Chapter VI: Greek Philosophy and Modern Thought (4)

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

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

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

[293] Zeller, III., a, pp. 495 and 514; Cic., _Acad._, I., xii., 45; _ibid._, II., ix., 28.

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

[295] Sext. Emp., _Pyrrh. Hyp._, I., 180 ff.

[296] _Adv. Math._, IX., 228.

[297] The ten Tropes were evidently suggested by the ten Categories of Aristotle. The five grounded on differences of disposition, place, quantity, relation, and habits, show at once by their names that they are derived from κεῖσθαι, ποῦ, ποσόν, πρός τι, and ἔχειν. The Trope of comparative frequency would be suggested by πότε; the disturbing influence of bodies on one another combines ποιεῖν and πάσχειν; the conflict of the special senses belongs, although somewhat more remotely, to ποιόν; and, in order to make up the number ten, οὐσία, which answers to the percipient in general, had to be divided into the two Tropes taken respectively from the differences among animals and among men,—an arrangement that would occur all the more readily as οὐσία included the two notions of Genus and Species, of which the one answers, in this instance, to animals, and the other to men.

[298] Zeller, III., b, p. 23.

[299] Zeller, _op. cit._ pp. 29-37.

[300] Sext. Emp., _Pyrrh. Hyp._, I., 164 and 178; Zeller, _op. cit._, pp. 37 and 38.

[301] _Adv. Math._, V., 1.

[302] _ibid._, IX., 208.

[303] These are the four principles enumerated by Sextus, _Pyrrh. Hyp._, I., 24.

[304] Diog. L., X., 9.

[305] The materials and, to a certain extent, the ideas of this chapter are chiefly derived from Zeller’s _Philosophie der Griechen_, Vol. III., Duruy’s _Histoire des Romains_, Vol. V., Gaston Boissier’s _Religion Romaine_, and above all from Friedländer’s _Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Rom’s_, Part III., chapters iv. and vi.

[306] Friedländer, _Römische Sittengeschichte_, III., pp, 483, 681.

[307] As a striking instance of the solidarity which now connects all forms of irrationalism, it may be mentioned that Livy’s fables are accepted, in avowed defiance of modern criticism, by the clericalising English students of archaeology in Rome.

[308] Using the word in its modern rather than in its ancient sense, so as to include the whole empire outside the city of Rome.

[309] _Epp._, II., i., 20 ff.

[310] _Carm._, I., xi., and III., xxiii.

[311] _Carm._, III., vi., and the _Carmen Seculare_.

[312] Boissier, _Religion Romaine_, I., p. 336.

[313] Friedländer, III., p. 510.

[314] See the note on _Honestiores_ and _Humiliores_ appended to the fifth volume of Duruy’s _Histoire des Romains_.

[315] Lucian, _Adversus Indoctum_.

[316] Juvenal, _Satt._, XVI., 14.

[317] Persius, _Satt._, III., 77.; cf. V., 189.

[318] Matth., viii., 9; Luke, vii., 8.

[319] Thucydides, II., iv. The other women alluded to are, the wife of Admêtus, who tells Themistocles how he is to proceed in order to conciliate her husband (I., cxxxvi.); Stratonice, the sister whom Perdiccas gives in marriage to Seuthes (II., ci.); and Brauro, the Edonian queen who murders her husband Pittacus (IV., cvii.). The wife and daughter of Hippias the Peisistratid and the sister of Harmodius are mentioned in bk. VI., lv. ff, but they take us back to an earlier period of Greek history than that of which Thucydides treats consecutively; while the names of Helen and Procne, which also occur, belong, of course, to a much remoter past (I., ix., and II., xxix.)

[320] It has even been maintained that the condition of the Roman matron was superior to that of the modern Frenchwoman. (Duruy, _Histoire des Romains_, V., p. 41.)

[321] Boissier, _Religion Romaine_, II. p. 200.

[322] Boissier, _op. cit._, II., pp. 214 ff.

[323] Friedländer, _Romische Sittengeschichte_, I., pp. 441 ff.

[324] Lucian, _De Mercede Conductis_, xxvi.; Friedländer, I., p. 447.

[325] Epict., _Fragm._, 53 Dübner.

[326] Juvenal, V., and Lucian, _De Mercede Conductis_.

[327] Friedländer, III., p. 502.

[328] Friedländer, _ibid._

[329] Boissier, _op. cit._, I., p. 362.

[330] Havet, _Le Christianisme et ses Origines_, II., p. 150.

[331] Hor., _Satt._, I., ix., 67-72.

[332] _Ibid._, I., iv., 142.

[333] _Opera_, ed. Tauchnitz, V., p. 209.

[334] Philo, _Vita Mos._ p. 136, M.; Joseph., _Contr. Ap._, II., xxxix.; Friedländer, III., p. 583.

[335] Ovid., _Ars Am._, I., 415; _Rem. Am._, 219; Pers., V., 179; Juv., XIV., 97; Friedländer, _loc. cit._

[336] Havet, II., p. 328.

[337] Friedländer, I., p. 451.

[338] _Ars Am._, I., 76.

[339] Friedländer, III., pp. 518, 539 ff, 553 ff.

[340] Xenophon, _Mem._, I., i., 9.

[341] Friedländer, III., p. 523.

[342] _ibid._, pp. 524 ff.

[343] Friedländer, III., pp. 527 ff.

[344] Plutarch, _De Defect. Oracul._, cap. xlv., p. 434.

[345] Lucian, _Alexander_, 25, 47.

[346] According to Friedländer (III., p. 531), this happened between 167 and 169.

[347] Friedländer, p. 532.

[348] Friedländer, III., p. 533.

[349] _Ibid._, p. 534.

[350] For details see Friedländer, _loc. cit._

[351] Friedländer, pp. 535 ff. This form of superstition still flourishes in great force among at least the lower class of Italians at the present day; and the continual stimulation afforded to it by the public lottery is not the least mischievous consequence of that infamous institution.

[352] Aelian, _Fragm._, 98; Friedländer, p. 494.

[353] Friedländer, _loc. cit._

[354] Friedländer, p. 549.

[355] For the whole subject of Aristeides see Friedländer, pp. 496 ff.

[356] ‘Et parum sane fuit quod illi honores divinos, omnis aetas, omnis sexus, omnis condicio ac dignitas dedit, nisi quod etiam sacrilegus judicatus est qui ejus imaginem in suo domo non habuit qui per fortunam vel potuit habere vel debuit. Denique hodieque in multis domibus M. Aurelii statuae consistunt inter deos penates. Nec defuerunt homines qui somniis eum multa praedixisse augurantes futura et vera concinnerunt.’—_Vita M. Antonini Phil._, cap. xviii.

[357] Friedländer, p. 513.

[358] Friedländer, III., p. 683. Cp. Clifford’s epitaph: ‘I was nothing and was conceived; I loved and did a little work; I am nothing and grieve not.’

[359] _Comm._, IV., 21; XII., 5, 26.

[360] Zeller, _Ph. d. Gr._, III., a, p. 798.

[361] Quoted by Friedländer, pp. 681 f.

[362] _Ibid._, p. 688.

[363] _Ibid._

[364] Zeller, _op. cit._, p. 828.

[365] See in particular, _Satt._, II, 149.

[366] Friedländer, I., p. 465 f.

[367] Duruy, _Hist. d. Rom._, V., p. 463.

[368] III., p. 692.

[369] Friedländer, III., p. 701.

[370] A mesure que le temps s’avance les traits par lesquels se produit la croyance à une autre vie, d’abord vagues et confus, loin de s’effacer, se prononcent et se précisent. On se fait de la destinée des âmes des idées de plus en plus hautes; on rend aux morts des honneurs de plus en plus grands. En outre, ces idées, ces pratiques s’étendent de plus en plus au grand nombre. Au commencement il semble qu’on ne s’inquiète que du sort des rois et des héros, enfants ou descendants directs des dieux; avec le temps beaucoup d’autres ont part aux mêmes préoccupations, puis tous ou presque tous. La félicité est réservée a qui ressemble aux dieux; c’est une maxime antique qui subsiste immuable. Avec le temps on se fait de la ressemblance avec les dieux ou, ce qui revient au même, de la perfection, des idées qui permettent à tous d’y prétendre.’ Ravaisson, _Le Monument de Myrrhine et les bas-reliefs funéraires_, 1876, quoted by Duruy, _op. cit._, p. 463.

[371] See Vol. I., p. 68.

[372] For references see Friedländer, III., pp. 706 ff.

[373] _Epod._, xvii., 79.

[374] Friedländer, pp. 710 f.

[375] Sen., _Epp._, xvi., 5; xcv., 52; xli., 1 and 2.

[376] Perhaps, however, Zeller’s contention amounts to no more than that Seneca follows Posidonius in his adoption of the Platonic distinction between reason and passion, which were identified by the older Stoics. But the object of the latter was apparently to save the personality of man, which seemed to be threatened by Plato’s tripartite division of mind; and as Seneca achieves the same result by including the passions in the ἡγεμονικὸν[377] the difference between them and him is after all little more than verbal. For the general attitude of Seneca towards religion see Gaston Boissier, _Religion Romaine_, II., pp. 63-92.

[377] _Epp._, xcii., 1., (Zeller, by mistake refers to _Epp._, xciv., in _Ph. d. Gr._, III., a, p. 711.)

[378] As ψυχάριον, σωμάτιον, σαρκίδιον.

[379] Epict., _Fragm._, 175; _Diss._, I., xvi., 1-8; II., xvi., 42; III., xxii., 2; xxiv., 91-94. Zeller, III., a, p. 742.

[380] Zeller, p. 745.

[381] Friedländer, III., p. 493.

[382] _Comm._, VI., 30.

[383] _Oratt._, VI., p. 203.

[384] _Diss._, II., xxxvi.

[385] _Ph. d. Gr._, III., b, pp. 88 ff.

[386] Seneca, _Epp._, lxiv., 2; cviii., 17.

[387] Seneca, _De Irâ_, III., xxxvi., 1.

[388] Seneca, _Epp._, cviii., 22.

[389] For a detailed account of the Neo-Pythagorean school, see Zeller, _op. cit._, III., b, pp. 79-158, from which the above summary is entirely derived.

[390] _De Defect. Orac._, xvii., p. 419.

[391] _Diss._, I., xv., 2.

[392] Plutarch, _De Is. et Osir._, xxv. and xxvi; _De Fac. in Orbe Lun._, xxx.

[393] _Op. et D._, 120.

[394] _Diss._, I., xv., 7.

[395] Zeller, III., b, pp. 189 ff.

[396] _De Superstit._, viii., p. 169.

[397] _Metamorph._, XI., xxv.

[398] Zeller, III., b, pp. 257 ff.

[399] For references, see Ritter and Preller, _Hist. Phil._, pp. 467-73.

[400] For references, see Zeller, III., b, pp. 148 f.

[401] Suidas, quoted by Ritter and Preller, p. 485.

[402] Vacherot, _Histoire de l’Ecole d’Alexandrie_, pp. 214-17; Zeller, III., b, pp. 387 ff. The original authority is Irenaeus.

[403] _Politicus_, p. 270 ff.

[404] _Legg._, X., pp. 896, D ff, 898, C, 904, A.

[405] _De Isid. et Osir._, xlv. f.; _De Vir. Moral._, iii.; _De Anim. Procr._, v., 5. Plutarch supposes that the irrational soul in man is derived from the evil world-soul which he regards rather as senseless than as Satanic. It would thus very closely resemble the delirious Demiurgus of Valentinus and the ‘absolut Dumme’ of Eduard v. Hartmann.

[406] _Diss._, III., xxiii.

[407] Zeller, _Ph. d. Gr._, III., a, pp. 807 ff.

[408] Porph., _Vita Plot._, cap. iii.

[409] _Ibid._, cap. vii.

[410] _Ibid._, cap. xiii.

[411] Not, as is commonly stated, on the model of Plato’s Republic, which would have been a far more difficult enterprise, and one little in accordance with the practical good sense shown on other occasions by Plotinus.

[412] Porph., _Vita_, cap. xii.; Hegel, _Gesch. d. Ph._, III., p. 34.

[413] Porph., _Vita_, cap. ix.

[414] _Ibid._, xi. Leopardi has taken the incident referred to as the subject of one of his dialogues; Plotinus, the great champion of optimism, being chosen, with bitter irony, to represent the Italian poet’s own pessimistic views of life. The difficulty was to show how the Neo-Platonist philosopher could, consistently with the principles thus fathered on him, still continue to dissuade his pupil from committing suicide. Leopardi voluntarily faces the _argumentum ad hominem_ by which common sense has in all ages summarily disposed of pessimism: ‘Then why don’t you kill yourself?’ (‘Your philosophy or your life,’ so to speak.) The answer is singularly lame. Porphyry is to think of the distress which his death would cause to his friends. He might have replied that if the general misery were so great as Plotinus had maintained, a little more or less affliction would not make any appreciable difference; that, considering the profound selfishness of mankind, an accepted article of faith with pessimism, his friends would in all probability easily resign themselves to his loss; that, at any rate, the suffering inflicted on them would be a mere trifle compared to what he would himself be getting rid of; and that, if the worst came to the worst, they had but to follow his example and ease themselves of all their troubles at a single stroke. A sincere pessimist would probably say: ‘I do not kill myself because I am afraid: and my very fear of death is a conclusive argument in favour of my creed. Nothing proves the deep-rooted necessity of pain more strongly than that we should refuse to profit by so obvious a means of escaping from it as that offered by suicide.’ Of course where pessimism is associated with a belief in metempsychosis, as among the Buddhists, there is the best of reasons for not seeking a violent death, namely, that it would in all probability transfer the suicide to another and inferior grade of existence; whereas, by using the opportunities of self-mortification which this world offers, he might succeed in extinguishing the vital principle for good and all. And Schopenhauer does, in fact, adopt the belief in metempsychosis just so far as is necessary to exclude the desirability of suicide from his philosophy. But the truth is, that while Asiatic pessimism is the logical consequence of a false metaphysical system, the analogous systems of European pessimists are simply an excuse for not pushing their disgust with life to its only rational issue.

[415] Porph., _Vita_, cap. xviii.

[416] Porphyry says six, but there must be a mistake somewhere, as Plotinus was fifty-nine when their friendship began, and died in his sixty-sixth year; while Porphyry’s departure for Sicily took place two years before that event, leaving, at most, five years during which their personal intercourse can have lasted, if the other dates are to be trusted.

[417] _Enn._, III., ii. and iii.

[418] _Plotini Opera_ recognovit Adolphus Kirchhoff, Lipsiae, 1856, in Teubner’s series of Greek and Latin authors. H. F. Müller, the latest editor of Plotinus, has returned to the original arrangement by Enneads. His edition is accompanied by a very useful German translation, only half of which, however, has as yet appeared. (Berlin, 1878.)

[419] Zeller, _Ph. d. Gr._, III., b, p. 472. (Third edition.)

[420] Porph., _Vita_, iv. ff., xxiv. ff.

[421] _Ibid._, cap. x.

[422] _Ibid._

[423] _Ibid._, cap. xxii.

[424] _Ibid._, capp. i. and ii.

[425] Zeller, _op. cit._, pp. 451 ff.

[426] Porph., _Vita_, cap. xx.

[427] A single example will make our meaning clear. Plotinus is trying to prove that there can be no Form without Matter. He first argues that if the notes of a concept can be separated from one another, this proves the presence of Matter, since divisibility is an affection belonging only to it. He then goes on to say, εἰ δὲ πολλὰ ὂν ἀμέριστόν ἐστι, τὰ πολλὰ ἐν ἑνὶ ὂντα ἐν ὕλῃ ἐστὶ τῷ ἑνὶ αὐτὰ μορφαὶ αῦτου ὂντα. (_Enn._, II., iv., 4; Kirchhoff, I., p. 113, I. 7.) The meaning is, that if the notes are inseparable, the unity in which they inhere is related to them as Matter to Form.

[428] See the index to Kirchhoff’s edition.

[429] For references see Kirchner, _Die Philosophie des Plotin_, p. 185; Steinhart, _Meletemata Plotiniana_, pp. 9-23; Zeller, _Ph. d. Gr._, III., b, pp. 430 f.

[430] Steinhart, _op. cit._, pp. 30 ff.; Kirchner, _op. cit._, pp. 186 ff.

[431] Porph., _Vita_, cap. xv.

[432] _Enn._, I., vi.

[433] _Meno_, 86, A. Compare Vol. I., p. 212.

[434] _Theaetêtus_, 176, A. _Phaedo_, 67, B ff.

[435] _Op. cit._, p. 427.

[436] _Enn._, IV., vii.

[437] _Enn._, III., i., 3.

[438] _Enn._, III., i.

[439] Ἀλλὰ γὰρ δεῖ καὶ ἕκαστον εἶναι καὶ πράξεις ἡμετέρας καὶ διανοίας ὑπάρχειν. III., i., 4, Kirchh., I., p. 38, l. 22. So utterly incapable is M. Vacherot of placing himself at this point of view, that he actually reads into the words quoted an argument in favour of free-will based on the testimony of consciousness. His version runs as follows:—‘Nous savons et nous croyons fermement par le sentiment de ce qui se passe en nous que les individus (les âmes) vivent, agissent, pensent, d’une vie, d’une action, d’une pensée qui leur est propre.’—_Histoire Critique de l’École d’Alexandrie_, I., p. 514. So far as our knowledge goes, such an appeal to consciousness is not to be found in any ancient writer.

[440] See _Legg._, 861, A ff. for an attempt to prove that men may properly be punished for actions committed through ignorance of their real good. This passage is one of the grounds used by Teichmüller, in his _Literarische Fehden_, to establish the rather paradoxical thesis that Aristotle published his _Ethics_ before Plato’s death.

[441] III., i., 10.

[442] Cap. 4, _sub fin._

[443] Capp. 6 and 7. Cp. _Enn._, II., iii.; Zeller, _op. cit._, pp. 567 ff; Kirchner, _Ph. d. Plot._, p. 195.

[444] Plato, _Phaedo_, 79, A ff.; Aristot., _De An._, III., iv., _sub fin._

[445] _Phaedr._, 245, C; _Legg._, 892, A.

[446] _Adv. Col._, ix., 3.

[447] _Enn._, IV., ii., i.

[448] _Enn._, IV., ii., _sub fin._; _Tim._, 35, A.

[449] _Enn._, V., ix.

[450] _Enn._, IV., viii.

[451] _Enn._, V., ix., 2.

[452] Readers of Pope’s _Essay on Man_ will recognise this argument. It was, in fact, borrowed from Plotinus by Leibnitz, and handed on through Bolingbroke to Pope. There is no better introduction to Neo-Platonism than this beautiful poem.

[453] Kirchner, _Ph. d. Plot._, p. 35. The triad of body, soul, and spirit is still to be met with in modern popular philosophy; but, contrary to the Greek order of priority, there is a noticeable tendency to rank soul, as the seat of emotion, higher than spirit or pure reason, particularly among persons whose opinions receive little countenance from the last-mentioned faculty.

[454] _Rep._, VI., 508, C ff.; VII., 517, C.

[455] Vol. I., p. 229.

[456] _Ibid._, p. 235.

[457] Aristot., _Metaph._, I., vi.

[458] _Enn._, V., iv., 2; Kirchh., I., p. 72, l. 8.

[459] This is the method of Fichte’s _Wissenschaftslehre_, which seems to show that Fichte was acquainted with Neo-Platonism, probably at second-hand.

[460] _Enn._, IV., ix.

[461] _Ibid._, 3; Kirchh., I., p, 75, l. 24.

[462] _Enn._, VI., ix., 1.

[463] _Enn._, VI., ix., 3; Kirchh., I., pp. 81 ff.

[464] In the introductory essay prefixed to his work _De l’École d’Alexandrie_.

[465] οὕτω δὲ καλῶν ἀμφοτέρων ὄντων, γνώσεώς τε καὶ ἀληθείας, ἄλλο καὶ κάλλιον ἔτι τούτων.—_Rep._, 508, E. οὐκ οὐσίας ὄντος τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἔτι ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας πρεσβείᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ὑπερέχοντος.—_Ibid._, 509, B. The first of these passages is bracketed by Stallbaum, but not the second.

[466] _Symp._, 211, E f.

[467] _Enn._, V., i.

[468] _Enn._, VI., ix., 3, _sub fin._; _ibid._, 6, p. 764, E. (Kirchh., I., p. 87, l. 16); _Enn._, V., v., 6, p. 525, D. (Kirchh., II., p. 24, l. 24).

[469] _Enn._, VI., ix., 9, _sub fin._

[470] _Ibid._, V., ii., I, p. 494, A. (Kirchh., I., p. 109, l. 7).

[471] _Ibid._, V., i., 5, p. 487, C. (Kirchh., I., p. 101, l. 32).

[472] _Enn._, V., i., 6, p. 487, B. (Kirchh., I., p. 101, l. 21).

[473] _Enn._, V., i., 4, p. 485, E (Kirchh., I., pp. 99 f.).

[474] _Enn._, V., ii., 1, p. 494, A; VI., ix., 2, p. 759, A; II., iv., 5, p. 162, A.

[475] _Enn._, IV., iv., 16, p. 409, C (Kirchh., I., p. 283, l. 31).

[476] _Enn._, V., ii., 2.

[477] _Enn._, II., iv.

[478] Aristot., _Metaph._, VII., x., _sub fin._

[479] _Tim._, 48, E, ff.

[480] _Ibid._, 47, E.

[481] _Enn._, II., iv., 5, p. 161, E (Kirchh., I., p. 114, l. 1).

[482] _Enn._, II., iv., 11, _sub fin._

[483] _Enn._, III., vi., 14 f.

[484] _Enn._, II., iv., 15, p. 169, A (Kirchh., I., p. 124, l. 17).

[485] _Ibid._, 5, p. 162, A (Kirchh., I., p. 114, l. 12).

[486] _Ibid._, III., ix., 3, p. 358, A (Kirchh., I., p. 128, l. 22).

[487] _Enn._, III., iv., i.

[488] _Enn._, II., iv., 15, p. 169, B (Kirchh., I., p. 124, l. 22).

[489] _Enn._, IV., iii,, 9, p. 379, A (Kirchh., I., p. 244, l. 17). In one of his latest essays (_Enn._, I., viii., 7) Plotinus for a moment accepts the Platonic theory that evil must necessarily coexist with good as its correlative opposite, but quickly returns to the alternative theory that evil results from the gradual diminution and extinction of good (cp. Zeller, _Ph. d. Gr._, III., b, p. 549).

[490] _Enn._, III., viii., 4 and 8.

[491] Our own word ‘paragon’ is a curious record of the theory in question. It is derived from the Greek participial substantive ὁ παράγων, the producer. Now, according to Neo-Platonism, in the hierarchic series of existences, the product always strives, or should strive, to model itself on the producer, hence παράγων came to be used in the double sense of a cause and an exemplar. As such, it is one of the technical terms employed throughout the _Institutiones Theologicae_ of Proclus. But, in time, the second or derivative meaning became so much the more important as to gain exclusive possession of the word on its adoption into modern languages.

[492] _Enn._, III., iv., 2.

[493] _Enn._, I., ii., 1.

[494] _Ibid._, 3.

[495] _Enn._, I., ii., 6, _sub fin._

[496] _Ibid._, 5.

[497] _Ibid._, ix.

[498] _Enn._, I., iii.

[499] _Rep._, VI., 511.

[500] See the conclusion of the _Posterior Analytics_.

[501] _Enn._, III., vii., 1, p. 325, C (Kirchh., II., p. 282, l. 13).

[502] Zeller’s last volume, giving a full account of the Neo-Platonic school, has recently reached a third edition, but it belongs to a connected work, and contains, in addition, a mass of information possessing special interest for theologians. It has not, however, been translated into English, nor apparently is there any intention of translating it. Our own literature on the subject is represented by a worthless book of Kingsley’s, entitled _Alexandria and her Schools_, and a novel by a lady, called the _Wards of Plotinus_.

[503] _Enn._, VI., ix., _sub fin._

[504] _Enn._, III., ii., 15, p. 266, E (Kirchh., II., p. 336, l. 31). M. Renan talks of the period from 235 to 284 as ‘cet enfer d’un demi-siècle où sombre toute philosophie, toute civilité, toute délicatesse’ (_Marc-Aurèle_, p. 498). As, however, this epoch produced Neo-Platonism, the expression ‘toute philosophie’ is rather misplaced.

[505] _Enn._, IV., iv., 17, p. 410, B. (Kirchh., I., p. 285, l. 1).

[506] _Ph. d. Gr._, III., b, pp. 69 ff, 419 ff.

[507] _Op. cit._, pp. 419 ff.

[508] Zeller, p. 447.

[509] _Enn._, V., v., p. 520, A. (Kirchh., II., p. 18, l. 3). This is the only passage in the _Enneads_ where the Sceptics seem to be alluded to.

[510] _Loc. cit._

[511] _Vita_, x., _sub fin._

[512] For specimens of his treatment, see Zeller, pp. 622 ff.

[513] For the theology of Plotinus see Zeller, pp. 619 ff, and for the daemons, p. 570. In our opinion, Zeller attributes a much stronger religious faith to Plotinus than can be proved from the passages to which he refers.

[514] _Enn._, V., vii.

[515] _Enn._, V., vii., I, p. 539, B. (Kirchh., I., p. 145, l. 23).

[516] For references, see Zeller, pp. 588 ff.

[517] _Enn._, VI., ii., 3, p. 598, A. (Kirchh., II., p. 227).

[518] _Enn._, II., ix.

[519] _Ibid._, cap. 6.

[520] _Ibid._, 14.

[521] _Enn._, II., ix., 15.

[522] Kirchner, _Die Ph. d. Plot._, pp. 1-24, 175-208. Cp. Steinhart, _Meletemata Plotiniana_, p. 4.

[523] Two other popular misconceptions may be traced back, in part at least, to the exclusively transcendental interpretation of Plato’s philosophy. By drawing away attention from the Socratic dialogues, it broke the connexion between Socrates and his chief disciple, thus leaving the former to be estimated exclusively from Xenophon’s view of his character as a moral and religious teacher. True, Xenophon himself supplies us with the data which prove that Socrates was, above all things, a dialectician, but only in the reflex light of Plato’s subsequent developments can their real significance be perceived. On the other hand, the attempt to combine Aristotle with Plato led to a serious misunderstanding of the actual relation between the two. When the whole ideal element of his philosophy had been drawn off and employed to heighten still further the transcendentalism of his master’s teaching, the Stagirite came to be judged entirely by the residual elements, by the logical, physical, and critical portions of his system. On the strength of these, he was represented as the type of whatever is most opposed to Plato, and, in particular, of a practical, prosaic turn of mind, which was quite alien from his true character.

[524] Χαλεπὸν μὲν γνωσθῆναι ... γιγνωσκόμενον δὲ μᾶλλον τῷ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ γεννήματι τῇ οὐσίᾳ. (_Enn._, VI., ix., 5, p. 763, B.) Πᾶν τὸ θεῖον αὐτὸ μὲν διὰ τὴν ὑπερούσιον ἕνωσιν ἄρρητόν ἐστι καὶ ἄγνωστον πᾶσι τοῖς δευτέροις· ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν μετεχόντων ληπτόν ἐστι καὶ γνωστόν. (Proclus, _Institutiones Theologicae_, cxxiii.), cp. Proclus, _ibid._, clxii.

[525] _De Princip._, ii., quoted by Ritter and Preller, p. 536 f.

[526] _Inst. Theol._, lxxii., cp. Zeller, p. 808, where it is denied, wrongly, as we think, that Plotinus held the same view.

[527] The following sketch is based on the accounts given of the period to which it relates in the works of Zeller and Vacherot.

[528] _De Civit. Dei_, VIII., v., quoted by Kirchner, p. 208.

[529] _Enn._, II., ix., 18, p. 217, C; for Syrianus and Proclus, see Zeller, p. 738. The Emperor Constantine is said to have remained a sun-worshipper all his life (Vacherot, II., p. 153); and even Philo Judaeus speaks of the stars as visible gods (Zeller, p. 393).

[530] Quoted by Ritter and Preller, p. 539.

[531] Compare the report of Agathias with the series of questions put to Priscian, quoted in the Dissertation by M. Quicherat, prefixed to Dübner’s edition of Priscian’s _Solutiones_ (printed after Plotinus in Didot’s edition, pp. 549 ff).

[532] M. Vacherot says (II., p. 400), without giving any authority for his statement, that the Neo-Platonists were driven from Persia by the persecution of the Magi; and that they returned home ‘furtivement,’ which is certainly incorrect. They returned openly, under the protection of a treaty between Persia and Rome.

[533] _Repub._, IX., _sub fin._

[534] Hauréau, _Histoire de la Philosophie Scolastique_, I., p. 372.

[535] For Gilbert de la Porrée see Hauréau, I., chap. xviii.

[536] Jourdain, _Recherches critiques sur les Traductions latines d’Aristote_.

[537] The term Nominalist is here used in the wide sense given to it by Hauréau. See the last chapter of his work on the Scholastic Philosophy.

[538] _Works_ I., p. 405 in Ellis and Spedding’s edition.

[539] ‘Historia naturalis ... materia prima philosophiae.’ _De Aug._, II., iii.

[540] The ‘notions and conceptions’ of the _Advancement of Learning_ (_Works_, III., p. 356) is rendered by ‘axiomata’ in the _De Augmentis_ (I., p. 567), where in both instances the question is entirely about Forms. Cp. § 8 of Prof. Fowler’s Introduction to the _Novum Organum_.

[541] _Analyt. Prior._, II., xxx.

[542] Prof. Bain, after mentioning that the second book of the _Topics_ ‘sets forth in a crude condition the principal canons of inductive logic,’ goes on to say that ‘these statements cannot be called germs for they never germinated’ (Grote’s _Minor Works_, p. 14). May they not have germinated in the _Novum Organum_?

[543] Descartes showed a much deeper insight into the scientific conditions of industrial progress than Bacon. His words are, ‘On peut trouver une philosophie pratique par laquelle connoissant la force et les actions du feu, de l’eau, de l’air, des astres, des cieux, et de tous les autres corps qui nous environnent, aussi distinctement que nous connoissons les divers mestiers de nos artisans, nous les pourrions employer en même façon à tous les usages auxquels ils sont propres, et ainsi nous rendre comme maistres et possesseurs de la Nature.’ _Discours de la Méthode_, Sixième Partie. This passage has been recently quoted by Dr. Bridges (‘Comte’s Definition of Life,’ _Fortnightly Review_ for June 1881, p. 684) to illustrate what seems a very questionable position. He says that the Copernican astronomy, by revealing the infinitude of the universe, made men despair of comprehending nature in her totality, and thus threw them back on enquiries of more directly human interest and practical applicability; particularly specifying ‘the lofty utilitarianism of the _Novum Organum_ and of the _Discours de la Méthode_,’ as ‘one of the first concomitants’ ‘of this intellectual revolution.‘ There seems to be a double misconception here: for, in the first place, Bacon could hardly have been influenced by a theory which he persistently rejected; and, in the next place, neither Bacon nor Descartes showed a trace of the positivist tendency to despair of attaining absolute and universal knowledge. Both of them expected to discover the inmost essences of things; and neither of them imagined that a different set of conditions might come into play outside the boundaries of the visible universe. In fact they believed themselves to be enlarging instead of restricting the field of mental vision; and it was from this very enlargement that they anticipated the most momentous practical results. It was with Locke, as we shall see hereafter, that the sceptical or agnostic movement began. In this same article, Dr. Bridges repeats, probably on Comte’s authority, the incredible statement that ‘Thales taught the Egyptian priests those two or three elementary truths as to the laws of triangles, which enabled them to tell the height of the pyramid by measuring its shadow.’ Comte’s ignorance or carelessness in relating this story as a well-attested fact was long ago noticed with astonishment by Grote. (_Life of George Grote_, p. 204.)

[544] Whewell notices this ‘Stationary Interval’ (_History of the Inductive Sciences_, Bk. XVI., chapter iii., sect. 3), but without determining either its just limits or its real cause.

[545] Compreso che sarà il moto di quest’ astro mondano in cui siamo ... s’aprirà la porta de l’intelligenza de li principi veri di cose naturali. _De l’Infinito Universo e Mondi_, p. 51, Wagner’s Ed.

[546] ‘Sono amputate radici che germogliano, son cose antiche che rivegnono. _Ibid._, p. 82.

[547] _Principio Causa et Uno_, p. 225. For David of Dinan, whose opinions are known only through the reports of Albertus and Aquinas, see Hauréau, II., iv.

[548] Galileo’s words are:—‘Il moto circulare è naturale del tutto e delle parti mentre sono in ottima disposizione.’ _Dialoghi sui Massimi Sistemi._ _Opere_, Vol. I., p. 265; see also p. 38.

[549] _Dialoghi_, p. 211.

[550] ‘Non posso trovar termine all’ammirazione mia come abbia possuto in Aristarco e nel Copernico far la ragione tanta violenza al senso che contro a questo ella si sia fatta padrona della loro credulità.’ _Dialoghi_, p. 358.

[551] _Ibid._, p. 370.

[552] ‘Kepler était persuadé de l’existence de ces lois en suivant cette pensée de Platon: que Dieu, en créant le monde, avait dû faire de la géometrie.’ Arago, _Œuvres_ III., p. 212.

[553] _De Aug._, III., v. _Works_, I., p. 571.

[554] This is well brought out in a remarkable series of articles on the Philosophy of Hobbes recently published by Tönnies in the _Vierteljahrsschrift fur wissenschaftliche Philosophie_.

[555] _Leviathan_, chap. xv., _sub fin._

[556] _Leviathan_, chap. xi., _sub fin._

[557] _Leviathan_, chap. vi.

[558] _Spaccio della Bestia Trionfante, sub in._

[559] _Advancement of Learning_, Ellis and Spedding, III., p. 428.

[560] _Republic_, VI., 511, Jowett’s Trans. III., p. 398.

[561] Plotinus himself expresses a doubt as to whether the One is, properly speaking, all things or not (_Enn._, V., ii., _sub in._); but in his essay on Substance and Quality, he defines qualities as energies of the substance to which they belong (_Enn._, II., vi. 3). Now all things are, according to his philosophy, energies of the One. There would, therefore, be no difficulty in considering it as their substance.

[562]

—— Quia multimodis, multis, mutata, per omne
Ex infinito vexantur percita plagis,
Omne genus motus, et coetus experiundo,
Tandem deveniunt in taleis disposituras,
Qualibus haec rebus consistit summa creata.

(I., 1023-7.)

[563] V., 853; IV., 780-800; V., 1025.

[564] Just the same remark applies to the monads of Leibnitz. Each monad reflects all the others, and infers that its reflections represent a reality from the infinite creative power of God. Descartes’ appeal to the divine veracity represents the same method in a less developed stage. The root-idea here is to be sought for, not in Greek thought but in the Christian doctrine of a supernatural revelation.

[565] The formal cause of a thing is its species, the concept under which it is immediately subsumed; the efficient cause is what brings it into existence. Thus the formal cause of a man is humanity, the efficient cause, his father.

[566] _Eth._, I., prop. xvi.; II., prop. iii.; prop. v.; prop. xviii., schol.; prop. xxviii.; prop. xl., schol. ii.; V., prop. xxix., schol.; prop. xl., schol. (The passage last referred to is the clearest and most decisive.)

[567] See the passage from the _Republic_ quoted above.

[568] The tendency of logicians is now, contrariwise, to force reasoning into parallelism with mathematical physics by interpreting the proposition as an equation between subject and predicate.

[569] III., prop. ii., schol.

[570] II., vii., schol.

[571] III., ix. and xi.

[572] Greek tragedy is just the reverse—an expansion of the old patriarchal relations into a mould fitted to receive the highest thought and feeling of a civilised age.

[573] For the whole subject of Spinoza’s mathematical method, see Windelband’s paper on Spinoza in the _Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie_, 1877. Some points in the last paragraph were suggested by Mr. Pollock’s _Spinoza_ (pp. 255, 264).

[574] _Essay_, Bk. iv., ch. 12.

[575] See the references to Epictêtus, _supra_, p. 21.

[576] What Aristotle has written on the subject is not ethics but natural history.

[577] ‘Ne remarque-t-on comment chaque recherche analytique de Laplace a fait ressortir dans notre globe et dans l’univers des conditions d’ordre et de durée?’—Arago, _Œuvres_, III., p. 496.

* * * * * *

Transcriber’s note:

Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations in hyphenation and ligatures have been standardised but all other spelling and punctuation remains unchanged.