Chapter III: God as the Supreme Being (4)

Between these two main views it does not seem possible to find a logical basis for a third. The one or the other must be accepted, with the consequences which it involves. But whether we accept the one or the other, it seems clear that much of the Greek element may be abandoned. On the former hypothesis, it is not essential; on the latter, it is an incomplete development and has no claim to permanence. I believe the consideration of this question, and practical action on the determination of it, to be the work that lies before the theologians of our generation. I claim for the subject which we have been considering an exceptional importance, because it will enable us, if on the one hand we accept the theory that the primitive should be permanent, to disentangle the primitive from the later elements, and to trace the assumptions on which these later elements are based; and if on the other hand we adopt the theory of development, it will enable us, by tracing the lines of development, to weld the new thoughts of our time with the old by that historical continuity which in human societies is the condition of permanence. I am not unaware that there are many who deprecate the analysis of Christian history, and are content to accept the deposit. There has been a similar timidity in regard to the Bible. It seemed a generation ago as though the whole fabric of belief depended on the acceptance of the belief that Genesis is the work of a single author. The timidity has virtually ceased. The recognition of the fact that the Book of Genesis was not made, but grew, so far from having been a danger to religion, has become a new support of the faith. So it will be with the analysis of Christian doctrine and of Christian history; and therefore I am earnest in urging its study. For though the Lectures are ended, the study of the subject has only begun. I have ventured as a pioneer into comparatively unexplored ground: I feel that I shall no doubt be found to have made the mistakes of a pioneer; but I feel also the certainty of a pioneer—who after wandering by devious paths through the forest and the morass, looks out from the height which he has reached upon the fair landscape—and speaking as one who has so stood and so looked, I am sure that you will find the country to be in the main what I have described it to be, and that you will find also that it is but the entrance to a still fairer landscape beyond. For though you may believe that I am but a dreamer of dreams, I seem to see, though it be on the far horizon—the horizon beyond the fields which either we or our children will tread—a Christianity which is not new but old, which is not old but new, a Christianity in which the moral and spiritual elements will again hold their place, in which men will be bound together by the bond of mutual service, which is the bond of the sons of God, a Christianity which will actually realize the brotherhood of men, the ideal of its first communities.

FOOTNOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[11] _Adv. Gramm._ 1. 44.

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

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

[14] 1. 10.

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

[16] προφῆτις, Sext. Emp. _adv. Gramm._ 1. 279.

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

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

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

[20] _Diss._ 3. 23. 20.

[21] Philostr. _V. S._ 2. 21. 3, of Proclus.

[22] Lucian, _Dial. Mort._ 10. 10.

[23] _Hermotim._ 81.

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

[25] _Enchir._ 49: see also _Diss._ 3. 21, quoted below, p. 102.

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

[27] i. 7.

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

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

[30] _Diss._ 1. 9. 19.

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

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

[33] _Ib._ 3. 16. 14, 15.

[34] _Ib._ 1. 26. 9.

[35] _De audiendo_, 13, vol. ii. p. 45. The passage is abridged above.

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

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

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

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

[40] Lucian’s _Convivium_ is a humorous and satirical description of such a dinner. The philosopher reads his discourse from a small, finely-written manuscript, c. 17. The _Deipnosophistæ_ of Athenæus, and the _Quæstiones Conviviales_ of Plutarch, are important literary monuments of the practice.

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

[42] Lucian, _de merc. cond._ 32.

[43] _Ib._ 34.

[44] _Ib._ 36.

[45] _Ib._ 38.

[46] _Timon_, 50, 51.

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

[48] See note on p. 33: an early use of _prælegere_ in this sense is Quintil. 1. 8. 13.

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

[50] Instances of this practice are: (1) _grammaticus_, in Hispania Tarraconensis, _Corpus Inscr. Lat._ ii. 2892, 5079; _magister artis grammaticæ_, at Saguntum, _ibid._ 3872; _magister grammaticus Græcus_, at Cordova, _ibid._ 2236; _grammaticus Græcus_, at Trier, _Corpus Inscr. Rhenan._ 801: (2) _philosophus_, in Greece, _Corpus Inscr. Græc._ 1253; in Asia Minor, _ibid._ 3163 (dated A.D. 211), 3198, 3865, _add._ 4366 _t_ 2; in Egypt, _ibid._ 4817; sometimes with the name of the school added, e.g. at Chæronea, φιλόσοφον Πλατωνικόν, _ibid._ 1628; at Brundisium, _philosophus Epicureus_, _ibid._ 5783.

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

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

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

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

[55] Alexander of Aphrodisias, _de Fato_, 1, says that he obtained his professorship on the _testimony_, ὑπὸ τῆς μαρτυρίας, of Severus and Caracalla.

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

[57] Eunapius, _ibid._ p. 84.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[66] Plat. _Protag._ 72, p. 339 _a_.

[67] _Ibid._ 22, p. 317 _b_: ὁμολογῶ τε σοφιστὴς εἶναι καὶ παιδεύειν ἀνθρώπους. For detailed information as to the relation between the early sophists and Homer, reference may be made to a dissertation by W. O. Friedel, _de sophistarum studiis Homericis_, printed in the _Dissertationes philologicæ Halenses_, Halis, 1873.

[68] Cf. H. Schrader, _über die porphyrianischen Ilias Scholien_, Hamburg, 1872.

[69] Strab, 1. 2. 8.

[70] Id. 1. 2. 3.

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

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

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

[74] Celsus in Origen, _c. Cels._ 6. 42, referring to Hom. _Il._ 15. 18 sqq.

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

[76] Xen. _Sympos._ 4. 6; 3. 5.

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

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

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

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

[80] Lucian, _Jupit. confut._ 2.

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

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

[83] Plat. _Phædr._ p. 229 _c_.

[84] Plat. _Resp._ p. 378 _d_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[91] c. 2.

[92] c. 8.

[93] c. 61.

[94] c. 66.

[95] c. 69.

[96] c. 16.

[97] c. 18.

[98] Sallust, _de diis et mundo_, c. 4, in Mullach, _Fragmenta Philosophorum Græcorum_, vol. iii. p. 32.

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

[100] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ 5. 8, p. 673.

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

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

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

[104] Philo, _de somniis_, i. 20, vol. i. p. 639.

[105] Hom. _Il._ 2. 204.

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

[107] Hom. _Il._ 18. 483.

[108] Ps-Justin, c. 28.

[109] Hom. _Il._ 14. 206; Clem. Al. _Strom._ 5. 14, p. 708.

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

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

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

[111] Hippol. _Philosophumena_, 6. 14.

[112] Herod. 4. 8-10.

[113] Hippol. 5. 21.

[114] _Clementin. Hom._ 2. 43, 44.

[115] _Ib._ 2. 51.

[116] Clem. Alex. _Strom._ 5. 4, p. 237.

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

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

[119] Tertull. _adv. Marc._ 3. 5.

[120] Justin M. _Apol._ i. 54.

[121] _Ib._ i. 35.

[122] _Ib._ i. 32.

[123] _Ib._ _Tryph._ 78.

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

[125] _Ib._ 1. 8. 2.

[126] Clem. Al. _Strom._ 1. 3, p. 329.

[127] _Ib._ 6. 11, p. 787.

[128] Id. _Pædag._ 2. 8, p. 76.

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

[130] Euseb. _H. E._ 6. 19. 8.

[131] Origen, _de princip._ 1. 16.

[132] _Ib._ c. 15.

[133] Clement. _Recogn._ 10. 36.

[134] Clement. _Hom._ 6. 18.

[135] Tatian, _Orat. ad. Græc._ 21.

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

[137] Porphyr. ap. Euseb. _H. E._ 6. 19. 5.

[138] Origen, _c. Cels._ 4. 48-50.

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

[140] Euseb. _H. E._ 7. 24.

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

[142] J. G. Rosenmüller, _Hist. Interpret._ iii. p. 161. The letter is printed, with the other remains of Julius Africanus, in Routh, _Reliquiæ Sacræ_, vol. ii.

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

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

[145] E. Rohde, _der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer_, Leipzig, 1876, p. 297.

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

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

[148] Philostr. _V.S._ 1. 25. 7, 16.

[149] _Ib._ 2. 5. 3.

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

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

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

[153] _Orat._ lix.

[154] Rohde, pp. 336 sqq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[161] _Orat._ 23, p. 360, ed. Dind.

[162] _De sanit. præc._ 16, p. 131.

[163] _V. S._ 2. 5. 3.

[164] _Pseudolog._ 5 sqq.

[165] _Orat._ viii. vol. i. 145.

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

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

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

[169] _Rhet. præc._ 18.

[170] _V.S._ 2. 26. 3.

[171] _Orat._ xxxiii. vol. i. p. 422.

[172] Epict. _Diss._ 3. 23. 24.

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

[174] _Rhet. præc._ 21.

[175] _De audiendo_, 4, p. 39.

[176] _Diss._ 3. 23. 11.

[177] _Diss._ 3. 23. 19.

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

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

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

[181] The inscription of one of the statues which are mentioned by Philostratus, _V. S._ 1. 23, 2, as having been erected to Lollianus at Athens, was found a few years ago near the Propylæa: Dittenberger, C. I. A. vol. iii. No. 625: see also Welcker, _Rhein. Mus._ N. F. i. 210, and a monograph by Kayser, _P. Hordeonius Lollianus_, Heidelberg, 1841. It is followed by the epigram:

ἀμφότερον ῥητῆρα δικῶν μελέτησί τ’ ἄριστον
Λολλιανὸν πληθὺς εὐγενέων ἑτάρων.
εἰ δ’ ἐθέλεις τίνες εἰσὶ δαήμεναι οὔνομα πατρὸς
καὶ πάτρης, αὐτῶν τ’ οὔνομα δίσκος ἔχει.

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

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

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

[184] ὅσ πάντα λόγοις ὑποτάσσει, _Mittheilungen des deutsches archæol. Institut_, 1884, p. 61.

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

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

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

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

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

[190] _ap._ Aul. Gell. 5. 1. 1.

[191] _De audiendo_, 12, p. 43.

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

[193] Epict. _Diss._ 3. 23.

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

[195] Euseb. _H. E._ 6. 36. 1.

[196] Sozom. _H. E._ 8. 2.

[197] Eusebius, _H. E._ 6. 36. 1, speaks of Origen’s sermons as διαλέξεις, whereas the original designation was ὁμιλίαι. So in Latin, Augustine uses the term _disputationes_ of Ambrose’s sermons, _Confess._ 5. 13, vol. i, 118, and of his own _Tract._ lxxxix. _in Johann. Evang._ c. 5, vol. iii, pars 2, p. 719.

[198] Phot. _Biblioth._ 172.

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

[200] _Adv. Jud._ 7. 6, vol. i. 671; _Conc._ vii. _adv. eos qui ad lud. circ. prof._ vol. i. 790; _Hom._ ii. _ad pop. Antioch._ c. 4, vol. ii. 25; _adv. eos qui ad Collect. non occur._ vol. iii. 157; _Hom._ liv. _in cap._ xxvii. _Genes._ vol. iv. 523; _Hom._ lvi. _in cap._ xxix. _Genes._ vol. iv. 541.

[201] S. Chrys. _Hom._ xxx. _in Act. Apost._ c. 3, vol. ix. 238.

[202] Greg. Naz. _Orat._ xlii.

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

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

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

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

[207] Sext. Empir. _Pyrrh. Hypot._ 1. 3.

[208] _Ibid._ 4, δογματική, ἀκαδημαϊκή, σκεπτική.

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

[210] Origen, _c. Cels._ 3. 44: see also the references given in Keim, _Celsus’ wahres Wort_, pp. 11, 40.

[211] Origen, _c. Cels._ 1. 9.

[212] _Apol._ i. 20.

[213] _De testim. animæ_, 1.

[214] _Apol._ 46.

[215] _Apol._ 2. 13.

[216] _Octav._ 34.

[217] _Apol._ 47.

[218] _Strom._ 2. 1.

[219] Origen, _c. Cels._ 3. 16.

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

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

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

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

[224] _Adv. Prax._ 3.

[225] Quoted by Euseb. _H. E._ 5. 28. 13.

[226] _Orat. ad Græc._ 2.

[227] _Apol._ 46.

[228] _Refut. omn. hæres._ 5. 18.

[229] _H. E._ 5. 13.

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

[231] This is sufficiently shown by the fact, which is in other respects to be regretted, that in most accounts of Stoicism the earlier and later elements are viewed as constituting a homogeneous whole.

[232] “How am I to eat?” said a man to Epictetus: “So as to please God,” was the reply (_Diss._ 1. 13). The idea is further developed in Porphyry, who says: “God wants nothing” (281. 15): the God who is ἐπὶ πᾶσιν is ἄϋλος; hence all ἔνυλον is to Him ἀκάθαρτον, and should therefore not be offered to Him, not even the spoken word (163. 15).

[233] M. Aurelius owed to Rusticus the idea that life required διόρθωσις and θεραπεία (i. 7 and ii. 13).

[234] τὸ ὑλακτεῖν, Philostr. 587.

[235] The title of _Diss._ 3. 22, in which the ideal philosopher is described, is περὶ Κυνισμοῦ.

[236] H. Schiller, _Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit_, Bd. i. 452.

[237] _Diss._ 1. 17. 4, ἐπείγει μᾶλλον θεραπεύειν, the interpolated remark of a student when Epictetus has begun a lecture upon Logic: the addition, καὶ τὰ ὅμοια, seems to show that the phrase was a customary one.

[238] _Diss._ 1. 4.

[239] Sext. Emp. iii. 239.

[240] The Stoics defined wisdom as θείων τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων ἐπιστήμην, and philosophy as ἄσκησιν ἐπιτηδείου τέχνης, Plutarch (Aetius), _plac. phil._ 1. 2; Galen, _Hist. Phil._ 5; Diels, _Doxogr. Gr._ pp. 273, 602.

[241] _De Abraham._ 11 (ii. 9); _de Joseph._ 1 (ii. 41); _de prœm. et pœn._ 8, 11 (ii. 416, 418). Philo is quoted because his writings are in some respects as faithful a photograph of current scholastic methods as those of Epictetus. It is also possible that some of the writings that stand under Philo’s name belong to the same period.

[242] _Quod det. potior._ 12 (i. 198, 199): so _de congr. erud. caus._ 13 (i. 529); _de mut. nom._ 13 (i. 591).

[243] _De congr. erud. caus._ 28 (i. 542).

[244] _Leg. alleg._ 3. 6 (i. 91).

[245] _Quis rer. div. heres._ 51 (i. 509).

[246] M. Aurel. 1. 7.

[247] _Enchir._ 47: cf. _Diss._ 3. 14. 4. In _Diss._ 3. 12. 17, part of the above is given as a quotation from Apollonius of Tyana.

[248] _Diss._ 2. 18. 27; cf. 3. 2. 1; 3. 12. 1; 4. 1. 81.

[249] _Nigrin._ 27.

[250] _Orat._ xx. vol. i. pp. 288 sqq. (Dind.), περὶ Ἀναχωρήσεως.

[251] Vol. ii. p 240.

[252] Vol. ii. p. 246.

[253] _Ench._ 4, 13, 30.

[254] The χρῆσις φαντασιῶν is an important element in the philosophy of Epictetus. Every object that is presented to the mind by either the senses or imagination tends to range itself in the ranks of either good or evil, and thereby to call forth desire or undesire: in most men this association of particular objects with the ideas of good or evil, and the consequent stirring of desire, is unconscious, being the result of education and habit: it is the task of the philosopher to learn to attach the idea of good to what is really good, so that desire shall never go forth to what is either undesirable or unattainable: this is the “right dealing with ideas.” _Diss._ 1. 28. 11; 1. 30. 4; 2. 1. 4; 2. 8. 4; 2. 19. 32; 3. 21. 23; 3. 22. 20, 103.

[255] ἐφαρμογὴ τῶν προλήψεων τοῖς ἐπὶ μέρους, _Diss._ 1. 2. 6; 1. 22. 2, 7; 2. 11. 4, 7; 3. 17. 9, 12, 16; 4. 1. 41, 44: προλήψεις are the ideas formed in the mind by association and blending.

[256] _Diss._ 1. 1. 31; 1. 4. 18; 1. 17. 21; and elsewhere.

[257] _Diss._ 1. 4. 23.

[258] The distinction between (1) ὄρεξις, ἔκκλισις, the desire to have or not to have, and (2) ὁρμή, ἀφορμή, the effort to do or not to do, is of some importance in the history of psychology. It probably runs back to the Platonic distinction between τὸ ἐπιθυμητικὸν μέρος and τὸ θυμοειδὲς μέρος.

[259] _Diss._ 2. 10.

[260] 1. 9. 6, 13.

[261] 1. 14. 6.

[262] 3. 13. 15.

[263] 1. 14. 6; 1. 17. 27; 2. 8. 11.

[264] 1. 14. 6.

[265] 2. 14. 11.

[266] 2. 8. 12-14.

[267] 1. 9. 5; 2. 8. 11.

[268] 1. 9. 4.

[269] 1. 3. 1.

[270] 2. 14. 13.

[271] 1. 6. 13: cf. 1. 29. 29.

[272] 1. 9. 4; 1. 17. 15; 1. 29. 46, 56; 2. 16. 33; 4. 7. 7.

[273] 3. 24. 2, 3.

[274] 3. 24. 3.

[275] 4. 1. 82, 90, 100.

[276] 2. 16. 13.

[277] 1. 24. 1, 2; 1. 29. 33, 36, 46; 3. 10. 7; 4. 4. 32.

[278] 1. 12. 5, 8; 1. 20. 15.

[279] ἕγογνωμονεῖν τῶ θεῷ, 2. 16. 42; 2. 19. 26.

[280] εὐαρεστεῖν τῇ θείᾳ διοικήσει, 1. 12. 8; 2. 23. 29, 42.

[281] 4. 1. 90, 98.

[282] 3. 24. 95.

[283] 1. 29. 18; 4. 4. 21.

[284] 2. 16. 42.

[285] _Enchir._ 52: _Diss._ 4. 1. 131; 4. 4. 34: a quotation from Cleanthes.

[286] 2. 16. 46; 3. 11. 1; 3. 24. 42; 4. 4. 32.

[287] 1. 9. 16.

[288] 1. 29. 29.

[289] 2. 13. 14.

[290] 3. 24. 97; cf. 3. 5. 8-10, 4. 10. 14 sqq.

[291] 3. 24. 110-114.

[292] Καινὸς νόμος, _Barn._ 2. 6, and note, in Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition.

[293] See especially Harnack, _die Apostellehre und die Jüdischen Beiden Wege_, Leipzig, 1886.

[294] _Teaching of the Apostles_, 1. 4.

[295] _Teaching of the Apostles_, 2. 2-7.

[296] _Ibid._ 3. 6-8.

[297] _Ibid._ 4. 7, 8.