreans, ἀθανάτους μὲν πρῶτα θεούς νόμῳ ὡς διάκεινται, τίμα (Frag. Philos. Græc.i. p. 193): and in the Neoplatonist Porphyry (ad Marcell.18, p. 286, ed. Nauck), οὗτος γὰρ μέγιστος καρπὸς εὐσεβείας τιμᾶν τὸ θεῖον κατὰ τὰ πάτρια. The intellectual opponents of Christianity laid stress upon its desertion of the ancestral religion; e.g. Cæcilius in Minucius Felix,Octav.5, “quanto venerabilius ac melius....majorum excipere disciplinam, religiones traditas colere;” and Celsus in Origen,c. Cels.5. 25, 35; 8. 57.

[9]The following is designed to be a short account, not of all the elements of later Greek education, but only of its more prominent and important features: nothing has been said of those elements of the ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία which constituted the mediævalquadrivium. The works bearing on the subject will be found enumerated in K. F. Hermann,Lehrbuch der griechischen Antiquitäten, Bd. iv. p. 302, 3te aufl. ed. Blumner: the most important of them is Grasberger,Erziehung und Unterricht im classischen Alterthum, Bd. i. and ii. Würzburg, 1864: the shortest and most useful for an ordinary reader is Ussing,Erziehung und Jugendunterricht bei den Griechen und Römern, Berlin, 1885.

[10]Litteraturais the Latin for γραμματική: Quintil. 2. 1. 4.

[11]Adv. Gramm.1. 44.

[12]γραμματιστική, which was taught by the γραμματιστής, whereas γραμματικὴ was taught by the γραμματικός. The relation between the two arts is indicated by the fact that in the Edict of Diocletian the fee of the former is limited to fifty denarii, while that of the latter rises to two hundred;Edict. Dioclet.ap. Haenel,Corpus Legum, No. 1054, p. 178.

[13]Adv. Gramm.1. 91 sqq., cf.ib.250. This is quoted as being most representative of the period with which these Lectures have mainly to do. With it may be compared the elaborate account given by Quintilian, 1. 4 sqq.

[14]1. 10.

[15]The substance of Basil’s letter,Ep.339 (146), tom. iii. p. 455. There is a charming irony in Libanius’s answer,Ep.340 (147),ibid.

[16]προφῆτις, Sext. Emp.adv. Gramm.1. 279.

[17]Strabo, 1. 2. 3, οὐ ψυχαγωγίας χάριν δήπουθεν ψιλῆς ἀλλὰ σωφρονισμοῦ.

[18]Dio Chrys.Orat.xxxvi. vol. ii p. 51, ed. Dind.

[19]These are printed in Walz,Rhetores Græci, vol. i.: the account here followed is mainly that of theProgymnasmataof Theo of Smyrna (circ.A.D.130). There is a letter of Dio Chrysostom, printed among his speeches,Orat.xvii. περὶ λόγον ἀσκήσεως, ed. Dind. i, 279, consisting of advice to a man who was beginning the study of Rhetoric late in life, which, without being a formal treatise, gives as good a view as could be found of the general course of training.

[20]Diss.3. 23. 20.

[21]Philostr.V. S.2. 21. 3, of Proclus.

[22]Lucian,Dial. Mort.10. 10.

[23]Hermotim.81.

[24]There is a good example of the former of these methods in Maximus of Tyre,Dissert.33, where § 1 is part of a student’s essay, and the following sections are the professor’s comments; and of the latter in Epictetus,Diss.1. 10. 8, where the student is said ἀναγνῶναι,legere, the professor ἐπαναγνῶναι,prælegere.

[25]Enchir.49: see alsoDiss.3. 21, quoted below,p. 102.

[26]Orat.iv. vol. i. p. 69, ed. Dind.

[27]i. 7.

[28]This higher education was not confined to Rome or Athens, but was found in many parts of the empire: Marseilles in the time of Strabo was even more frequented than Athens. There were other great schools at Antioch and Alexandria, at Rhodes and Smyrna, at Ephesus and Byzantium, at Naples and Nicopolis, at Bordeaux and Autun. The practice of resorting to such schools lasted long. In the fourth century and among the Christian Fathers, Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, Augustine and Jerome, are recorded to have followed it: the general recognition of Christianity did not seriously affect the current educational system: “Through the whole world,” says Augustine (de utilitate credendi, 7, vol. viii. 76, ed. Migne), “the schools of the rhetoricians are alive with the din of crowds of students.”

[29]There is an interesting instance, at a rather later time, of the poverty of two students, one of whom afterwards became famous, Prohæresius and Hephæstion: they had only one ragged gown between them, so that while one went to lecture, the other had to stay at home in bed (Eunap.Prohæres.p. 78).

[30]Diss.1. 9. 19.

[31]Ib.2, 21. 12; 3. 24. 54.

[32]Ib.2. 21. 12, 13, 15; 3. 24. 22, 24.

[33]Ib.3. 16. 14, 15.

[34]Ib.1. 26. 9.

[35]De audiendo, 13, vol. ii. p. 45. The passage is abridged above.

[36]Quis rer. div. heres.3, vol. i. p. 474.

[37]For example, Verrius Flaccus, the father of the system of “prize essays,” who received an annual salary of 100,000 sesterces from Augustus (Suet.de illustr. Gramm.17). The inscriptions of Asia Minor furnish several instances of teachers who had left their homes to teach in other provinces of the Empire, and had returned rich enough to make presents to their native cities.

[38]The evidence for the above paragraph, with ample accounts of additional facts relative to the same subject, but unnecessary for the present purpose, will be found in F. H. L. Ahrens,de Athenarum statu politico et literario inde ab Achaici fœderis interitu usque ad Antoninorum tempora, Göttingen, 1829; K. O. Müller,Quam curam respublica apud Græcos et Romanos literis doctrinisque colendis et promovendis impenderit, Göttingen (Programm zur Säcularfeier), 1837; P. Seidel,de scholarum quæ florente Romanorum imperio Athenis exstiterunt conditione, Glogau, 1838; C. G. Zumpt,Ueber den Bestand der philosophischen Schulen in Athen und die Succession der Scholarchen, Berlin (Abhandl. der Akademie der Wissenschaften), 1843; L. Weber,Commentatio de academia literaria Atheniensium, Marburg, 1858. There is an interesting Roman inscription of the end of the second centuryA.D.which almost seems to show that the endowments were sometimes diverted for the benefit of others besides philosophers: it is to anathlete, who was at once “canon of Serapis,” and entitled to free commons at the museum, νεωκόρον τοῦ μεγά[λου Σαράπιδ]ος καὶ τῶν ἐν τῷ Μουσείῳ [σειτου]μένων ἀτελῶν φιλοσόφων,Corpus Inscr. Græc.5914.

[39]The edict of Antoninus Pius is contained in L. 6, § 2, D.de excusat.27. l: the number of philosophers is not prescribed, “quia rari sunt qui philosophantur:” and if they make stipulations about pay, “inde iam manifesti fient non philosophantes.” The nature of the immunities is described,ibid.§ 8: “a ludorum publicorum regimine, ab ædilitate, a sacerdotio, a receptione militum, ab emtione frumenti, olei, et neque judicare neque legatos esse neque in militia numerari nolentes neque ad alium famulatum cogi.” The immunities were sometimes further extended to the lower classes of teachers, e.g. theludi magistriat Vipascum in Portugal: cf. Hübner and Mommsen in theEphemeris Epigraphica, vol. iii. pp. 185, 188. For the regulations of the later empire, seeCod. Theodos.14. 9,de studiis liberalibus urbis Romæ et Constantinopolitanæ; and for a good popular account of the whole subject, see G. Boissier,L’instruction publique dans l’empire Romain, in theRevue des Deux Mondes, mars 15, 1884.

[40]Lucian’sConviviumis a humorous and satirical description of such a dinner. The philosopher reads his discourse from a small, finely-written manuscript, c. 17. TheDeipnosophistæof Athenæus, and theQuæstiones Convivialesof Plutarch, are important literary monuments of the practice.

[41]An interesting corroboration of the literary references is afforded by the mosaic pavement of a large villa at Hammâm Grous, near Milev, in North Africa, where “the philosopher’s apartment,” or “chaplain’s room” (filosophi locus), is specially marked, and near it is a lady (the mistress of the house?) sitting under a palm-tree. (The inscription is given in theCorpus Inscr. Lat.vol. viii. No. 10890, where reference is made to a drawing of the pavement in Rousset,Les Bains de Pompeianus, Constantine, 1879).

[42]Lucian,de merc. cond.32.

[43]Ib.34.

[44]Ib.36.

[45]Ib.38.

[46]Timon, 50, 51.

[47]Profiteri,professio, are the Latin translations of ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι, ἐπαγγελία: the latter words are found as early as Aristotle in connection with the idea of teaching, τὰ δὲ πολιτικὰ ἐπαγγέλλονται μὲν διδάσκειν οἱ σοφισταὶ πράττει δ’ αὐτῶν οὐδείς, Arist.Eth. N.10. 10, p. 1180b, and apparently τοὺς ἐπαγγελλομέvους is used absolutely for “professors” inSoph. Elench.13, p. 172a. The first use ofprofiteriin an absolute sense in Latin is probably in Pliny, e.g.Ep.4. 11. 1, “audistine V. Licinianum in Sicilia profiteri,” “is teaching rhetoric.”

[48]Seenote on p. 33: an early use ofprælegerein this sense is Quintil. 1. 8. 13.

[49]Facultasis the translation of δύναμις in its meaning of an art or a branch of knowledge, which is found in Epictetus and elsewhere, e.g.Diss.1. 8. tit., 8, 15, chiefly of logic or rhetoric: a writer of the end of the third century draws a distinction between δυνάμεις and τέχναι, and classes rhetoric under the former: Menander, Περὶ ἐπιδεικτικῶν, in Walz,Rhett. Gr.vol. ix. 196.

[50]Instances of this practice are: (1)grammaticus, in Hispania Tarraconensis,Corpus Inscr. Lat.ii. 2892, 5079;magister artis grammaticæ, at Saguntum,ibid.3872;magister grammaticus Græcus, at Cordova,ibid.2236;grammaticus Græcus, at Trier,Corpus Inscr. Rhenan.801: (2)philosophus, in Greece,Corpus Inscr. Græc.1253; in Asia Minor,ibid.3163 (datedA.D.211), 3198, 3865,add.4366t2; in Egypt,ibid.4817; sometimes with the name of the school added, e.g. at Chæronea, φιλόσοφον Πλατωνικόν,ibid.1628; at Brundisium,philosophus Epicureus,ibid.5783.

[51]Marcus Aurelius himself nominated Theodotus to be “Regius Professor of Rhetoric,” but he entrusted the nomination of the Professors of Philosophy to Herodes Atticus, Philostrat.V. S.2. 3, p. 245; and Commodus nominated Polydeuces,ibid.2. 12, p. 258.

[52]Lucian,Eunuchus, 3, after mentioning the endowment of the chairs, says, ἔδει δὲ ἀποθανόντος ἀυτῶν τινος ἄλλον ἀντικαθίστασθαι δοκιμασθένταψήφῳ τῶν ἀρίστων, which last words have been variously understood: see the treatises mentioned above,note 1, p. 38, especially Ahrens, p. 74, Zumpt, p. 28. In the case of Libanius, there was a ψήφισμα (Liban.de fort. sua, vol. i. p. 59), which points to an assimilation of Athenian usage in his time to that which is mentioned in the following note.

[53]This was fixed by a law of Julian in 362, which, however, states it as a concession on the part of the Emperor: “quia singulis civitatibus adesse ipse non possum, jubeo quisquis docere vult non repente nec temere prosiliat ad hoc munus sed judicio ordinis probatus decretum curialium mereatur, optimorum conspirante consilio,”Cod. Theodos.13. 3. 5; but the nomination was still sometimes left to the Emperor or his chief officer, the prefect of the city. This has an especial interest in connection with the history of St. Augustine: a request was sent from Milan to the prefect of the city at Rome for the nomination of amagister rhetoricæ: St. Augustine was sent, and so came under the influence of St. Ambrose, S. Aug.Confess.5. 13.

[54]This is mentioned in a law of Gordian: “grammaticos seu oratores decreto ordinis probatos, si non se utiles studentibus præbeant, denuo ab eodem ordine reprobari posse incognitum non est,”Cod. Justin.10. 52. 2. A professor was sometimes removed for other reasons besides incompetency, e.g. Prohæresius was removed by Julian for being a Christian, Eunap.Prohæres.p. 92.

[55]Alexander of Aphrodisias,de Fato, 1, says that he obtained his professorship on thetestimony, ὑπὸ τῆς μαρτυρίας, of Severus and Caracalla.

[56]The existence of a competition appears in Lucian,Eunuchus, 3, 5: the fullest account is that of Eunapius,Prohæres.pp. 79 sqq.

[57]Eunapius,ibid.p. 84.

[58]Olympiodorus, ap. Phot.Biblioth.80; S. Greg. Naz.Orat.43 (20). 15, vol. i. p. 782; Liban.de fort. sua, vol. i. p. 14. The admission was probably the occasion of some academical sport: the novice was marched in mock procession to the baths, whence he came out with his gown on. It was something like initiation into a religious guild or order. There was a law against any one who assumed the philosopher’s dress without authority, “indebite et insolenter,”Cod. Theodos.13. 3. 7.

[59]The last traces are in the Christian poets: for example, in Sidonius Apollinaris († 482),Carm.xxiii. 211, ed. Luetjohann, “quicquid rhetoricæ institutionis, quicquid grammaticalis aut palæstræ est;” in Ennodius († 521),Carm.ccxxxiv. p. 182, ed. Vogel, and inEp.94, which is a letter of thanks to a grammarian for having successfully instructed the writer’s nephew; in Venantius Fortunatus († 603), who speaks of himself as “Parvula grammaticæ lambens refluamina guttæ, Rhetorici exiguum prælibans gurgitis haustum,”V. Martini, i. 29, 30, ed. Leo; but there are traces in the same poets of the antagonism between classical and Christian learning which ultimately led to the disappearance of the former, e.g. Fortunatus speaks of Martin as “doctor apostolicus vacuans ratione sophistas,”V. Martini, i. 139.

[60]“La période bénédictine,” Leon Maitre,Les écoles épiscopales et monastiques de l’Occident, p. 173.

[61]“Dictæ per carmina sortes,” Hor.A. P.403. But it may be inferred from the title of Plutarch’s treatise, Περὶ τοῦ μὴ χρᾶν ἔμμετρα νῦν τὴν Πυθίαν, that the practice had ceased in the second century.

[62]Cf. e.g.. Pindar,Frag.127 (118), μαντεύεο μοῖσα προφατεύσω δ’ ἐγώ; and, in later times, Ælius Aristides, vol. iii. p. 22, ed. Cant.

[63]Dio Chrysostom,Orat.i. vol. i. p. 12, ed. Dind.

[64]Id.Orat.xxxvi. vol. ii. p. 59: καί πού τις ἐπίπνοια θείας φύσεώς τε καὶ ἀληθείας καθάπερ αὐγὴ πυρὸς ἐξ ἀφανοῦς λάμψαντος.

[65]It was a natural result of the estimation in which he was held that he should sometimes have been regarded as being not only inspired, but divine: the passages which refer to this are collected in G. Cuper,Apotheosis vel consecratio Homeri(in vol. ii. of Polenus’s Supplement to Gronovius’s Thesaurus), which is primarily a commentary on the bas-relief by Archelaus of Priene, now in the British Museum (figured, e.g. in Overbeck,Geschichte der griechischen Plastik, ii. 333). The idea has existed in much more recent times, not indeed that he was divine, but that so much truth and wisdom could not have existed outside Judæa. There is, for example, a treatise by G. Croesus, entitled, ομηρος εβραιοςsive historia Hebræorum ab Homero Hebraicis nominibus ac sententiis conscripta in Odyssea et Iliade, Dordraci, 1704, which endeavours to prove both that the name Homer is a Hebrew word, that the Iliad is an account of the conquest of Canaan, and that the Odyssey is a narrative of the wanderings of the children of Israel up to the death of Moses.

[66]Plat.Protag.72, p. 339a.

[67]Ibid.22, p. 317b: ὁμολογῶ τε σοφιστὴς εἶναι καὶ παιδεύειν ἀνθρώπους. For detailed information as to the relation between the early sophists and Homer, reference may be made to a dissertation by W. O. Friedel,de sophistarum studiis Homericis, printed in theDissertationes philologicæ Halenses, Halis, 1873.

[68]Cf. H. Schrader,über die porphyrianischen Ilias Scholien, Hamburg, 1872.

[69]Strab, 1. 2. 8.

[70]Id. 1. 2. 3.

[71]Dio Chrys.Orat.2, vol. i. pp. 19, 20.

[72]Dio Chrys.Orat.1, vol. i. p. 3.

[73]Plat.Theæt.9, p. 152d, quoting Hom.Il.14. 201-302. In later times, the same verse was quoted as having suggested and supported the theory of Thales, Irenæus, 2.14; Theodoret,Græc. Affect. Cur.2. 9.

[74]Celsus in Origen,c. Cels.6. 42, referring to Hom.Il.15. 18 sqq.

[75]Cic.N. D.1. 15: “ut etiam veterrimi pœtæ, qui hæc ne quidem suspicati sint, Stoici fuisse videantur.”

[76]Xen.Sympos.4. 6; 3. 5.

[77]Ps-Plutarch,de vita et poesi Homeri, vol. v. pp. 1056 sqq., chapters 148, 164, 182, 192, 216.

[78]The earliest expression of this feeling is that of Xenophanes, which is twice quoted by Sextus Empiricus,adv. Gramm.1. 288,adv. Phys.9. 193:πάντα θεοῖς ἀνέθηκαν Ὅμηρος θ’ Ἡσίοδός τεὅσσα παρ’ ἀνθρώποισιν ὀνείδεα καὶ ψόγος ἐστί.

[78]The earliest expression of this feeling is that of Xenophanes, which is twice quoted by Sextus Empiricus,adv. Gramm.1. 288,adv. Phys.9. 193:

πάντα θεοῖς ἀνέθηκαν Ὅμηρος θ’ Ἡσίοδός τεὅσσα παρ’ ἀνθρώποισιν ὀνείδεα καὶ ψόγος ἐστί.

πάντα θεοῖς ἀνέθηκαν Ὅμηρος θ’ Ἡσίοδός τε

ὅσσα παρ’ ἀνθρώποισιν ὀνείδεα καὶ ψόγος ἐστί.

[79]Plutarch,de aud. poet.c. 4, pp. 24, 25.

[80]Lucian,Jupit. confut.2.

[81]The connection of allegory with the mysteries was recognized: Heraclitus Ponticus, c. 6, justifies his interpretation of Apollo as the sun, ἐk τῶν μυστικῶν λόγων οὓς αἱ ἀπόρρητοι τελετὰι θεολογοῦσι: ps-Demetrius Phalereus,de interpret.c. 99, 101,ap.Walz,Rhett. Gr.ix. p. 47, μεγαλεῖόν τί ἐστι καὶ ἡ ἀλληγορία ... πᾶν γὰρ τὸ ὑπονοούμενον φοβερώτατον καὶ ἄλλος εἰκάζει ἄλλο τι ... διὸ καὶ τὰ μυστήρια ἐν ἀλληγορίαις λέγεται πρὸς ἔκπληξιν καὶ φρίκην: so Macrobius, inSomn. Scip.1. 2, after an account of the way in which the poets veiled truths in symbols, “sic ipsa mysteria figurarum cuniculis operiuntur ne vel hæc adeptis nuda rerum talium se natura præbeat.” That a physical explanation lay behind the scenery of the mysteries is stated elsewhere, e.g. by Theodoret,Græc. Affect. Cur.i. vol. iv. p. 721, without being connected with the allegorical explanation of the poets.

[82]Pausan. 3. 25. 4-6.

[83]Plat.Phædr.p. 229c.

[84]Plat.Resp.p. 378d.

[85]Diogenes Laertius, 2. 11, quotes Favorinus as saying that Anaxagoras was the first who showed that the poems of Homer had virtue and righteousness for their subject. If the later traditions (Georg. Syncellus,Chronogr.p. 149c) could be trusted, the disciples of Anaxagoras were the authors of the explanations which Plato attributes to οἱ νῦν περὶ Ὅμηρον δεινοί, and which tried by a fanciful etymology to prove that Athené was voῦv τε καὶ διάνοιαν (Plat.Cratyl.407b).

[86]Diog. Laert. 2. 11: Tatian,Orat. ad Græcos, c. 21, Μητρόδωρος δὲ ὁ Λαμψακηνὸς ἐν τῷ περὶ Ὁμήρου λίαν εὐήθως διείλεκται πάντα εἰς ἀλληγορίαν μετάγων. A later tradition used the name of Pherecydes: Isidore, sun of Basilides, in Clem. Alex.Strom.6, p. 767.

[87]On the general subject of allegorical interpretation, especially in regard to Homer, reference may be made to N. Schow in the edition of Heraclitus Ponticus mentioned below; L. H. Jacob,Dissertatio philosophica de allegoria Homerica, Halæ, 1785; C. A. Lobeck,Aglaophamus, pp. 155, 844, 987; Gräfenhan,Geschichte der klassischen Philologie, Bd. i. p. 211. It has been unnecessary for the present purpose to make the distinction which has sometimes (e.g. Lauer,Litterarischer Nachlass, ed. Wichmann, Bd. ii. p, 105) been drawn between allegory and symbol.

[88]The most recent edition is HeraclitiAllegoriæ Homericæ, ed. E. Mehler, Leyden, 1851: that of N. Schow, Göttingen, 1782, contains a Latin translation, a good essay on Homeric allegory, and a critical letter by Heyne. It seems probable that the treatise is really anonymous, and that the name Heraclitus was intended to be that of the philosopher of Ephesus: see Diels,Doxoyraphi Græci, p. 95n.

[89]The most recent, and best critical, edition is by C. Lang, ed. 1881, in Teubner’s series. More help is afforded to an ordinary student by that which was edited from the notes of de Villoison by Osann, Göttingen, 1844.

[90]c. 1, πάντως γὰρ ἠσέβησεν εἰ μηδὲν ἀλληγόρησεν: he defines allegory, c. 5, ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἄλλα μὲν ἀγορεύων τρόπος ἕτερα δὲ ὧν λέγει σημαίνων ἐπωνύμως ἀλληγορία καλεῖται.

[91]c. 2.

[92]c. 8.

[93]c. 61.

[94]c. 66.

[95]c. 69.

[96]c. 16.

[97]c. 18.

[98]Sallust,de diis et mundo, c. 4, in Mullach,Fragmenta Philosophorum Græcorum, vol. iii. p. 32.

[99]Incerti Scriptoris Græci Fabulæ aliquot Homericæ de Ulixis erroribus ethice explicatæ, ed. J. Columbus, Leiden, 1745.

[100]Clem. Alex.Strom.5. 8, p. 673.

[101]Marcellinus,Vita Thucydidis, c. 35, ἀσαφῶς δὲ λέγων ἀνὴρ ἐπιτηδὲς ἵνα μὴ πᾶσιν εἴη βατὸς μηδὲ εὐτελὴς φαίνηται παντὶ τῷ βουλομένῳ νοούμενος εὐχερῶς ἀλλὰ τοῖς λίαν σοφοῖς δοκιμαζόμενος παρὰ τούτοις θαυμάζηται.

[102]The analogy is drawn by Clem. Alex.Strom.5, chapters 4 and 7.

[103]It is impossible not to mention Aristobulus: he is quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Strom.1. 15, 22; 5. 14; 6. 3), and extracts from him are given by Eusebius (Præp. Evang.8. 10; 13. 12); but the genuineness of the information that we possess about him is much controverted and has given rise to much literature, of which an account will be found in Schürer,Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 2er Th. p. 760; Drummond,Philo-Judæus, i. 242.

Back to Index Next