But how did these atoms come together? Here Democritus showed a

prophetic clearness of sight which may well astonish modern critics. He

regarded motion in these atoms as a primal fact, probably deriving it

from the theory of Heracleitus. He held that as these atoms collided in

the void, not always directly, but obliquely, the striking and the

struck assumed a rotatory motion, and so established vortices which

either attracted suitable atoms or rejected others by the centrifugal

force of this rotation. Thus were constructed not only the great spheres

that we observe in the sky, but all the ordinary objects around us. Into

his explanations of the causes of the irregular forms of these objects

I cannot enter, by reason of their intricacy. But to what consequences

his theory led him may be told you in a sentence. He maintained, with

the imagination of a great scientific mind, that there were an endless

number of world-systems through space, differing merely in magnitude,

some furnished with several moons, some in process of becoming, others,

owing to collisions, in process of destruction, some of them wholly

deficient in moisture, and hence devoid of animal and plant life. These

are all consequences which we have drawn from the use of the telescope

and even the spectroscope, but which this wonderful man reached by way

of philosophical thinking.

Aristotle makes it his chief objection to the Atomic theory that it is

purely descriptive of phenomena without assigning any cause for the

primeval motion of the atoms; that it recognises no Architect, no

Demiurge who set the myriad crowd of particles into motion, and then

into regulated action. But Aristotle was misled by an assumption which

has infected philosophy down to the present day--the assumption that a

state of rest is prior to, and more natural to matter than a state of

motion. This prejudice did not mislead Democritus, though it is an idol

not only of the cave, as Bacon would say, but also of the forum. We

have been misled and deceived by relative want of motion, to consider

that until disturbed by an active impulse matter occupies a fixed place.

But now, I would almost say since the twentieth century dawned, this old

fallacy is giving way to the newer conception that there is no such

thing as rest in nature, nay not even within the particles of any solid

body. So then the primal assumption of the Greek thinker that motion is

the natural state of matter was a wonderful anticipation of science, and

shows once more what giant strides the human race may make by thinking

as compared with the mere recording of experiments. Even now, when

students of experimental physics are degenerating into mere mechanics,

who seek to interrogate nature by the use of delicate machinery, and

carefully recorded occurrences, I am assured by those in our great

University who have been compelled in earlier life to acquire a sound

knowledge of Greek philosophy, that the study of the old

_Hylozoists_--the Ionic schools we have reviewed--is the very best

introduction to the higher task of framing theories from experiments,

and when I have heard read in the schools essays written in ignorance of

these theories, I have often wondered at the absence of scientific

logic of consistent thinking, of clear imagining which characterises the

modern scientist. And when we are faced in our universities by the

gigantic demands of modern scientists for laboratories, machinery,

upkeep, and what not, by way of promoting what they call very

ridiculously _original research_, they should be told openly and

constantly that no mere mechanic, no mere tradesman, however splendidly

equipped, will ever be worth one straw in original research. Such a high

calling, if it is not to be mere name, a mere imposture, requires as its

first implement a trained intellect, taught to speculate, and to devise

theories which may or may not be verified or illustrated by mechanical

tools. The greatest discoverers in modern science were men with bad

tools, and small equipment. The old Greeks had none at all, and yet how

many of the world’s mysteries did they approach and solve, merely by the

force of pure and sound speculation! When we hear little modern men of

science wondering how the Greeks could have got so far without modern

instruments, we feel rather inclined to tell them we wonder the moderns

have done so much with the help of these, for in abstract thinking lies

the real basis of every great discovery.

So far, the course of Greek philosophy has led us to the side of

science, to the constitution of the world, to the immensity of space, to

the physical construction of animal and vegetable life, to the problem

of the duration of the universe, to the dreams about its origin.

Regarding all this as _natural philosophy_ (to use an obsolete but

convenient expression), there remains another orb of Greek speculation

which took rise with Socrates, passed on through Plato and Aristotle to

the Stoic and Epicurean schools, and even illumined with its setting

rays the old world passing into the night of the Dark Ages. Two things,

says the philosopher Kant, impress me always with their peerless

majesty--the starry heaven above, and the Moral Law within. It is this

latter aspect of human philosophy, bound up as it is on the one side

with profound metaphysic, on the other with ordinary practical life,

that I must now speak. But here, where the material is large, and our

evidence very complete, it is not expedient that I should detain you at

any length. It may be new to some of you that Parmenides or Leucippus

have been the fathers of modern systems; but none of you will doubt for

a moment the colossal influence of Plato and Aristotle upon modern

thought.

You must beware of exaggerating the revolution in philosophy produced by

Socrates and the Sophists. It may indeed be true in their case that they

despised scientific speculation, and did not care to make researches

into the constitution of the universe. Gorgias even erected into a

theory his scepticism regarding the reality of our knowledge, and wrote

a famous tract on the impossibility of knowing anything; and he was by

no means the only nihilist in the course of Greek philosophy. But when

we come to Plato, we find high physical speculation, we find high

theories of the universe, we find all the learning of his predecessors

woven into his system, or utilised by way of illustration. The ideas of

the Pythagoreans in particular, influenced him constantly, and his

advocacy of a training in geometry, which may, more than people think,

have shaped the curriculum of modern public schools in Europe, is

Pythagorean in spirit.

But in spite of this strong recommendation, it does not appear that

Plato himself made any advances in that science. His aim was for the

moral reform of the individual, and with him of society, by metaphysical

and ethical training. He had a higher opinion of the value of education

than even the modern democrat, or English Radical, who imagines that by

infusing knowledge into the masses, you can make them equal to the

classes in refinement and in the amenities of life. But Plato’s

education was intended strictly for the ruling minority; he did not

think the artisan or the labourer fit for this high privilege, and in

all his ideal schemes, he set up either the exceptional man as a monarch

(in the _Politicus_), a small oligarchy of guardians (in the

_Republic_), or a fixed code of strict _Laws_, with severe penalties for

any violation or even questioning of them--all clearly aristocratic

forces,--as the safeguards of society. And in spite of all these ethical

safeguards, he did not believe that any state, even if ideally

constructed, would last for ever, but that it must live through a youth

and a maturity and ultimately reach the decrepitude of age.

I will not revert to the political speculations of Plato, which belong

to another part of my subject. My present concern is with his theology

and his metaphysic. Is it any wonder that the early Christian thinkers,

such as Saint Augustine, delighted in him and called him the Attic

Moses? In his _Republic_ he goes so far as to propose for his ideal

state the expulsion of Homer and the other Epic poets, and the

establishment of a loftier creed, as necessary for pure and sound

morals. The true deity must be one, and the author of all good. He must

be free from all disturbance of passion or caprice, without love or

jealousy, without pride or interest. Any defects there may be in the

world are due, not to his want of benevolence, but to his want of

omnipotence in controlling the necessities of things, or perhaps rather

because no being, omnipotent or not, can possibly be conceived as

reconciling absolute contradictories.

It may, for example, be better and nobler for the creation that beings

should exist which have a free will of their own and which are not like

machines controlled by invincible necessity. But if they have indeed

free will, how is it possible they should not go wrong, and cause evil

in the world as the outcome of their liberty? Yet if this be the cause

of evil in the world, it implies a higher and better state than one of

perfect order, with the ideas of virtue and merit expunged from

existence.

Plato goes further than any but the highest Christian theologians when

he declares the Moral Law to be eternal and immutable, and to be binding

even on the Author of the universe. In other words, the great mediæval

controversy,--whether God does a thing because it is right, or whether a

thing must be right because God does it,--this controversy is solved in

the sense of what the Cambridge Platonists have called Immutable

Morality. If such be the obligation under which even the Deity acts, it

is an obvious corollary that nothing in the conduct of men is comparable

to justice, nothing in dignity equal to the obeying of the Moral Law,

without any regard of consequences. Nay more, to be punished for

wrong-doing is far happier and better than to escape the consequences,

and so to miss the great lesson that crime brings with it misery as a

just consequence. Accordingly, a clear knowledge of moral principles is

of the first moment to all men, and in Plato’s day it was often a more

difficult problem to choose the right course, than to follow it when

discovered. This is the meaning of those many researches into the proper

connotation of terms expressing moral ideas. What is _justice_, what is

_temperance_, what is _chastity_, what is _holiness_? On all these,

there was little difficulty in showing by discussion that the popular

notions were vague, and often self-contradictory. The first step to a

purer life was to understand its conditions, to bring the intellect, as

well as the will, to bear upon the conduct of men. Hence a man who felt

no difficulty in doing his duty, when he once saw it plainly before him,

might well say with Socrates and with Plato, that virtue was knowledge,

that right living was a science, and that therefore a high education was

the necessary condition of a noble character.

This attitude is foreign to the morals of Christianity, which accepts

the child and the ignorant as better fitted for salvation than the wise

and prudent. But such a theory, like that of a primitive Church where

the members had all things in common, may be very practical at the

opening of a revolution, yet may afterwards be found impracticable. It

was not merely owing to its supposed corruption and decadence that the

Mediæval Church came to ignore that poverty and equality of all

Christians which we find at Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles. There

is an aristocracy among men which no system of religion, of morals, of

politics can ignore without disastrous consequences, and that is the

aristocracy of intellect. This was the lesson which Plato taught in

every page, and this it was which made him speculate upon the nature of

the soul, and its relation to the Author of the universe, and to the

knowledge of things higher and deeper than mere ordinary experience.

It was only gradually that he arrived at his conviction of the

immortality, or rather of the eternity of the soul; probably it was

suggested to him by the mystics and theologians among the Greeks. But in

his dialogue known as the _Phædo_, he has discussed this now accepted

belief with all its difficulties. In the person of Socrates, he has

courted all the objections, and has endeavoured to show on metaphysical

principles that the soul, being a perfectly simple active principle,

distinct from, and superior to, the body, will not pass away with the

death of its tabernacle but will exist hereafter, as it has existed,

from eternity to eternity. The late Erwin Rohde, a critic not at all

favourable to revealed religion, says, I think with great truth, that

“no human teacher has ever done so much as Plato to extend this belief,”

which has produced not only the noblest spiritual life, but also the

noblest poetry. You know it in your English poets, best of all perhaps

in the sober Wordsworth--

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting;

The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star,

Hath had elsewhere its setting,

And cometh from afar.

And again:

Hence in a season of calm weather

Though inland far we be,

Our Souls have sight of that immortal sea

Which brought us hither,

Can in a moment travel thither,

And hear the children sporting on the shore,

And hear the mighty waves, rolling for evermore.

Need I pass on to Aristotle, and show in detail how his philosophy so

dominated mediæval learning that it was adopted and protected by the

Church, and that it became one of the efforts of the spirit of reform in

logic and in psychology to break the shackles which this great thinker

had, as the modern spirits often complained, forged to keep the human

intellect from its advance? Need I tell you that this was owing to a

travesty of the great man, learned not from his own pregnant words but

through translations and commentaries?

I will conclude with a reference to the two great systems that dominated

the Roman world after Plato and Aristotle had turned philosophy into an

ethical channel--I mean those of the Stoics and of the Epicureans, who

mapped out human character with a clearness that makes them our teachers

to the present day. Not that they avoided speculating on the nature of

the universe. The physics of Epicurus, borrowed from Democritus, are

among the most difficult of studies, and the Stoics embraced in their

view as the motive of action of their wise man all the harmony of the

universe. These speculations may now be antiquated, but as the teachers

of ethical types, as the expounders of what the highest human wisdom

finds in its search for happiness, these two schools have fixed the

types of civilised men for all time. Every man in this audience is born

either a Stoic or an Epicurean, or what is perhaps far more common,

alternates from one to the other according to circumstances. In its

simplest form the great question is: Are we to live for duty, or live

for pleasure--not of course mere vulgar pleasure of the senses, but that

refined balance of intellectual and moral pleasure which you will find

best explained in my old friend Walter Pater’s _Marius the Epicurean_;

or else are we to seek for our standard outside ourselves, in the laws

which the Moral Governor of the world has established for its welfare,

and co-operate with Him in the promotion of His great ends? Such is the

ideal wise man of the Stoics, who despised all earthly delights, all

physical pleasures, for the sake of the great law of duty, and the

great mission of living for some nobler purpose than mere animal or

social comforts. We have its best expression in the peroration of

Cicero’s account of the system[47]; or if you will have it in a more

familiar shape, in the loud clarion of Saint Paul: “As deceivers, and

yet true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold, we live;

as sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as

having nothing, yet possessing all things.”[48] For he too was bred a

Stoic, and was not afraid in his addresses to cultivated men of his day

to preach Stoic theology, akin to Pantheism.

If the time should ever come when men will no longer be led by

revelation, when they will reject miracle and prophecy, and determine to

be led by the mere light of reason (men have often anticipated such a

future, regardless of the fact that hitherto religious scepticism has

always ended in a recoil from this liberty, and a revival of positive

and even superstitious creeds)--if, I say, such an age should ever lay

aside the Christian faith, there will still remain the ethical types

which Zeno and Epicurus have crystallised in their systems--there will

always remain the man of duty and the man of pleasure, the man who

lives for others and he who lives for himself, in terms of modern

philosophic jargon, the Altruist and the Egoist, the Spiritualist and

the Materialist.

* * * * *

And here I break off my unfinished task, unfinished indeed as it must

be, for beyond the many things that I have omitted though I knew them,

there are many more omitted because I knew them not, because I have not

fathomed the unfathomable depth and the myriad variety of that genius

which is living, and suggesting, and working all through the ideal

aspects of our modern life. There are probably few men who have lived

longer and more intimately with the old Greeks, in more phases of their

life, ever probing and seeking for deeper and better knowledge of their

vast legacy to mankind, of which the rodent tooth of time, the

sacrilegious hands of men, have lost or destroyed so much. The farther I

seek, the wider the vistas I see opening before me. So now, when my part

in the race is nearly run, there remains to me no higher earthly

satisfaction than this, that I have carried the torch of Greek fire

alight through a long life--no higher earthly hope than this, that I

may pass that torch to others, who in their turn may keep it aflame with

greater brilliancy perhaps, but not with more earnest devotion, “in the

Parliament of men, the Federation of the world.”

INDEX

A

Achæan League, organisation and dissolution, 203, 204

_Acontius and Cydippe_, love story of a modern type, 94

Actium, battle, 71

_Æneid_ of Virgil, _see_ Virgil

Æolic school, characteristic, 53

Æschylus, source of his tragedy, 36, 37;

one of the “three tragic poets,” 47;

Milton’s view of, 47;

characters of his plays, 48;

judge of tragedy, 73;

music of, 136

_Agamemnon_: great play, 27;

opening of, 48;

“vulgar and trivial persons,” 48;

contributes to Byron, 55;

Browning’s version, 57;

often translated into English, 58

_Prometheus Vinctus_: model for _Paradise Lost_, 47

Æsculapius, shrine of, 176

_Agamemnon_, _see_ Æschylus

Agatharchus, discovers principles of perspective, 130

Alcæus, poet, 37

_Alexander_, _Life of_, 97

Alexandria, library, collecting of, gives impetus to literary criticism, 91

Alexandrian school, development of mechanics, 162;

invention of the _sakia_, 165

_Alkestis_, _see_ Euripides

Alma-Tadema, Sir Edward, influenced by Greek art, 131, 132

Amyot, imitated Greek novel, 96

Anatomy, how studied by Greeks, 148

Anaxagoras, principal feature of his system, 229;

on original particles, 229;

Aristotle on, 229;

his famous _Nous_, 230, 231

Anaximander, makes advances in astronomy, 216, 217;

geological observations of, 218

Anaximenes, idea of the fundamental element of the world, 216, 217;

theory of eclipses, 217

Antiphon, treatises of, 82

_Antony and Cleopatra_, _see_ Shakespeare

_Aphrodite_ of Melos, mentioned, 118

Apollonius of Perga, treatment of conic sections, 161, 167

Apollonius Rhodius, delights in nature, 59

_Argonautics_: great epic, 41;

model for Milton, 43;

and Goethe’s _Faust_, 44

Arabic numerals, 157

Archilochus, poet, 37

Archimedes, triumphs of, in mechanics, 162, 167

Architecture, earliest form of house, 99;

houses of the dead, 100-102, 110, 111;

square house, 102;

evolution of classical, 103;

building materials, 103;

Doric, 104;

temples, 105, 110;

distinction between house and temple, 106, 107;

perfection of religious, 106, 107;

arch not used by Greeks, 107, 108;

Greek and Roman, compared, 108;

purpose in parts of a building, 109;

origin of arch, 109;

Roman use of arch, 110;

ornamentation of, by sculpture, 120

Archytas, 167

_Areopagitica_, _see_ Milton

_Argonautics_, _see_ Apollonius Rhodius

Argos, slaves in, 188

Aristides, studied oratory, 70

Aristocracies, in classical and mediæval times, 184

Aristophanes, as critic, 92;

ridicules Asklepiads, 176

Aristophanes, diction and metre, 37;

greatest master of Greek comedy, 60, 61;

Frere’s translation, 61, 64;

Rogers’s translation, 61;

influence and legacy, 61

_Birds and Frogs_: 27

Aristotle, almost canonised, 19;

criticism of _Iphigenia in Aulis_, 62, 72;

criticism of Medea, 62;

distinction between prose and poetry, 62, 63;

on Herodotus, 62, 63, 73;

on dramatic poetry and history, 72, 74;

and Herodotus, on style and subject of history, 74;

treatise on Language, 149;

treatise on Reasoning, 150;

arithmetical proof of theorem in geometry, 156;

on geometry, 159;

“master of those that knew,” 167;

brought up in Socratic method, 167;

style of writing, 167, 168;

system of collaboration, 168, 171;

collaborators, 169;

does no original work in mathematics, 169;

competence in mathematics, 170;

sciences promoted by, 171;

views on slavery, 189;

views on craftsmen, 189;

essential in his ideal of a state, 206;

objection to atomic theory, 233;

influence on modern thought, 237;

his philosophy and the Church, 242

_Constitution of Athens_: 169

_Poetic_: on tragic poetry, 61;

on dramatic poetry and history, 72

Aristoxenus, collaborator with Aristotle, 169

Arithmetic, starting-point of mathematics, 153;

importance of, to Pythagoras, 153;

numbers the essence of the universe, 153, 154;

Greek meaning of, 154;

Pythagorean speculations on natural series of units, 155;

specimens of treatment by Pythagoras, 156;

importance of numbers ten and twelve, 156;

Greek notation, 157;

Euclid’s works on, 161;

books on history of, 170

Arnold, Matthew, compares Milton’s style with Virgil’s, 46;

writes plays after Greek models, 58

_Merope_: 58

Art, earliest Greek, 12;

proper province of, 33, 34;

use of the term, 98

Artificiality of Greek poetry, defined, 33, 34

Asklepiads, method of, 176

Assemblies, in Greek democracies, 183

Astronomy, books on history of, 170

_Atalanta_, _see_ Swinburne

Athens, debts in, 186;

leadership, 201;

degeneration of spiritual life in, 210

Atomic theory, developed by Leucippus and Democritus, 231, 232;

results of, 233;

Aristotle’s objections to, 233

Atomists, doctrine of, 218, 219

Atreus, tomb of, 102, 111

Attic citizens, character, 208

Attic Code of laws, 190, 261

Attic life, portrayed by Menander, 208, 209

B

Bacchylides, comparison of Gray with, 54

Beehive huts, earliest form of house, 99;

extant examples, 99, 100;

not easily defended, 99;

once a general type, 100;

houses of the dead, 100-102;

Treasury of Athens, 101;

development of, 102

Biography, Plutarch, model, 80

_Birds and Frogs_, of Aristophanes, 27

Blow’s anthem, “I beheld and lo! a great multitude,” 126

Boccaccio, and Greek novels, 95

Botany, promoted by Aristotle, 171

Botticelli, Greek influence on, 131

Brougham, Lord, on Demosthenes, 84

Browning, Robert, his version of _Agamemnon_, 57;

version of Euripides, 57, 58, 64

Brydges, Sir Egerton, on choruses in _Samson Agonistes_, 50

Buckle’s _Civilisation_, famous opening, 5

Burke, Edmund, style influenced by Isocrates, 90;

translation of the _Tract on the Sublime_, 92

Burlington Art Club of London, collection of Greek fragments, 21

Byron, Lord, leader of Romantic school, 55;

knowledge of Greek poetry, 55;

borrows from Æschylus, 55;

interested in Greek life and Greece, 56;

interests Romanticists in Greece, 56

Byzantine architecture, 18

C

Calverley’s _Theocritus_, 64

Cambridge Platonists, 240

Carrey, Jacques, drawings of Parthenon, 52

Cathedral of Henry the Lion at Brunswick, 119

Chalmers, Thomas, Scotch orator, style, 90

Chapman, translation of the Iliad, 45, 51

_Charioteer_ of Delphi, 117

Choral hymns, Doric, 41

Cicero on Pindar, 50;

on history, 80;

style modelled on that of Isocrates, 88, 90

_De Finibus_: 245

City states, in Greece, 183;

combinations and alliances, 200

Colours, use, 118

Comedy, Greek, influence, 60, 61

Composition in sculpture, 120, 122

_Comus_, _see_ Milton

Constantinople, adheres to Hellenic traditions, 182

_Constitution of Athens_, 169

Contracts, civil, 194

Conversation, perfection of Greek style, 90, 91;

Plato’s _Dialogues_, 91

Corcyrean massacre, Thucydides on, 77

Cornford, Mr., _Thucydides Mythistoricus_, referred to, 77

What Have the Greeks Done for Modern Civilisation? · 第 12 / 14 段