Chapter XIII: THE PHILOSOPHERS OF ATHENS (continued) (1)

POST-SOCRATIC SCHOOL.

EPICURUS AND ZENO.

Philosophy, after the time of Aristotle, takes a new direction. In the pre-Socratic schools, we have seen it was mainly a philosophy of nature; in the Socratic school it was characterized as a philosophy of mind; and now in the post-Socratic schools it becomes a philosophy of life--a moral philosophy. Instead of aiming at the knowledge of real Being--of the permanent, unchangeable, eternal principles which underlie all phenomena, it was now content to aim, chiefly, at individual happiness. The primary question now discussed, as of the most vital importance, is, What is the ultimate standard by which, amid all the diversities of human conduct and opinion, we may determine what is right and good in individual and social life?

This remarkable change in the course of philosophic inquiry was mainly due--

1st. _To the altered circumstances of the times_. An age of civil disturbance and political intrigue succeeded the Alexandrian period. The different states of Greece lost their independence, and became gradually subject to a foreign yoke. Handed over from one domination to another, in the struggles of Alexander's lieutenants, they endeavored to reconquer their independence by forming themselves into confederations, but were powerless to unite in the defense of a common cause. The Achæan and Etolian leagues were weakened by internal discords; and it was in vain that Sparta tried to recover her ancient liberties.

Divided amongst themselves, the smaller states invoked the aid of dangerous allies--at one time appealing to Macedon, at another to Egypt. In this way they prepared for the total ruin of Greek liberty, which was destined to be extinguished by Rome.[763]

[Footnote 763: Pressensé, "Religions before Christ," pp. 136-140.]

During this period of hopeless turmoil and social disorder, all lofty pursuits and all great principles were lost sight of and abandoned. The philosophic movement followed the downward course of society, and men became chiefly concerned for their personal interest and safety. The wars of the Succession almost obliterated the idea of society, and philosophy was mainly directed to the securing of personal happiness; it became, in fact, "the art of making one's self happy." The sad reverses to which the Grecian mind had been subjected produced a feeling of exhaustion and indifference, which soon reflected itself in the philosophy of the age.

2d. In connection with the altered circumstances of the age, we must also take account of _the apparent failure of the Socratic method to solve the problem of Being_.

The teaching of Aristotle had fostered the suspicion that the dialectic method was a failure, and thus prepared the way for a return to sensualism. He had taught that individuals alone have a real existence, and that the "essence" of things is not to be sought in the elements of unity and generality, or in the _idea_, as Plato taught, but in the elements of diversity and speciality. And furthermore, in opposition to Plato, he had taught his disciples to attach themselves to sensation, as the source of all knowledge. As the direct consequence of this teaching, we find his immediate successors, Dicearchus and Straton, deliberately setting aside "the god of philosophy," affirming "that a _divinity_ was unnecessary to the explanation of the existence and order of the universe." Stimulated by the social degeneracy of the times, the characteristic skepticism of the Greek intellect bursts forth anew. As the skepticism of the Sophists marked the close of the first period of philosophy, so the skepticism of Pyrrhonism marked the close of the second. The new skepticism arrayed Aristotle against Plato as the earlier skeptics arrayed atomism against the doctrine of the Eleatics. They naturally said: "We have been seeking a long time; what have we gained? Have we obtained any thing certain and determinate? Plato says we have. But Aristotle and Plato do not agree. May not our opinion be as good as theirs? What a diversity of opinions have been presented during the past three hundred years! One may be as good as another, or they may be all alike untrue!" Timon and Pyrrhon declared that, of each thing, it might be said to be, and not to be; and that, consequently, we should cease tormenting ourselves, and seek to obtain an _absolute calm_, which they dignified with the name of _ataraxie_. Beholding the overthrow and disgrace of their country, surrounded by examples of pusillanimity and corruption, and infected with the spirit of the times themselves, they wrote this maxim: "Nothing is infamous; nothing is in itself just; laws and customs alone constitute what is justice and what is iniquity." Having reached this extreme, nothing can be too absurd, and they cap the climax by saying, "We assert nothing; no, not even that we assert nothing!"

And yet there must some function, undoubtedly, remain for the "wise man" (sophos).

Reason was given for some purpose. Philosophy must have some end. And inasmuch as it is not to determine speculative questions, it must be to determine practical questions. May it not teach men to _act_ rather than to _think_? The philosopher, the schools, the disciples, survive the darkening flood of skepticism.

Three centuries before Christ, the Peripatetic and Platonic schools are succeeded by two other schools, which inherit their importance, and which, in other forms, and by an under-current, perpetuate the disputes of the Peripatetics and Platonists, namely, the Epicureans and Stoics. With Aristotle and Plato, philosophy embraced in its circle nature, humanity, and God; but now, in the systems of Epicurus and "Zeno", moral philosophy is placed in the foreground, and assumes the chief, the overshadowing pre-eminence. The conduct of life--morality--is now the grand subject of inquiry, and the great theme of discourse.

In dealing with _morals_ two opposite methods of inquiry were possible:

1. _To judge of the quality of actions by their_ RESULTS.

2. _To search for the quality of actions in the actions them selves_.

Utility, which in its last analysis is _Pleasure_, is the test of right, in the first method; an assumed or discovered _Law of Nature_, in the second. If the world were perfect, and the balance of the human faculties undisturbed, it is evident that both systems would give identical results. As it is, there is a tendency to error on each side, which is fully developed in the rival schools of the Epicureans and Stoics, who practically divided the suffrages of the mass of educated men until the coming of Christ.

EPICUREANS.

Epicurus was born B.C. 342, and died B.C. 270. He purchased a Garden within the city, and commenced, at thirty-six years of age, to teach philosophy. The Platonists had their academic Grove: the Aristotelians walked in the Lyceum: the Stoics occupied the Porch: the Epicureans had their Garden, where they lived a tranquil life, and seem to have had a community of goods.

There is not one of all the various founders of the ancient philosophical schools whose memory was cherished with so much veneration by his disciples as that of Epicurus. For several centuries after his death, his portrait was treated by them with all the honors of a sacred relic: it was carried about with them in their journeys, it was hung up in their schools, it was preserved with reverence in their private chambers; his birthday was celebrated with sacrifices and other religious observances, and a special festival in his honor was held every month.

So much honor having been paid to the memory of Epicurus, we naturally expect that his works would have been preserved with religious care. He was one of the most prolific of the ancient Greek writers. Diogenes calls him "a most voluminous writer," and estimates the number of works composed by him at no less than three hundred, the principal of which he enumerates.[764] But out of all this prodigious collection, not a single book has reached us in a complete, or at least an independent form. Three letters, which contain some outlines of his philosophy, are preserved by Diogenes, who has also embodied his "Fundamental Maxims"--forty-four propositions, containing a summary of his ethical system. These, with part of his work "On Nature," found during the last century among the Greek MSS. recovered at Herculaneum, constitute all that has survived the general wreck.

[Footnote 764: Diogenes Laertius, "Lives of the Philosophers," bk. x. ch. xvi., xvii.]

We are thus left to depend mainly on his disciples and successors for any general account of his system. And of the earliest and most immediate of these the writings have perished.[765] Our sole original authority is Diogenes Laertius, who was unquestionably an Epicurean. The sketch of Epicurus which is given in his "Lives" is evidently a "labor of love." Among all the systems of ancient philosophy described by him, there is none of whose general character he has given so skillful and so elaborate an analysis. And even as regards the particulars of the system, nothing could be more complete than Laertius's account of his physical speculations. Additional light is also furnished by the philosophic poem of Lucretius "On the Nature of Things," which was written to advocate the physical theory of Epicurus. These are the chief sources of our information.

[Footnote 765: Some fragments of the writings of Metrodorus, Phædrus, Polystratus, and Philodemus, have been found among the Herculanean Papyri, and published in Europe, which are said to throw some additional light on the doctrines of Epicurus. See article on "Herculanean Papyri," in Edinburgh Review, October, 1862.]

It is said of Epicurus that he loved to hearken to the stories of the indifference and apathy of Pyrrhon, and that, in these qualities, he aspired to imitate him. But Epicurus was not, like Pyrrhon, a skeptic; on the contrary, he was the most imperious dogmatist. No man ever showed so little respect for the opinions of his predecessors, or so much confidence in his own. He was fond of boasting that he had made his own philosophy--_he_ was a "self-taught" man! Now "Epicurus might be perfectly honest in saying he had read very little, and had worked out the conclusions in his own mind, but he was a copyist, nevertheless; few men more entirely so."[766] His psychology was certainly borrowed from the Ionian school. From thence he had derived his fundamental maxim, that "sensation is the source of all knowledge, and the standard of all truth." His physics were copied from Democritus. With both, "atoms are the first principle of all things." And in Ethics he had learned from Aristotle, that if an absolute good is not the end of a practical life, _happiness_ must be its end.[767] All that is fundamental in the system of Epicurus was borrowed from his predecessors, and there is little that can be called new in his teaching.

[Footnote 766: Maurice's "Ancient Philosophy," p. 236.]

[Footnote 767: "Ethics," bk. i. ch. vi]

The grand object of philosophy, according to Epicurus, _is the attainment of a happy life_. "Philosophy," says he, "is the power by which reason conducts men to happiness." Truth is a merely relative thing, a variable quantity; and therefore the pursuit of truth for its own sake is superfluous and useless. There is no such thing as absolute, unchangeable right: no action is intrinsically right or wrong. "We choose the virtues, not on their own account, but for the sake of pleasure, just as we seek the skill of the physician for the sake of health."[768] That which is nominally right in morals, that which is relatively good in human conduct, is, therefore, to be determined by the effects upon ourselves; that which is agreeable--pleasurable, is right; that which is disagreeable--painful, is wrong. "The virtues are connate with living pleasantly."[769] Pleasure (êdonê), then, is the great end to be sought in human action. "Pleasure is the chief good, the beginning and end of living happily."[770]

[Footnote 768: "Fundamental Maxims," preserved in Diogenes Laertius, "Lives of the Philosophers," bk. x. ch. xxx.]

[Footnote 769: "Epicurus to Menæceus," in Diogenes Laertius, "Lives of the Philosophers," bk. x. ch. xxvii.]

[Footnote 770: Id., ib.]

The proof which Epicurus offers in support of his doctrine, "that pleasure is the chief good," is truly characteristic. "All animals from the moment of their birth are delighted with pleasure and offended with pain, by their natural instincts, and without the employment of reason. Therefore we, also, of our own inclination, flee from pain."[771] "All men like pleasure and dislike pain; they naturally shun the latter and pursue the former." "If happiness is present, we have every thing, and when it is absent, we do every thing with a view to possess it."[772] Virtue thus consists in man's doing deliberately what the animals do instinctively--that is, choose pleasure and avoid pain.

[Footnote 771: Diogenes Laertius, "Lives of the Philosophers," bk. x. ch. xxix.]

[Footnote 772: Id., ib., bk. x. ch. xxvii.]

"Every kind of pleasure" is, in the estimation of Epicurus, "alike good," and alike proper. "If those things which make the pleasures of debauched men put an end to the fears of the mind, and to those which arise about the heavenly bodies [supernatural powers], and death and pain,... we should have no pretense for blaming those who wholly devote themselves to pleasure, and who never feel any pain, or grief (which is the chief evil) from any quarter."[773] Whilst, however, all pleasures of the body, as well as the mind, are equal in dignity, and alike good, they differ in intensity, in duration, and, especially, in their consequences. He therefore divides pleasure into two classes; and in this, as Cousin remarks, is found the only element of originality in his philosophy. These two kinds of pleasure are:

1. _The pleasure of movement, excitement, energy_ (êdonê en kinêsei).[774] This is the most lively pleasure; it supposes the greatest development of physical and mental power. "Joy and cheerfulness are beheld in motion and energy." But it is not the most enduring pleasure, and it is not the most perfect. It is accompanied by uneasiness; it "brings with it many perturbations," and it yields some bitter fruits.

[Footnote 773: "Fundamental Maxims," No. 9, in Diogenes Laertius, "Lives of the Philosophers," bk. x. ch. xxxi.]

[Footnote 774: Diogenes Laertius, "Lives of the Philosophers," bk. x. ch. xxviii.]

2. _The second kind of pleasure is the pleasure of repose, tranquillity, impassibility_ (êdonê katastêmatikê). This is a state, a "condition," rather than a motion. It is "the freedom of the body from pain, and the soul from confusion."[775] This is perfect and unmixed happiness--the happiness of God; and he who attains it "will be like a god among men." "The storm of the soul is at an end, and body and soul are perfected."

Now, whilst "no pleasure is intrinsically bad,"[776] prudence (phronêsis), or practical wisdom, would teach us to choose the highest and most perfect happiness. Morality is therefore the application of reason to the conduct of life, and virtue is wisdom. The office of reason is to "determine our choices"--to take account of the duration of pleasures, to estimate their consequences, and to regard the happiness of a whole lifetime, and not the enjoyment of a single hour. Without wisdom men will choose the momentary excitements of passion, and follow after agitating pleasures, which are succeeded by pain; they will consequently lose "tranquillity of mind." "It is not possible," says Epicurus, "to live pleasantly without living prudently and honorably and justly."[777] The difference, then, between the philosopher and the ordinary man is this--that while both seek pleasure, the former knows how to forego certain indulgences which cause pain and vexation hereafter, whereas the ordinary man seeks only immediate enjoyment. Epicurus does not dispense with virtue, but he simply employs it as a means to an end, namely, the securing of happiness.[778]

[Footnote 775: Id., ib.]

[Footnote 776: "Fundamental Maxims," No. 7.]

[Footnote 777: Ibid., No. 5.]

[Footnote 778: Pressensé, "Religions before Christ," p. 141.]

Social morality is, like private morality, founded upon _utility._ As nothing is intrinsically right or wrong in private life, so nothing is intrinsically just or unjust in social life. "Justice has no independent existence: it results from mutual contracts, and establishes itself wherever there is a mutual engagement to guard against doing or sustaining any injury. Injustice is not intrinsically bad; it has this character only because there is joined with it the fear of not escaping those who are appointed to punish actions marked with this character."[779] Society is thus a contract--an agreement to promote each other's happiness. And inasmuch as the happiness of the individual depends in a great degree upon the general happiness, the essence of his ethical system, in its political aspects, is contained in inculcating "the greatest happiness of the greatest number."

If you ask Epicurus what a man shall do when it is clearly his immediate interest to violate the social contract, he would answer, that if your general interest is secured by always observing it, you must make momentary sacrifices for the sake of future good. But "when, in consequence of new circumstances, a thing which has been pronounced just does not any longer appear to agree with utility, the thing which was just... ceases to be just the moment it ceases to be useful."[780] So that self-interest is still the basis of all virtue. And if, by the performance of duty, you are exposed to great suffering, and especially to death, you are perfectly justified in the violation of any and all contracts. Such is the social morality of Epicurus.

With coarse and energetic minds the doctrine of Epicurus would inevitably lead to the grossest sensuality and crime; with men whose temperament was more apathetic, or whose tastes were more pure, it would develop a refined selfishness--a perfect egoism, which Epicurus has adorned with the name "tranquillity of mind--impassibility," (ataraxia).[781]

[Footnote 779: "Fundamental Maxims," Nos. 35, 36.]

[Footnote 780: Ibid., No. 41.]

[Footnote 781: It is scarcely necessary to discuss the question whether, by making pleasure the standard of right, Epicurus intended to encourage what is usually called sensuality. He earnestly protested against any such unfavorable interpretation of his doctrine:--"When we say that pleasure is a chief good, we are not speaking of the pleasures of the debauched man, or those which lie in sensual enjoyment, as some think who are ignorant, and who do not entertain our opinions, or else interpret them perversely; but we mean the freedom of the body from pain, and the soul from confusion" ("Epicurus to Menæceus," in Diogenes Laertius, "Lives," bk. x. ch. xxvii.). The most obvious tendency of this doctrine is to extreme selfishness, rather than extreme sensuality--a selfishness which prefers one's own comfort and case to every other consideration.

As to the personal character of Epicurus, opinions have been divided both in ancient and modern times. By some the garden has been called a "sty." Epicurus has been branded as a libertine, and the name "Epicurean" has, in almost all languages, become the synonym of sensualism. Diogenes Laertius repels all the imputations which are cast upon the moral character of his favorite author, and ascribes them to the malignity and falsehood of the Stoics. "The most modern criticism seems rather inclined to revert to the vulgar opinion respecting him, rejecting, certainly with good reason, the fanatical panegyrics of some French and English writers of the last century. Upon the whole, we are inclined to believe that Epicurus was an apathetic, decorous, formal man, who was able, without much difficulty, to cultivate a measured and even habit of mind, who may have occasionally indulged in sensual gratifications to prove that he thought them lawful, but who generally preferred, as a matter of taste, the exercises of the intellect to the more violent forms of self-indulgence. And this life, it seems to us, would be most consistent with his opinions. To avoid commotion, to make the stream of life flow on as easily as possible, was clearly the aim of his philosophy."--Maurice's "Ancient Philosophy," p. 236.]

To secure this highest kind of happiness--this pure impassivity, it was necessary to get rid of all superstitious fears of death, of supernatural beings, and of a future retribution.[782] The chief causes of man's misery are his illusions, his superstitions, and his prejudices. "That which principally contributes to trouble the spirit of men, is the persuasion which they cherish that the stars are beings imperishable and happy (_i.e.,_ that they are gods), and that then our thoughts and actions are contrary to the will of those superior beings; they also, being deluded by these fables, apprehend an eternity of evils, they fear the insensibility of death, as though that could affect them...." "The real freedom from this kind of trouble consists in being emancipated from all these things."[783] And this emancipation is to be secured by the study of philosophy--that is, of that philosophy which explains every thing on natural or physical principles, and excludes all supernatural powers.

[Footnote 782: Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. i. 1. 100-118.]

[Footnote 783: Epicurus to Herodotus, in Diogenes Laertius, "Lives of the Philosophers," p. 453 (Bohn's edition).]

That ignorance which occasions man's misery is two-fold, (i.) _Ignorance of the external world, which leads to superstition._ All unexplained phenomena are ascribed to unseen, supernatural powers; often to malignant powers, which take pleasure in tormenting man; sometimes to a Supreme and Righteous Power, which rewards and punishes men for their good or evil conduct. Hence a knowledge of Physics, particularly the physics which Democritus taught, was needful to deliver men from false hopes and false fears.[784] (ii.) _Ignorance of the nature of man, of his faculties, powers, and the sources and limits of his knowledge_, from whence arise illusions, prejudices, and errors. Hence the need of Psychology to ascertain the real grounds of human knowledge, to explain the origin of man's illusions, to exhibit the groundlessness of his fears, and lead him to a just conception of the nature and end of his existence.

[Footnote 784: "The study of physics contributes more than any thing else to the tranquillity and happiness of life."--Diogenes Laertius, "Lives," bk. x. ch. xxiv. "For thus it is that _fear_ restrains all men, because they observe many things effected on the earth and in heaven, of which effects they can by no means see the causes, and therefore think that they are wrought by a _divine_ power. For which reasons, when we have clearly seen that _nothing can be produced from nothing_, we shall have a more accurate perception of that of which we are in search, and shall understand whence each individual thing is generated, and how all things are done without the agency of the gods."--Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. i. l. 145-150.]

Physics and Psychology are thus the only studies which Epicurus would tolerate as "conducive to the happiness of man." The pursuit of truth for its own sake was useless. Dialectics, which distinguish the true from the false, the good from the bad, on _à priori_ grounds, must be banished as an unnecessary toil, which yields no enjoyment. Theology must be cancelled entirely, because it fosters superstitious fears. The idea of God's taking knowledge of, disapproving, condemning, punishing the evil conduct of men, is an unpleasant thought. Physics and Psychology are the most useful, because the most "agreeable," the most "comfortable" sciences.

EPICUREAN PHYSICS.

In his physical theories Epicurus followed Leucippus and Democritus. He expounds these theories in his letters to Herodotus and Pythocles, which are preserved in Diogenes Laertius.[785] We shall be guided mainly by his own statements, and when his meaning is obscure, or his exposition is incomplete, we shall avail ourselves of the more elaborate statements of Lucretius,[786] who is uniformly faithful to the doctrine of Epicurus, and universally regarded as its best expounder.

The fundamental principle of his philosophy is the ancient maxim--"_de nihilo nihil, in nihilum nil fosse reverti_;" but instead of employing this maxim in the sense in which it is used by Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and others, to prove there must be something self-existent and eternal, or in other words, "that nothing which once was not can ever of itself come into being," he uses it to disprove a divine creation, and even presents the maxim in an altered form--viz., "nothing is ever _divinely_ generated from nothing;"[787] and he thence concludes that the world was by no means made for us by _divine_ power.[788] Nature is eternal. "The universal whole always was such as it now is, and always will be such." "The universe also is infinite, for that which is finite has a limit, but the universe has no limit."[789]

[Footnote 785: "Lives of the Philosophers," bk. x.]

[Footnote 786: "De Natura Rerum."]

[Footnote 787: Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. i.]

[Footnote 788: Ibid.]

[Footnote 789: Diogenes Laertius, "Lives of the Philosophers," bk. x. ch. xxiv.]

The two great principles of nature are a _vacuum_, and a _plenum._ The plenum is _body_, or tangible nature; the vacuum is _space_, or intangible nature. "We know by the evidences of the senses (which are our only rule of reasoning) that _bodies_ have a real existence, and we infer from the evidence of the senses that the vacuum has a real existence; for if space have no real existence, there would be nothing in which bodies can move, as we see they really do move. Let us add to this reflection that one can not conceive, either in virtue of perception, or of any analogy founded on perception, any general quality peculiar to all beings, which is not either an attribute, or an accident, of the body or of the vacuum."[790]

Of bodies some are "combinations"--concrete bodies--and some are primordial "elements," out of which combinations are formed. These primordial elements, out of which the universe is generated, are "_atoms_" (atomoi). These atoms are "the first principles" and "seeds" of all things.[791] They are "_infinite_ in number," and, as their name implies, they are "_infrangible" "unchangeable_" and "_indestructible."_[792] Matter is, therefore, not infinitely divisible; there must be a point at which division ends.[793]

The only qualities of atoms are _form_, _magnitude_, and _density._ All the other sensible qualities of matter--the secondary qualities--as color, odor, sweetness, bitterness, etc.--are necessarily inherent in form. All secondary qualities are changeable, but the primary atoms are unchangeable; "for in the dissolution of combined bodies there must be something _solid_ and _indestructible,_ of such a kind that it will not change, either into what does not exist, or out of what does not exist, but the change results from a simple displacement of parts, which is the most usual case, or from an addition or subtraction of particles."[794]

[Footnote 790: Diogenes Laertius, "Lives of the Philosophers," bk. x. ch. xxiv.]

[Footnote 791: Id., ib., bk. x. ch. xxv.]

[Footnote 792: Id., ib., bk. x. ch. xxiv.]

[Footnote 793: Id., ib.; Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. i. l. 616-620.]

[Footnote 794: Diogenes Laertius, "Lives of the Philosophers," bk. x. ch. xxiv.]

The atoms are not all of one _form_, but of different forms suited to the production of different substances by combination; some are square, some triangular, some smooth and spherical, some are hooked with points. They are also diversified in _magnitude_ and _density_. The number of original forms is "incalculably varied," but not infinite. "Every variety of forms contains an infinitude of atoms, but there is not, for that reason, an infinitude of forms; it is only the number of them which is beyond computation."[795] To assert that atoms are of every kind of form, magnitude, and density, would be "to contradict the phenomena; "for experience teaches us that objects have a finite magnitude, and form necessarily supposes limitation.

[Footnote 795: Id., ib.]

A variety of these primordial forms enter into the composition of all sensible objects, because sensible objects possess different qualities, and these diversified qualities can only result from the combination of different original forms. "The earth has, in itself, primary atoms from which springs, rolling forth cool _water_, incessantly recruit the immense sea; it has also atoms from which _fire_ arises.... Moreover, the earth contains atoms from which it can raise up rich _corn_ and cheerful _groves_ for the tribes of men...." So that "no object in nature is constituted of one kind of elements, and whatever possesses in itself must numerous powers and energies, thus demonstrates that it contains more numerous kinds of primary particles,"[796] or primordial "seeds of things."

"The atoms are in a continual state of _motion_" and "have moved with _equal rapidity_ from all eternity, since it is evident the vacuum can offer no resistance to the heaviest, any more than the lightest." The primary and original movement of all atoms is _in straight lines, by virtue of their own weight_. The vacuum separates all atoms one from another, at greater or less distances, and they preserve their own peculiar motion in the densest substances.[797]

[Footnote 796: Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. i. l. 582-600.]

[Footnote 797: Diogenes Laertius, "Lives of the Philosophers," bk. x. ch. xxiv.; Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. i. l. 80-92.]

And now the grand crucial question arises--_How do atoms combine so as to form concrete bodies?_ If they move in straight lines, and with equal rapidity from all eternity, then they can never unite so as to form concrete substances. They can only coalesce by deviating from a straight line.[798] How are they made to deviate from a straight line? This deviation must be introduced _arbitrarily_, or by some _external cause_. And inasmuch as Epicurus admits of no causes "but space and matter," and rejects all divine or supernatural interposition, the _new_ movement must be purely arbitrary. They deviate _spontaneously,_ and of their own accord. "The system of nature immediately appears _as a free agent_, released from tyrant masters, to do every thing of itself spontaneously, without the help of the gods."[799] The manner in which Lucretius proves this doctrine is a good example of the petitio principii. He assumes, in opposition to the whole spirit and tendency of the Epicurean philosophy, that man has "a free will," and then argues that if man who is nothing but an aggregation of atoms, can "turn aside and alter his own movements," the primary elements, of which his soul is composed, must have some original spontaneity. "If all motion is connected and dependent, and a new movement perpetually arises from a former one in a certain order, and if the primary elements do not produce any commencement of motion by deviating from the straight line to break the laws of fate, so that cause may not follow cause in infinite succession, _whence comes this freedom of will_ to all animals in the world? whence, I say, is this liberty of action wrested from the fates, by means of which we go wheresoever inclination leads each of us? whence is it that we ourselves turn aside, and alter our motions, not at any fixed time, nor in any fixed part of space, but just as our own minds prompt?.... Wherefore we must necessarily confess that the same is the case with the seeds of matter, and there is some other cause besides strokes and weight [resistance and density] from which this power [of free movement] is innate in them, since we see that _nothing is produced from nothing_."[800] Besides form, extension, and density, Epicurus has found another inherent or essential quality of matter or atoms, namely, "_spontaneous" motion._

[Footnote 798: "At some time, though at no fixed and determinate time, and at some point, though at no fixed and determinate point, they turn aside from the right line, but only so far as you can call the least possible deviation."--Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. ii. l. 216-222.]

[Footnote 799: Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things" bk. ii. 1. 1092-1096.]

[Footnote 800: Id., ib., bk. ii. l. 250-290.]

By a slight "voluntary" deflection from the straight line, atoms are now brought into contact with each other; "they strike against each other, and by the percussion new movements and new complications arise"--"movements from high to low, from low to high, and horizontal movements to and fro, in virtue of this reciprocal percussion." The atoms "jostling about, _of their own accord_, in infinite modes, were often brought together confusedly, irregularly, and to no purpose, but at length they _successfully coalesced_; at least, such of them as were thrown together suddenly became, in succession, the beginnings of great things--as earth, and air, and sea, and heaven."[801]

[Footnote 801: Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. ii. l. 1051-1065.]

And now Lucretius shall describe the formation of the different parts of the world according to the cosmogony of Epicurus. We quote from Good's translation:

But from this boundless mass of matter first
How heaven, and earth, and ocean, sun, and moon,
Rose in nice order, now the muse shall tell.
For never, doubtless, from result of thought,
Or mutual compact, could primordial seeds
First harmonize, or move with powers precise.
But countless crowds in countless manners urged,
From time eternal, by intrinsic weight
And ceaseless repercussion, to combine
In all the possibilities of forms,
Of actions, and connections, and exert
In every change some effort to create--
Reared the rude frame at length, abruptly reared,
Which, when once gendered, must the basis prove
Of things sublime; and whence eventual rose
Heaven, earth, and ocean, and the tribes of sense.

Yet now nor sun on fiery wheel was seen
Riding sublime, nor stars adorned the pole,
Nor heaven, nor earth, nor air, nor ocean lived,
Nor aught of prospect mortal sight surveyed;
But one vast chaos, boisterous and confused.
Yet order hence began; congenial parts
Parts joined congenial; and the rising world
Gradual evolved: its mighty members each
From each divided, and matured complete
From seeds appropriate; whose wild discortderst,
Reared by their strange diversities of form,
With ruthless war so broke their proper paths,
Their motions, intervals, conjunctions, weights,
And repercussions, nought of genial act
Till now could follow, nor the seeds themselves
E'en though conjoined in mutual bonds, co
Thus air, secreted, rose o'er laboring earth;
Secreted ocean flowed; and the pure fire,
Secreted too, toward ether sprang sublime.

But first the seeds terrene, since ponderous most
And most perplext, in close embraces clung,
And towards the centre conglobating sunk.
And as the bond grew firmer, ampler forth
Pressed they the fluid essences that reared
Sun, moon, and stars, and main, and heaven's high wall.
For those of atoms lighter far consist,
Subtiler, and more rotund than those of earth.
Whence, from the pores terrene, with foremost haste
Rushed the bright ether, towering high, and swift
Streams of fire attracting as it flowed.

Then mounted, next, the base of sun and moon,
'Twixt earth and ether, in the midway air
Rolling their orbs; for into neither these
Could blend harmonious, since too light with earth
To sink deprest, while yet too ponderous far
To fly with ether toward the realms extreme:
So 'twixt the two they hovered; _vital_ there
Moving forever, parts of the vast whole;
As move forever in the frame of man
Some active organs, while some oft repose.[802]

[Footnote 802: Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," b. v. l. 431-498]

After explaining the origin and causes of the varied celestial phenomena, he proceeds to give an account of the production of plants, animals, and man:

Once more return we to the world's pure prime,
Her fields yet liquid, and the tribes survey
First she put forth, and trusted to the winds.

And first the race she reared of verdant herbs,
Glistening o'er every hill; the fields at large
Shone with the verdant tincture, and the trees
Felt the deep impulse, and with outstretched arms
Broke from their bonds rejoicing. As the down
Shoots from the winged nations, or from beasts
Bristles or hair, so poured the new-born earth
Plants, fruits, and herbage. Then, in order next,
Raised she the sentient tribes, in various modes,
By various powers distinguished: for not heaven
Down dropped them, nor from ocean's briny waves
Sprang they, terrestrial sole; whence, justly _Earth_
Claims the dear name of mother, since alone
Flowed from herself whate'er the sight surveys.

E'en now oft rears she many a sentient tribe
By showers and sunshine ushered into day.[803]
Whence less stupendous tribes should then have risen
More, and of ampler make, herself new-formed,
In flower of youth, and _Ether_ all mature.[804]

Of these birds first, of wing and plume diverse,
Broke their light shells in spring-time: as in spring
Still breaks the grasshopper his curious web,
And seeks, spontaneous, foods and vital air.

Then rushed the ranks of mortals; for the soil,
Exuberant then, with warmth and moisture teemed.
So, o'er each scene appropriate, myriad wombs
Shot, and expanded, to the genial sward
By fibres fixt; and as, in ripened hour,
Their liquid orbs the daring foetus broke
Of breath impatient, nature here transformed
Th' assenting earth, and taught her opening veins
With juice to flow lacteal; as the fair
Now with sweet milk o'erflows, whose raptured breast
First hails the stranger-babe, since all absorbed
Of nurture, to the genial tide converts.
Earth fed the nursling, the warm ether clothed,
And the soft downy grass his couch compressed.[805]

[Footnote 803: The doctrine of "spontaneous generations" is still more explicitly announced in book ii. "Manifest appearances compel us to believe that animals, though possessed of sense, are generated from senseless atoms. For you may observe living worms proceed from foul dung, when the earth, moistened with immoderate showers, has contracted a kind of putrescence; and you may see all other things change themselves, similarly, into other things."--Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. i. l. 867-880.]

[Footnote 804: Ether is the father, earth the mother of all organized being.--Id., ib., bk. i. l. 250-255.]

[Footnote 805: Id., ib., bk. v. l. 795-836.]

A state of pure savagism, or rather of mere animalism, was the primitive condition of man. He wandered naked in the woods, feeding on acorns and wild fruits, and quenched his thirst at the "echoing waterfalls," in company with the wild beast.

Through the remaining part of book v. Lucretius describes how speech was invented; how society originated, and governments were instituted; how civilization commenced; and how religion arose out of ignorance of natural causes; how the arts of life were discovered, and how science sprang up. And all this, as he is careful to tell us, without any divine instruction, or any assistance from the gods.

Such are the physical theories of the Epicureans. The primordial elements of matter are infinite, eternal, and self-moved. After ages upon ages of chaotic strife, the universe at length arose out of an _infinite_ number of atoms, and a _finite_ number of forms, by a fortuitous combination. Plants, animals, and man were spontaneously generated from ether and earth. Languages, society, governments, arts were gradually developed. And all was achieved simply by blind, unconscious nature-forces, without any designing, presiding, and governing Intelligence--that is, without a God.

The evil genius which presided over the method of Epicurus, and perverted all his processes of thought, is clearly apparent. The end of his philosophy was not the discovery of truth. He does not commence his inquiry into the principles or causes which are adequate to the explanation of the universe, with an unprejudiced mind. He everywhere develops a malignant hostility to religion, and the avowed object of his physical theories is to rid the human mind of all fear of supernatural powers--that is, of all fear of God.[806] "The phenomena which men observe to occur in the earth and the heavens, when, as often happens, they are perplexed with fearful thoughts, overawe their minds with a dread of the gods, and humble and depress them to the earth. For ignorance of natural causes obliges them to refer all things to the power of the divinities, and to resign the dominion of the world to them; because of those effects they can by no means see the origin, and accordingly suppose that they are produced by divine influence."[807]

[Footnote 806: "Let us trample religion underfoot, that the victory gained over it may place us on an equality with heaven" (book i.). See Diogenes Laertius, "Lives of the Philosophers," bk. x. ch. xxiv. pp. 453,454 (Bohn's edition); Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. i. l. 54-120.]

[Footnote 807: Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. vi. l. 51-60.]

To "expel these fancies from the mind" as "inconsistent with its tranquillity and opposed to human happiness," is the end, and, as Lucretius believes, the glory of the Epicurean philosophy. To accomplish this, God must be placed at an infinite distance from the universe, and must be represented as indifferent to every thing that transpires within it. We "must beware of making the Deity interpose here, for that Being we ought to suppose _exempt from all occupation_, and perfectly happy,"[808]--that is, absolutely impassible. God did not make the world, and he does not govern the world. There is no evidence of design or intelligence in its structure, and "such is the faultiness with which it stands affected, that it can not be the work of a Divine power."[809]

Epicurus is, then, an unmistakable Atheist. He did not admit a God in any rational sense. True, he _professed_ to believe in gods, but evidently in a very equivocal manner, and solely to escape the popular condemnation. "They are not pure spirits, for there is no spirit in the atomic theory; they are not bodies, for where are the bodies that we may call gods? In this embarrassment, Epicurus, compelled to acknowledge that the human race believes in the existence of gods, addresses himself to an old theory of Democritus--that is, he appeals to dreams. As in dreams there are images that act upon and determine in us agreeable or painful sensations, without proceeding from exterior bodies, so the gods are images similar to those of dreams, but greater, having the human form; images which are not precisely bodies, and yet not deprived of materiality which are whatever you please, but which, in short, must be admitted, since the human race believes in gods, and since the universality of the religious sentiment is a fact which demands a cause."[810]

[Footnote 808: Diogenes Laertius, "Lives of the Philosophers," bk. x. ch. xxv.; Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. i. l. 55-60.]

[Footnote 809: Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. v. l. 195-200.]

[Footnote 810: Cousin's "Lectures on the History of Philosophy," vol. i. p. 431.]

It is needless to offer any criticism on the reasoning of Epicurus. One fact will have obviously presented itself to the mind of the reflecting reader. He starts with atoms having form, magnitude, and density, and essays to construct a universe; but he is obliged to be continually introducing, in addition, a "_nameless something_" which "remains in secret," to help him out in the explanation of the phenomena.[811] He makes life to arise out of dead matter, sense out of senseless atoms, consciousness out of unconsciousness, reason out of unreason, without an adequate cause, and thus violates the fundamental principle from which he starts, "_that nothing can arise from nothing_."

EPICUREAN PSYCHOLOGY.

In the system of Epicurus, the soul is regarded as corporeal or material, like the body; they form, together, one nature or substance. The soul is composed of atoms exceedingly diminutive, smooth, and round, and connected with or diffused through the veins, viscera, and nerves. The substance of the soul is not to be regarded as simple and uncompounded; its constituent parts are _aura_, heat, and air. These are not sufficient, however, even in the judgment of Epicurus, to account for _sensation_; they are not adequate to generate sensible motives such as revolve any thoughts in the mind. "A certain fourth nature, or substance, must, therefore, necessarily be added to these, _that is wholly without a name_; it is a substance, however, than which nothing exists more active or more subtile, nor is any thing more essentially composed of small and smooth elementary particles; and it is this substance which first distributes sensible motions through the members."[812]

[Footnote 811: As, _e.g._, Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. iii. l. 260-290.]

[Footnote 812: Id., ib., bk. iii. l. 237-250.]

Epicurus is at great pains to prove that the soul is material; and it can not be denied that he marshals his arguments with great skill. Modern materialism may have added additional illustrations, but it has contributed no new lines of proof. The weapons are borrowed from the old arsenal, and they are not wielded with any greater skill than they were by Epicurus himself, I. The soul and the body act and react upon each other; and mutual reaction can only take place between substances of similar nature. "Such effects can only be produced by _touch_, and touch can not take place without _body_."[813] 2. The mind is produced together with the body, it grows up along with it, and waxes old at the same time with it.[814] 3. The mind is diseased along with the body, "it loses its faculties by material causes, as intoxication, or by severe blows; and is sometimes, by a heavy lethargy, borne down into a deep eternal sleep."[815] 4. The mind, like the body, is healed by medicines, which proves that it exists only as a mortal substance.[816] 5. The mind does not always, and at the same time, continue _entire_ and _unimpaired_, some faculties decay before the others, "the substance of the soul is therefore divided." On all these grounds the soul must be deemed mortal; it is dissolved along with the body, and has no conscious existence after death.

[Footnote 813: Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. iii. l. 138-168.]

[Footnote 814: Id., ib., bk. iii. l. 444-460.]

[Footnote 815: Id., ib., bk. iii. l. 438-490.]

[Footnote 816: Id., ib., bk. iii. l. 500-520.]

Such being the nature of the soul, inasmuch as it is material, all its knowledge must be derived from sensation. The famous doctrine of perception, as taught by Epicurus, is grounded upon this pre-supposition that the soul is corporeal. "The eidôla aporroiai--_imagines, simulacra rerum, etc_., are, like pellicles, continually flying off from objects; and these material 'likenesses,' diffusing themselves everywhere in the air, are propelled to the perceptive organs." These images of things coming in contact with the senses produce _sensation_ (aisthêsis). A sensation may be considered either as regards its object, or as regards him who experiences it. As regards him who experiences it, it is simply a passive affection, an agreeable or disagreeable feeling, passion, or sentiment (to pathos). But along with sensation there is inseparably associated some knowledge of the object which excites sensation; and it is for this reason that Epicurus marked the intimate relation of these two phenomena by giving them analogous names. Because the second phenomenon is joined to the first, he calls it epaisthêsis--_perception_. It is sensation viewed especially in regard to its object--_representative sensation_, or the "sensible idea" of modern philosophy. It is from perception that we draw our general ideas by a kind of prolepsis (prolêpsis) an anticipation or laying hold by reason of that which is implied in sensation. Now all sensations are alike true in so far as they are sensations, and error arises from false reasoning about the testimony of sense. All knowledge is purely relative and contingent, and there is no such thing as necessary and absolute truth.

The system of Epicurus is thus a system of pure materialism, but not a system of materialism drawn, as a logical consequence, from a careful and unprejudiced study of the whole phenomena of mind. His openly avowed design is to deliver men from the fear of death, and rid them of all apprehension of a future retribution. "Did men but know that there was a fixed limit to their woes, they would be able, in some measure, to defy the religious fictions and menaces of the poets; but now, since we must fear eternal punishment at death, there is no mode, no means of resisting them."[817] To emancipate men from "these terrors of the mind," they must be taught "that the soul is mortal, and dissolves with the body"--that "death is nothing to us, for that which is dissolved is devoid of sensation, and that which is devoid of sensation is nothing to us."[818] Starting with the fixed determination to prove that

"Death is nothing, and naught after death,"

he will not permit any mental phenomena to suggest to him the idea of an incorporeal spiritual substance. Matter, under any form known to Epicurus, is confessedly insufficient to explain sensation and thought; a "nameless something" must be _supposed_. But may not "that principle which _lies entirely hid, and remains in secret_"[819]--and about which even Epicurus does not know any thing--be a spiritual, an _immaterial_ principle? For aught that he knows it may as properly be called "_spirit_" as matter. May not _sensation_ and _cognition_ be the result of the union of matter and spirit; and if so, may not their mutual affections, their common sympathies, be the necessary conditions of sensation and cognition in the present life? A reciprocal relation between body and mind appears in all mental phenomena. A certain proportion in this relation is called mental health. A deviation from it is termed disease. This proportion is by no means an equilibrium, but the perfect adaptation of the body, without injury to its integrity, to the purposes of the mind. And if this be so, all the arguments of materialism fall to the ground.

[Footnote 817: Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. i. l. 100-118.]

[Footnote 818: Diogenes Laertius, Maxim 2, in "Lives of the Philosophers," bk. x. ch. xxxi.]

[Footnote 819: Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. iii. l. 275-280.]

The concluding portion of the third book, in which Lucretius discourses on _death_, is a mournful picture of the condition of the heathen mind before Christianity "brought life and immortality fully to light." It comes to us, like a voice from the grave of two thousand years, to prove they were "without hope." To be delivered from the fear of future retribution, they would sacrifice the hope of an immortal life. To extintinguish guilt they would annihilate the soul. The only way in which Lucretius can console man in prospect of death is, by reminding him that he will _escape the ills of life_.

"'But thy dear home shall never greet thee more!
No more the best of wives!--thy babes beloved,
Whose haste half-met thee, emulous to snatch
The dulcet kiss that roused thy secret soul,
Again shall never hasten!--nor thine arm,
With deeds heroic, guard thy country's weal!--
Oh mournful, mournful fate!' thy friends exclaim!
'One envious hour of these invalued joys
Robs thee forever!--But they add not here,
'_It robs thee, too, of all desire of joy_'--
A truth, once uttered, that the mind would free
From every dread and trouble. 'Thou art safe
The sleep of death protects thee, _and secures
From all the unnumbered woes of mortal life!_
While we, alas! the sacred urn around
That holds thine ashes, shall insatiate weep,
Nor time destroy the eternal grief we feel!'
What, then, has death, if death be mere repose,
And quiet only in a peaceful grave,--
What has it thus to mar this life of man?"[820]

[Footnote 820: Lucretius, "On the Nature of Things," bk. iii. l. 906-926.]

This is all the comfort that Epicureanism can offer; and if "the wretch still laments the approach of death," she addresses him "with voice severe"--

"Vile coward! dry thine eyes--
Hence with thy snivelling sorrows, and depart!"

It is evident that such a system of philosophy outrages the purest and noblest sentiments of humanity, and, in fact, condemns itself. It was born of selfishness and social degeneracy, and could perpetuate itself only in an age of corruption, because it inculcated the lawfulness of sensuality and the impunity of injustice. Its existence at this precise period in Grecian history forcibly illustrates the truth, that Atheism is a disease of the heart rather than the head. It seeks to set man free to follow his own inclinations, by ridding him of all faith in a Divinity and in an immortal life, and thus exonerating him from all accountability and all future retribution. But it failed to perceive that, in the most effectual manner, it annihilated all real liberty, all true nobleness, and made of man an abject slave.

STOICISM.

The Stoical school was founded by Zeno of Citium, who flourished B.C. 290. He taught in the Stoa Poecile, or Painted Porch; and his disciples thence derived the name of Stoics. Zeno was succeeded by Cleanthes (B.C. 260); and Cleanthes by Chrysippus (B.C. 240), whose vigorous intellect gave unity and completeness to the Stoical philosophy. He is reported to have said to Cleanthes,--"Give me your doctrines, and I will find the demonstrations."[821]

[Footnote 821: Diogenes Laertius, "Lives of the Philosophers," bk. vii. ch. vii.]

None of the writings of the early Stoics, save a "Hymn to Jupiter," by Cleanthes, have survived. We are chiefly indebted to Diogenes Laertius[822] and Cicero[823] for an insight into their system. The Hymn of Cleanthes sheds some light on their Theology, and their moral principles are exhibited in "The Fragments" of Epictetus, and "The Life and Meditations" of Marcus Aurelius.

[Footnote 822: "Lives of the Philosophers," bk. vii.]

[Footnote 823: "De Fm.," and "De Natura Deorum."]

The philosophy of the Stoics, like that of the Epicureans, was mainly a philosophy of life--that is, a _moral_ philosophy. The manner in which they approached the study of morals, and the principles upon which they grounded morality, were, however, essentially different.