THE STOIC STRAIN IN CHRISTIANITY.
[Sidenote: Neighbours, but strangers.]
=455.= During the first century and a half of the Christian era Stoicism
maintained an active and successful propaganda, without becoming
conscious that meanwhile a new force was spreading in the Hellenic world
which was soon to challenge its own supremacy. There is no evidence to
show that any of the Stoic teachers with whom we have been concerned knew
anything of Christianity beyond the bare name, until the two systems came
into conflict in the time of Marcus Aurelius; and it is in the highest
degree improbable that any of them were influenced in their opinions,
directly or indirectly, by the preaching of Christianity[1]. On the other
hand the apostles of the newer faith, as often as they entered any of the
chief cities of the Roman empire, met at once not only with the professed
adherents of Stoicism, but also with a still wider world of educated men
and women which was penetrated by Stoic conceptions. From the first it
was incumbent on Christian teachers to define their attitude towards this
philosophy; and it is our purpose in this chapter to sketch shortly the
manner in which they did so. This task belongs primarily to the historian
of Christianity, but the present work would be incomplete without some
adumbration of this important field of study. From the middle of the
second century the relations between the two systems alter in character:
there then sets in a steady stream of conversion by which the younger
Stoics are drawn away from the older creed, and carry over to its rival
not only their personal allegiance but also their intellectual equipment.
[Sidenote: Common influences.]
=456.= It is necessarily a difficult task to estimate the influence
of Stoicism upon the historical development of Christianity, and it
is impossible to do so without trenching upon ground which is highly
debateable. Upon parallels between phrases used by Stoic and Christian
writers respectively not too much stress should be laid[2]. Many of these
can be traced back to common sources from which each religion drew in
turn. From Persism the Stoic creed inherited much through Heraclitus,
and Christianity through Judaism. The kindred doctrines of Buddhism and
Cynism present themselves to our view in Christianity in the Sermon
on the mount, and in Stoicism through the discourses of Epictetus.
Individuals in either camp were also influenced in varying degrees by a
wave of feeling in favour of asceticism and resignation which spread over
the whole Greco-Roman world about this time, resulting from exaggerated
attention being paid to the individual consciousness at the cost of
social and political life. We should therefore endeavour to keep our eyes
steadily fixed on the essential features of Stoicism rather than on its
details, and inquire how these were regarded by Christian teachers in
successive generations.
[Sidenote: Progressive influence of Stoicism.]
=457.= A starting-point is obviously afforded us by the speech of St
Paul upon Mars’ hill, in which he accepts a verse from the Stoic poet
Aratus[3] as a text upon which to proclaim the fatherhood of God. This
Stoic doctrine (like many others to which he refers in his writings) is
treated by Paul as embodying an elementary truth, and as a starting-point
for fuller knowledge; from any other point of view philosophy is regarded
as a snare and an imposture[4]. A generation later we find that the
editor of the fourth gospel boldly places the Stoic version of the
history of creation in the forefront of his work[5]. Later on in the
second century we find the doctrines of the double nature of the Christ
and of the variety inherent in the Deity becoming incorporated in
technical Stoic forms as part of a defined Christian creed. From whatever
point we regard the Stoic influence, it appears during this period as
an increasing force. We shall speak of it here as the ‘Stoic strain’ in
Christianity; meaning by this that a certain attitude of the intellect
and sympathies, first developed in Stoicism, found for itself a home in
early Christianity; that men, Stoics by inheritance or training, joined
the church not simply as disciples, but to a large extent as teachers
also. This point of view can perhaps best be explained by a sketch of the
development of Christian doctrine as it might be regarded by fair-minded
Stoics, attached to the principles of their philosophy but suspicious of
its close relations with the religion of the State, and ready to welcome
any new system which might appeal to their reason as well as to their
moral sense.
[Sidenote: Jesus from the Stoic standpoint.]
=458.= A Stoic of the time of Vespasian (A.D. 69 to 79) might well be
supposed to be made acquainted with the beginnings of Christianity by
some Christian friend. The story he would hear would take the form of
one of those ‘oral gospels’ which are now generally supposed to have
preceded the shaping of the ‘gospels’ of our New Testament, and to
have corresponded generally to the common parts of the first three
gospels and some of the narratives of the fourth[6]. He would thus learn
that the founder was a Jew named JESUS, the son of Joseph a carpenter
of Nazareth[7]. This Jesus had in his childhood sat at the feet of
the philosophic Rabbis of Jerusalem[8], and had learnt from them to
interpret the documents of Hebraism, ‘the law and the prophets,’ in
the sense of the world-religions, and by the principle of allegorism to
give a new and truer meaning to such parts of them as seemed obsolete or
incredible[9]. Upon reaching manhood he had been shocked to find that
the general body of the Pharisees, to which his teachers belonged, was
far more interested in maintaining prejudices of race and class than
in boldly proclaiming principles of world-wide application; and that
whilst freely avowing their own opinions amongst friends, they held it
indiscreet to reveal them to the crowd[10]. After a period of prolonged
reflection and inward struggle[11] he resolved on coming forward as a
teacher in his own name.
[Sidenote: The wise man.]
=459.= At this point our Stoic would assuredly be impressed by the
‘strength and force’ of character displayed in the preaching of the young
Jesus, and would so far be disposed to rank him with Socrates and with
Zeno. In the content of Jesus’ teaching he would at once recognise some
of the prominent characteristics of Zeno’s _Republic_. For Jesus too
spoke of a model state, calling it the ‘kingdom of heaven’; and in this
state men of all nations were to find a place. Not only the ceremonies
of the old Hebrew religion, its sacrifices and its sabbaths, were to be
superseded[12]; the temple itself at Jerusalem was to cease to be a place
of worship[13]; the social and economic system of the Jewish people was
to be remodelled; the rich were to be swept away, and the poor to enter
into their inheritance[14]. Men’s prayers were no longer to be offered to
the God of Abraham, but to the Father in heaven, surrounded by spirits
like those of Persism, the Name, the Will, the Kingdom, the Glory and the
Majesty[15]. That Jesus also spoke, after the Persian fashion, of rewards
for the good and the wicked in a future existence might interest our
Stoic less, but would not be inconsistent with the traditions of his own
sect.
[Sidenote: The emotions in Jesus.]
=460.= Whilst recognising this strength of character and sympathizing
generally with the gospel message, our Stoic could not fail to observe
that the Christian tradition did not claim for the Founder the
imperturbable calm which the wise man should under all circumstances
possess. From time to time his spirit was troubled[16]; sometimes by
Anger, as when he denounced in turn the Pharisees, the scribes, and the
traders in the temple; sometimes by Pity, as when he wept over Jerusalem;
by Fear, as in the garden of Gethsemane[17]; then again by Shame, as in
the meeting with the woman taken in adultery[18]; and even by Hilarity,
as when he participated in the marriage revels at Cana. Yet perhaps,
taking the character as a whole, a Stoic would not be surprised that
the disciples should remember only the sweetness, the patience, and the
perseverance of their master; that they should account him a perfect
man[19], attributing his faults to the weakness of the body[20], and not
to any taint of soul; and finally that they should accept him as their
Lord and their God[21]. For all these points of view, without being
specifically Stoic, find some kind of recognition within Stoicism itself.
[Sidenote: Mythologic Christianity.]
=461.= But as our inquirer proceeded to trace the history of Christianity
after its Founder’s death, he would soon find the beginnings of division
within the Christian body. He would learn, for instance, that the
Christians of Jerusalem, who even during their Master’s lifetime had been
puzzled by his condemnation of Hebrew traditions, had quickly relapsed
upon his death into the ways of thinking to which in their childhood
they had been accustomed. They had become once more Hebrews, and even
ardent advocates of an obsolete ceremonialism; and in this respect they
seemed entirely to have forgotten the teaching of their Founder. But
their allegiance to his person was unshakeable; and they cherished the
conviction that during the lifetime of most of them he would rejoin
them, and establish that earthly kingdom which in their hearts they had
never ceased to covet. In view of this imminent revolution, quite as
much as out of respect for the teaching of the Sermon on the mount, they
encouraged their members to spend their savings on immediate necessities,
and soon fell into dire poverty. To Christianity as an intellectual
system they contributed nothing; ‘little children’ at heart[22], they
were content to live in a perfect affection one towards another, and
their miserable circumstances were cheered by visions of angels and a
sense of their master’s continual presence[23]. From this company our
Stoic might easily turn aside as from a band of ignorant fanatics,
displaying the same simplicity and conservatism as the idol-worshippers
of Rome, with the added mischief of being disloyal towards the majesty of
the empire, and a possible danger to its security[24].
[Sidenote: Philosophic Christians.]
=462.= In startling contrast to this band of simple-minded brethren
would appear the Christian propagandists whose temper is revealed to us
in the latter part of the book of Acts, in the epistles of Paul, the
first epistle of Peter, and the epistle to the Hebrews. These fiery
preachers, equally attached to the name of their Lord, might appear
to have been singularly indifferent to his person and his history,
and even to have paid little heed to the details of his teaching as
recorded in the oral gospels[25]. But they were entirely possessed by
his secret—the transmutation of Hebraism into a world-religion; and they
had an ardent desire to present it to the Roman world in a form that
would win intellectual assent. Into this effort they threw their whole
personality; all the conceptions which filled their minds, some of them
childish and common to them with uncivilised peoples, others derived from
Jewish tradition or Hellenistic philosophy, were crudely but forcibly
fused in the determination to present ‘the Christ’ to the world, as the
solution of its difficulties and the centre of its hopes. The outpourings
of these men were as unintelligible and unsympathetic to the fraternity
at Jerusalem as they are to the average church-goer to-day; only breaking
out here and there into the flame of clear expression when at last some
long-sought conception had been grasped[26]. Of such preachers St Paul
is for us the type, and we may describe them as the ‘Paulists.’ Paul
himself is self-assertive in tone, as a man may be who feels himself
misunderstood and misjudged in his own circle[27]. But an ardent Stoic
might well have recognised in him a kindred spirit, an intellect
grappling boldly with the supreme problems, and laying the foundations of
a new philosophy of life.
[Sidenote: St Paul and Stoicism.]
=463.= PAUL was a man of Jewish descent, intensely proud of his
nationality; but nevertheless brought up in the city of Tarsus, which had
for centuries been a centre of Hellenistic philosophy of every type[28],
and more especially of Stoicism[29]. This philosophy is to Paul’s mind
entirely inadequate and even dangerous; nevertheless he is steeped in
Stoic ways of thinking, which are continually asserting themselves in
his teaching without being formally recognised by him as such. Thus the
‘universe’ (κόσμος), which to the Stoic includes everything with which he
is concerned, and in particular the subject-matter of religion, becomes
with Paul the ‘world,’ that out of which and above which the Christian
rises to the ‘eternal’ or spiritual life.’ Yet this contrast is not
final[30]; and whether or not the Pauline ‘spirit’ is derived from
the Stoic πνεῦμα, the Pauline system, as it is elaborated in detail,
increasingly accommodates itself to that of the Stoics. Our supposed
inquirer would examine the points both of likeness and of contrast.
[Sidenote: The Paulist logic.]
=464.= The teaching of Paul was, like that of the Stoics, positive and
dogmatic[31]. He accepted unquestioningly the evidence of the senses
as trustworthy, without troubling himself as to the possibility of
hallucinations, from which nevertheless his circle was not free[32].
He also accepted the theory of ‘inborn ideas,’ that is, of moral
principles engraved upon the heart[33]; and for the faculty of the soul
which realizes such principles he uses the special term ‘conscience’
(συνείδησις)[34]; conscience being described, with a correct sense of
etymology and possibly a touch of humour, as that within a man which
becomes a second witness to what the man says[35]. From another point of
view the conscience is the divine spirit at work in the human spirit[36].
Closely associated with conscience in the Pauline system is ‘faith’
(πίστις), a faculty of the soul which properly has to do with things not
as they are, but as we mean them to be[37]. The Stoic logic had failed
to indicate clearly how from the knowledge of the universe as it is
men could find a basis for their hopes and efforts for its future; the
missing criterion is supplied by the Paulist doctrine of ‘faith,’ which
may also be paradoxically described as the power always to say ‘Yes[38].’
The fraternity at Jerusalem appear to have been alarmed not so much at
the principle of faith, as at the manner in which St Paul used it to
enforce his own doctrines; we find them by way of contrast asserting
the Academic position that ‘none of us are infallible[39].’ We may here
notice that the next generation of Christians again brought the theory of
faith into harmony with Stoic principles, by explaining that the power of
knowing the right is strictly dependent upon right action[40].
[Sidenote: Paulist metaphysics.]
=465.= In their metaphysical postulates the Paulists started, like all
ancient philosophers, with the contrast between soul and body, but this
they transformed into that between ‘spirit’ and ‘flesh.’ To them the
‘spirit’ included the whole message of Christianity, the ‘flesh’ the
doctrine and practice of the Gentile world[41]. The terms themselves were
in use in the oral gospel[42], but the Paulists developed the content of
‘spirit,’ until it included a whole world of conceptions, encircling and
interfused with the world of sense-experience. But Paul did not desire
that this spiritual world should be regarded as wanting in reality, or
as a mere product of the imagination: and to express this objectivity
of spirit he adopted the Stoic term ‘body.’ Body then expresses the
underlying monistic principle of all nature; and we may say ‘spirit-body’
exists[43], with the same confidence with which we speak of animal body
or ‘flesh-body.’ There has been a flesh-body of Jesus; with that we have
no more concern[44]. There exists eternally a spirit-body of Christ; from
that his church draws its life. The Christian feeds upon the spirit of
his Master; but in paradoxical phrase we may say that he eats his body
and drinks his blood[45]. What is not ‘body’ has no real existence at
all[46].
[Sidenote: The Christian universe.]
=466.= St Paul in his letters appears entirely lacking in that reverent
feeling towards the physical universe, that admiration for sun, moon and
stars, which marked the earlier world-religions, and which he perhaps
associated with Babylonian idolatry. As we have seen, he only used the
Stoic term for universe in disapproval. And yet the conception of the
history of the universe was deeply impressed upon the Paulists, and
almost precisely in Stoic form. God, the Father, is the beginning of all
things; from him they come, and to him they shall all return[47]. From
the Father went forth an image of him[48], his first-born Son[49], his
word, the Christ; by this he created the world, and for this the world
exists[50]. By a further outpouring of the divine spirit, men are created
with the capacity of becoming the ‘images’ or bodily representations of
God and his Son[51]. To this general doctrine individual Paulists add
special features; St Paul himself introduces ‘woman’ as a fourth order of
creation, an image or ‘vessel’ bearing the same relation to man as man
to Christ[52]; and a writer (of distinctly later date) seems to refer
not only to the creation of the elements[53], but also to their coming
destruction by the conflagration[54]. Of the creation of the animals no
notice is taken[55].
[Sidenote: The divine immanence.]
=467.= From this theory of creation it would seem to follow as a
consequence that the world is inhabited by the Deity, and is essentially
good. This is the Stoic doctrine, and it is accepted boldly by Paul. God
dwells in the universe, and the universe in him; man is not in the strict
sense an individual, for apart from God he does not exist at all[56].
But there nevertheless remains the fact of the existence of evil, both
physical and moral, in apparent defiance of the divine will. Here too
the Paulists agree with Stoic teaching; they hold that evil serves a
moral purpose as a training in virtue[57]; that God turns evil to his own
purpose, so that in the final issue all things are working together for
good[58]; that God is active through his Word in restoring a unity that
has been for a time broken[59]. Neither can man shift on to his Maker the
responsibility for his own wrongdoing; that is (as Cleanthes had taught
before) the work of men following out their own ways in accordance with
some bias which is in conflict with their divine origin[60]. In spite
of all this common ground Paul maintains with at least equal emphasis
doctrines of a gloomier type. The universe, as it is, is evil; its rulers
are the powers of darkness[61]. St Paul by no means put out of sight,
as the Stoics did, the doctrine of an Evil Spirit; on the contrary,
this conception dominates his mind and multiplies itself in it. Sin in
particular is in his eyes more widespread, more hideous, more dangerous
than it is to the Stoic philosopher. To this point we must revert later.
[Sidenote: Religion.]
=468.= With regard to religious belief and practice (we are here using
the word ‘religion’ in the narrower sense, as in the previous chapter on
this subject) Paul was in the first place a monotheist, and addresses his
prayers and praises alike to the Father in heaven, and to him alone. At
the same time he does not regard the Deity as dwelling in a world apart;
he is to be worshipped in and through the Christ, who is the point of
contact between him and humanity[62]. From the ceremonial practices of
Hebraism all the Paulists break away completely. Its bloody sacrifices
take away no sin[63]; the solemn rite of circumcision is nothing in
itself[64], and in practice it is an impediment to the acceptance of
Christ[65]. The disposition to observe days and seasons, sabbaths and
new moons, is a matter for serious alarm[66]. In place of this ritualism
is to be substituted ‘a worship according to reason[67],’ which is in
close agreement with Stoic practice. To think rightly of the Deity[68],
to give thanks to him[69], to honour him by an innocent life[70], is
well pleasing to God; and the writings of Paul, like those of Epictetus,
include many a hymn of praise, and show us the existence at this time of
the beginnings of a great body of religious poetry[71].
[Sidenote: Human nature.]
=469.= In the analysis of human nature Paul again started from the Stoic
basis. In the first place he recognised the fundamental unity of the man
as a compacted whole[72]; subject to this monism, he recognised three
parts, the spirit, the animal life, and the flesh[73]. Of these only the
two extremes, the spirit and the flesh, are usually mentioned; but these
do not strictly correspond to the traditional distinction of soul and
body. The soul (ψυχή, _anima_) is that which man has in common with the
animals; the spirit (πνεῦμα, _spiritus_) is that which he has in common
with God. Where therefore only two parts are mentioned, the soul and the
flesh must be considered both to be included under the name ‘flesh.’
Soul and flesh are peculiar to the individual man; spirit is the common
possession of the Deity and of all men[74]. Thus God and man share in
the spiritual nature, and become partners in an aspect of the universe
from which animals, plants, and stones are definitely excluded[75]. The
‘spirit’ of St Paul therefore corresponds closely to the ‘principate’
of the Stoics, and though the Christian apostle does not lay the same
emphasis on its intellectual aspect, he fully recognises that the
spiritual life is true wisdom, and its perversion folly and darkness[76].
[Sidenote: Resurrection and immortality.]
=470.= From this analysis of human nature Paul approaches the central
doctrine of the Christian community, that of the resurrection of its
Founder. To the simple-minded fraternity at Jerusalem the resurrection
of Jesus was a marvel, an interference with the orderly course of divine
providence, a proof of the truth of the gospel message. Jesus has
returned to his disciples in the body as he lived; he has again departed,
but before this generation has passed away he will return to stay with
them and establish his kingdom. To St Paul all this is different. He
accepts implicitly the fact of the resurrection, but as typical, not as
abnormal. As Christ has risen, so will his followers rise. But Christ
lives in the spirit; by their intrinsic nature neither the flesh-body
nor the soul-body can become immortal[77]. And in the spirit Christ’s
followers are joined with him, and will be more fully joined when they
are rid of the burden of the flesh[78]. This continued existence is
no mere fancy; it is real, objective, and (in philosophical language)
bodily. Though by the creation all men have some share in the divine
spirit, yet immortality (at any rate in the full sense) is the privilege
of the faithful only; it is won, not inherited. Paul does not venture to
suggest that human individuality and personality are retained in the life
beyond. He draws no picture of the reunion of preacher and disciple, of
husband and wife, or of mother and child. It is enough for him to believe
that he will be reunited with the glorified Christ, and be in some sense
a member of the heavenly community[79].
[Sidenote: The seed theory.]
=471.= On its philosophical side the Paulist view of immortality is
closely akin to the Stoic, and is exposed to the same charge of logical
inconsistency. If the whole man is one, how can we cut off the flesh-body
and the soul-body from this unity, and yet maintain that the spirit-body
is not also destroyed? To meet this difficulty St Paul, in one of his
grandest outbursts of conviction, propounds the doctrine of ‘seeds,’
closely connected with the Stoic doctrine of seed-powers’ (σπερματικοὶ
λόγοι)[80], and with the general principles of biological science as
now understood. This seed is the true reality in man; it may throw off
both soul and flesh, and assume to itself a new body, as a tree from
which the branches are lopped off will throw out new branches. Thus, and
not otherwise, was Christ raised; and as Christ was raised, so will his
followers be raised[81]. Man is not in any final sense a unit; as the
race is continued by the breaking off of the seed from the individual, so
is the spirit-life won by the abandonment of soul and flesh.
[Sidenote: Life and death.]
=472.= At this point we are brought face to face with a very old paradox,
that life is death, and death is life. What is commonly called life is
that of the soul and the flesh, which the animals share and which may
mean the atrophy of man’s higher part; on the other hand death has no
power over the life of the spirit, which is therefore called ‘eternal
life’ or ‘life of the ages.’ To enter upon this ‘eternal life’ is the
very kernel of the gospel message[82]; in the language of philosophy it
is the bridge between physics and ethics. Although the steps by which it
is reached can be most clearly traced in the Pauline epistles, yet the
general conclusion was accepted by the whole Christian church. From this
point of view Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by virtue of their communion
with God, are still alive[83]; he who holds his life dear, loses it; and
he who makes it of no account keeps it to the life of the ages[84]; he
who listens to the teaching of Jesus and believes in the Father who sent
him, has passed over out of death into life[85].
[Sidenote: Moral principles.]
=473.= From the doctrine of ‘eternal life’ follow the first principles
of morals: eternal life is the moral end (τέλος) or _summum bonum_[86].
The spirit is everything, the act nothing; good lies in the intention,
not in the performance[87]; we are saved by faith, not by works[88].
Therefore all _tabus_ fall away; ‘to the pure everything is pure[89]’;
‘in its own nature no food is impure; but if people regard any food as
impure, to them it is[90]’; ‘our ungraceful parts come to have a more
abundant grace[91]’; ‘everything that God has created is good[92].’ And
because God and all men share in one spirit, all men are fellow-citizens
in the cosmopolis[93]. To this St Paul sacrifices all personal advantages
of which otherwise he might be justly proud, his Hebrew descent, his
free citizenship in the Roman empire, and even his standing in sex
above an inferior part of the creation[94]. The spiritual condition is
expressed in terms of certain emotional attitudes which correspond to the
three Stoic ‘constancies[95]’; the details vary, but love, joy, peace,
gentleness and sweet reasonableness[96] are frequently recurring terms,
whilst faith, hope and love are recommended in one passage of the highest
eloquence, love (ἀγάπη, _caritas_) being given the highest place of
all[97].
[Sidenote: Virtues and vices.]
=474.= In the treatment of the virtues and vices we miss the familiar
series of the four virtues, though three of them find a place here or
there in some more elaborate list[98]. The vices are treated with much
more fulness. Those connected with the sexual relations and functions
are invariably the first to be condemned; incest, adultery, harlotry,
foul conversation, are named in almost every list[99]. Next in importance
are ill-feeling and quarrelsomeness; heavy drinking comes after these.
More upon Stoic lines is the reproof of ‘excessive grief[100].’ The
necessity of steady progress is strongly pressed, and the term used
(προκοπή) is that with which we are familiar in Greek philosophy[101].
In all the Paulist writers there is also incessant insistence upon the
importance of the regular performance of daily duties[102]. Experience
not only of the disasters which befel the church at Jerusalem, but also
of similar tendencies nearer at hand, had impressed deeply on Paul the
insufficiency of moral teaching which relied on general principles and
emotional feeling only, especially if such teaching (as in the Sermon
on the mount) was mainly negative. The Paulists at any rate set forth,
almost in a fixed form, a body of instructions to serve the community as
a whole, and social[103] rather than ethical in nature. This teaching
follows closely the Stoic teaching of the same period, and is based upon
the relationships (σχέσεις), such as those of king and subject, master
and slave, husband and wife, parent and child[104]. It is conservative in
character, advocating kindness, contentment, and zeal in social relations
as they exist. Thus whilst we recognise the spirit of Zeno in the Sermon
on the mount, we find that of Panaetius in the Pauiist discourses.
[Sidenote: Sage and saint.]
=475.= As against the Stoic sage the Paulists set up as their ideal the
saint, and used all the resources of eloquence in his commendation. He is
the true king and priest[105]; even if he is a beggar, he is surpassingly
rich[106]; he alone, though a slave, is free[107]. On the other hand
the sinner is always a slave[108]; even his good acts are without real
value[109]. All such phrases would be familiar to our Stoic inquirer; but
perhaps he might be specially impressed by finding once more the doctrine
of the ‘sufficiency of virtue’ amongst the Christians. The term is indeed
altered[110], but it bears the same meaning as regards independence of
wealth, health and liberty, though with more emphasis upon support from a
divine source.
[Sidenote: St Paul and sin.]
=476.= It is generally agreed that in the writings of St Paul there is
displayed a special sense of shame and horror in speaking of sin[111],
which entirely differentiates his teaching from that of the Stoics.
This difference, however, cannot be due to St Paul treating sin as
‘defiance towards a loving Father[112],’ for this view was also that of
Cleanthes and the Stoics generally; and Paul’s horror of sin depends on
no reasoning, but is felt by him as instinctive. It remains to add that
our Stoic inquirer would find an apparent conflict between this instinct
and Paul’s reasoning. The sin of which St Paul finds it ‘a shame even
to speak[113]’ is sexual; and so far as it consists in abnormal social
habits, such as those relations between persons of the same sex which had
found excuse in the classical world, the Stoic would at once agree that
these practices were ‘against nature[114]’ and were unseemly. Again, the
marriage of near relations, though not against nature in the sense in
which nature is illustrated by the animal world, is still opposed to so
deep-seated a social tradition as to merit instinctive condemnation[115].
But the instincts of St Paul go far deeper; the marriage relation is to
him at the best a concession to human frailty, and falls short of the
ideal[116]. Nor is this merely a personal view of Paul; it is deeply
impressed upon the consciousness of the whole Christian church. How, it
would be asked, can this be reconciled with the abolition of the _tabu_,
with the principle that ‘all things are pure,’ or even with the obvious
purpose of the Creator when he created mankind male and female?
[Sidenote: The sex tabus.]
=477.= It would seem that here we have touched a fundamental point in
the historical development of the moral sentiments. The sexual _tabus_
are the most primitive and deeply-seated in human history. From this
point of view woman is by nature impure, the sex-functions which play
so large a part in her mature life being to the savage both dangerous
and abhorrent. Hence the view, so strongly held by St Paul, that woman
as a part of the creation is inferior to man. But man too becomes by
his sex-functions impure, though for shorter periods; and by union with
woman lowers himself to her level. Hence the unconquerable repugnance
of St Paul to the sexual relation under any conditions whatever[117]; a
repugnance which reason and religion keep within limits[118], but which
yet always breaks out afresh in his writings. Hence also he assumes
as unquestionable the natural unseemliness of the sexual parts of the
body; in all these points not going beyond feelings which are to-day as
keen as ever, though no philosopher has found it easy to justify them.
But in certain points St Paul outpaces the general feeling, and shows
himself an extreme reactionary against the philosophic doctrines which he
shared with the Stoic. He extends his dislike, in accordance with a most
primitive _tabu_, to woman’s hair[119]; he desires the subordination of
woman to man to be marked in her outward appearance[120]; and he forbids
women to speak in the general meetings of church members[121].
[Sidenote: Hebrew feeling.]
=478.= This intense feeling on the part of St Paul required, as his
writings assume, no justification; it was therefore an inherited
feeling, as familiar to many an Oriental as it is usually strange and
unsympathetic to the ancient and modern European. It appears also to
be rooted in Hebrew tradition; for if we are at liberty to interpret
the myth of Adam and Eve by the parallel of Yama and Yamī in the
Rigveda[122], the fall of man was nothing else than the first marriage,
in which Eve was the suitor and Adam the accomplice. In the dramatic
poem of the Rigveda Yama corresponds to the Hebrew Adam, his sister Yamī
to Eve[123]. Yamī yearns to become the mother of the human race; Yama
shudders at the impiety of a sister’s embrace. Zeno had already conceived
the world-problem in much the same shape[124]; but to the Oriental it is
more than a problem of cosmology; it is the fundamental opposition of
sex attitude, the woman who longs for the family affections against the
man who seeks an ideal purity. In Genesis the prohibition of the apple
appears at first sight colourless, yet the meaning is hardly obscure.
After touching the forbidden fruit man and woman first feel the shame
of nakedness; and Eve is punished by the coming pains of child-bearing,
and a rank below her husband’s. None the less she has her wish, for she
becomes the mother of all living. It is hard to think that Paul, who
always traces human sin back to the offence of Adam, and finds it most
shamelessly displayed in the sex-relationships of his own time, could
have conceived of the Fall in any very different way.
[Sidenote: The taint in procreation.]
=479.= According then to a point of view which we believe to be latent
in all the teaching of Paul on the subject of sin, the original taint
lay in procreation, and through the begetting of children has passed on
from one generation of mankind to another; ‘through the succession from
Adam all men become dead[125].’ As an ethical standpoint this position
is very alien from Stoicism; with the Stoic it is a first law of nature
which bids all men seek for the continuance of the race; with the Apostle
the same yearning leads them to enter the pathway of death. It would
lead us too far to attempt here to discuss this profound moral problem,
which has deeply influenced the whole history of the Christian church.
We are however greatly concerned with the influence of this sentiment
on Pauline doctrine. For it follows that in order to attain to a true
moral or spiritual life man needs a new begetting and a new birth[126];
he must become a son of God through the outpouring of his spirit[127].
This is one of the most familiar of Pauline conceptions, and for us it
is easy to link it on to the Stoico-Pauline account of the creation,
according to which man was in the first instance created through the Word
of God, and endowed with his spirit. But to the community at Jerusalem
all conceptions of this kind appear to have been hardly intelligible, and
tended to aggravate the deep distrust of the teachings and methods of St
Paul and his companions, which was rooted in his disregard of national
tradition.
[Sidenote: The quarrel.]
=480.= This difference of mental attitude soon broke out into an open
quarrel. So much was inevitable; and the fact that the quarrel is
recorded at length in the texts from which we are quoting is one of
the strongest evidences of their general accuracy. The Christians at
Jerusalem formed themselves into a nationalist party; they claimed
that all the brothers should be in the first instance conformists to
Hebrew institutions. Paul went up to Jerusalem[128], eager to argue the
matter with men of famous name. He was disillusioned, as is so often the
traveller who returns after trying experiences and much mental growth to
the home to which his heart still clings. Peter and the others had no
arguments to meet Paul’s; he could learn nothing from them[129]; they
had not even a consistent practice[130]. At first Paul’s moral sense
was outraged; he publicly rebuked Peter as double-faced. After a little
time he realized that he had met with children; he remembered that he
had once thought and acted in the same way[131]. Jews in heart, the home
apostles still talked of marvels[132], still yearned for the return of
Jesus in the flesh[133]. A philosophic religion was as much beyond their
grasp as a consistent morality. Through a simple-minded application of
the doctrines of the Sermon on the mount they had slipped into deep
poverty[134]; they were ready to give Paul full recognition in return for
charitable help. This was not refused them; but to his other teaching
Paul now added a chapter on pecuniary independence[135]; and in his old
age he left to his successors warnings against ‘old wives’ fables[136]’
and ‘Jewish legends[137].’
[Sidenote: The development of Christian mythology.]
=481.= Thus for the first time the forces of mythology within the
Christian church clashed with those of philosophy. For the moment Paul
appeared to be the victor; he won the formal recognition of the church,
with full authority to continue his preaching on the understanding that
it was primarily directed to the Gentile world[138]. External events
were also unfavourable to the Hebraists: the destruction of Jerusalem
deprived them of their local centre; the failure of Jesus to reappear
in the flesh within the lifetime of his companions disappointed them of
their most cherished hope. But their sentiments and thoughts remained to
a great extent unchanged. To Paul they gave their respect, to Peter their
love; and the steady tradition of the Christian church has confirmed
this judgment. No saint has been so loved as Peter; to none have so many
churches been dedicated by the affectionate instinct of the many; whilst
even the dominant position of Paul in the sacred canon has hardly secured
him much more than formal recognition except by the learned. So again it
was with Paul’s teaching; formally recognised as orthodox, it remained
misunderstood and unappreciated: it was even rapidly converted into that
mythological form to which Paul himself was so fiercely opposed.
[Sidenote: The Virgin birth and the resurrection.]
=482.= This divergence of view is illustrated most strikingly in the two
doctrines which for both parties were the cardinal points of Christian
belief, the divine nature of the Founder and his resurrection. On the
latter point the standpoint of the Hebraists is sufficiently indicated
by the tradition of the gospels, all of which emphatically record as a
decisive fact that the body of Jesus was not found in his grave on the
third day; to the Paulists this point is entirely irrelevant, and they
pass it by unmentioned[139]. To Paul again the man Jesus was of human
and natural birth, born of the posterity of David, born of a woman,
born subject to the law[140]; in his aspect as the Christ he was, as
his followers were to be, begotten of the spirit and born anew[141].
His statement as to descent from David (which hardly means more than
that he was of Jewish race) was crystallized by the mythologists in two
formal genealogies, which disagree so entirely in detail that they have
always been the despair of verbal apologists, but agree in tracing the
pedigree through Joseph to Jesus. The phrase ‘begotten of the spirit’
was interpreted with equal literalness; but the marvel-lovers were for
a time puzzled to place the ‘spirit’ in the family relationship. In the
first instance the spirit seems to have been identified with the mother
of Jesus[142]; but the misunderstanding of a Hebrew word which does not
necessarily connote physical virginity[143] assisted to fix the function
of fatherhood upon the divine parent. The antipathy to the natural
process of procreation which we have traced in St Paul himself, and which
was surely not less active amongst many of the Hebraists, has contributed
to raise this materialisation of a philosophic tenet to a high place
amongst the formal dogmas of historic Christianity.
[Sidenote: The doctrine of the Word.]
=483.= But if the tendency to myth-making was still alive in the
Christian church, that in the direction of philosophy had become
self-confident and active. The Paulists had taken the measure of their
former opponents; they felt themselves superior in intellectual and moral
vigour, and they knew that they had won this superiority by contact with
the Gentile world. More than before they applied themselves to plead the
cause of the Christ before the Gentiles; but the storm and stress of the
Pauline epistles gave way in time to a serener atmosphere, in which the
truths of Stoicism were more generously acknowledged. A Stoic visitor
of the reign of Trajan would meet in Christian circles the attitude
represented to us by the fourth gospel, in which the problem of the
Christ-nature stands to the front, and is treated on consistently Stoic
lines. St Paul had spoken of Jesus as ‘for us a wisdom which is from
God[144]’ and had asserted that ‘from the beginning he had the nature of
God[145]’; his successors declared frankly that Christ was the Logos, the
Word[146]; and in place of the myth of the Virgin Birth they deliberately
set in the beginning of their account of Christ the foundation-principles
of Stoic physics and the Paulist account of the spiritual procreation of
all Christians.
‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things
came into being through him, and apart from him nothing that
exists came into being[147].’
‘To all who have received him, to them—that is, to those who
trust in his name—he has given the privilege of becoming children
of God; who were begotten as such not by human descent, nor
through an impulse of their own nature, nor through the will of a
human father, but from God.
‘And the Word came in the flesh, and lived for a time in our
midst, so that we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s
only Son, sent from his presence. He was full of grace and
truth[148].’
The Stoic character of this teaching is no longer latent, but proclaimed;
and the Church Fathers recognise this in no doubtful terms[149].
[Sidenote: The doctrine of the Trinity.]
=484.= During the whole of the second century A.D. men trained in Stoic
principles crowded into the Christian community. Within it they felt they
had a special work to do in building up Christian doctrine so that it
might face all storms of criticism. This effort gradually took the shape
of schools modelled upon those of the philosophic sects. Such a school
was founded by an ex-Stoic named PANTAENUS at Alexandria in 181 A.D.;
and his successors CLEMENS of Alexandria (ob. c. 215 A.D.) and ORIGENES
(c. 186-253 A.D.) specially devoted themselves to developing the theory
of the divine nature upon Stoic lines. Not all the particulars they
suggested were accepted by the general feeling of the Christian body, but
from the discussion was developed gradually the ecclesiastical doctrine
of the Trinity[150]. The elements of this doctrine have been already
traced in St Paul’s epistles, in which the dominating conceptions are
those of God the Father, the Christ, and the divine spirit. For these in
the next generation we find the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and the
last term of the triad becomes increasingly identified with the ‘holy
spirit’ of Stoicism. But these three conceptions (with others) are in
Stoic doctrine varying names or aspects of the divine unity. Seneca, for
instance, had written in the following tone:
‘To whatever country we are banished, two things go with us,
our part in the starry heavens above and the world around, our
sole right in the moral instincts of our own hearts. Such is
the gift to us of the supreme power which shaped the universe.
That power we sometimes call “the all-ruling God,” sometimes
“the incorporeal Wisdom” which is the creator of mighty works,
sometimes the “divine spirit” which spreads through things great
and small with duly strung tone, sometimes “destiny” or the
changeless succession of causes linked one to another[151].’
Here the larger variety of terms used by the early Stoic teachers[152]
is reduced to four aspects of the first cause, namely God, the Word, the
divine spirit, and destiny. The Christian writers struck out from the
series the fourth member, and the doctrine of the Trinity was there. Its
stiff formulation for school purposes in the shape ‘these three are one’
has given it the appearance of a paradox; but to persons conversant with
philosophic terminology such a phrase was almost commonplace, and is
indeed found in various associations[153]. The subsequent conversion of
the members of the triad into three ‘persons’ introduced a simplification
which is only apparent, for the doctrine must always remain meaningless
except as a typical solution of the old problem of ‘the One and the
many,’ carried up to the level of ultimate Being[154].
[Sidenote: Subsequent history.]
=485.= In the ages that have since followed mythology and philosophy have
been at work side by side within the Christian church. At no time had
Christians of philosophic temperament entirely thrown off the belief in
marvels, and this in increasing degree infected the whole Hellenistic
world from the second century onwards. But this spirit of concession
proved no sure protection to men who, after all, were guilty of thinking.
It was substantially on this ground that the first persecutions began
within the church. Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria (circ. 230 A.D.),
excommunicated Origen, and obtained the support of the great majority of
the Christian churches for his action; still Origen steadily held his
ground, and has found advocates in all ages of Christian history[155].
Throughout the ‘dark ages’ philosophical thought lay almost extinguished,
and a childish credulity attained such monstrous dimensions as to
threaten the very existence of social life. In the ecclesiastical
chronicles of the middle ages miracles are so frequent that the orderly
course of nature seems the exception; angels and devils are so many
that men are almost forgotten. To these hallucinations and fictions of
the monastery, so deservedly ridiculed in the _Ingoldsby Legends_[156],
the practical experience of daily life must always have supplied some
corrective; the swollen claim of ‘faith’ to say yes to every absurdity
had to be met by the reassertion of criticism, the right to say ‘no.’ The
Reformation, at the cost of infinite effort and sacrifice, swept away the
miracles of the saints; modern criticism has spared none of the marvels
of the Old Testament, and is beginning to lay its axe to the root of
those of the New. Every day the conviction that ‘miracles do not happen’
gains ground amongst intelligent communities; that is (in philosophic
language) the dualism of God and Nature is being absorbed in the wider
monism according to which God and Nature are one.
[Sidenote: Christian philosophy.]
=486.= As the credit of Christian mythology diminishes, the philosophic
content of the new religion is regaining its authority. The doctrine of
the ‘spiritual life’ has not yet lost its freshness or its power; but the
more closely it is examined, the more clearly will it be seen that it is
rooted in the fundamental Stoic conceptions of providence and duty, and
that, in the history of the Christian church, it is specially bound up
with the life and writings of the apostle Paul. It is not suggested that
the sketch of Christian teaching contained in this chapter is in any way
a complete or even a well-proportioned view of the Christian faith; for
we have necessarily thrown into the background those elements of the new
religion which are drawn from Judaism[157] or from the personality of the
Founder. Nor have we found in Paul a Stoic philosopher: it remains for
a more direct and profound study to determine which of the forces which
stirred his complex intellect most exactly represents his true and final
convictions. No man at any rate ever admitted more frankly the conflict
both of moral and of intellectual cravings within himself; no man ever
cautioned his followers more carefully against accepting all his words
as final. With these reservations we may perhaps venture to join in the
hopes of a recent writer who was endowed with no small prophetic insight:
‘The doctrine of Paul will arise out of the tomb where for
centuries it has lain buried. It will edify the church of the
future; it will have the consent of happier generations, the
applause of less superstitious ages. All will be too little to
pay the debt which the church of God owes to this “least of the
apostles, who was not fit to be called an apostle, because he
persecuted the church of God[158].”’
[Sidenote: Stoicism in the present.]
=487.= When that day comes, it will be recognised that Stoicism is
something more than what the Church Fathers meant when they described
it as part of the ‘preparation of the gospel’; that it may rather be
regarded as forming an integral part of the Christian message, or (as it
has been recently called) a ‘root of Christianity[159].’ If this view
is correct, Stoicism is not dead nor will it die; whether it is correct
or not, the study of Stoicism is essential to the full understanding
of the Christian religion, as also to that of many other fundamental
conceptions of our modern life. Still the Christian churches celebrate
yearly in quick succession the twin festivals of Pentecost and Trinity,
in which the groundwork of the Stoic physics is set forth for acceptance
by the faithful in its Christian garb; whilst the scientific world has
lately in hot haste abandoned the atomic theory as a final explanation
of the universe, and is busy in re-establishing in all its essentials
the Stoic doctrine of an all-pervading aether. In the practical problems
of statesmanship and private life we are at present too often drifting
like a ship without a rudder, guided only by the mirages of convention,
childishly alarmed at the least investigation of first principles; till
the most numerous classes are in open revolt against a civilisation which
makes no appeal to their reason, and a whole sex is fretting against a
subordination which seems to subserve no clearly defined purpose. In
this part of philosophy we may at least say that Stoicism has stated
clearly the chief problems, and has begun to pave a road towards their
solution. But that solution will not be found in the refinements of
logical discussion: of supreme importance is the force of character which
can at the right moment say ‘yes’ or say ‘no.’ In this sense also (and
not by any more mechanical interpretation) we understand the words of the
Founder of Christianity: ‘let your language be “Yes, yes” or “No, no”;
anything in excess of this comes from the Evil one[160].’ To the simple
and the straightforward, who trust themselves because they trust a power
higher than themselves, the future belongs.
FOOTNOTES
[1] As to supposed instances to the contrary see Winckler, _Stoicismus_,
pp. 5 to 14.
[2] For material of this kind see Winckler’s dissertation just quoted,
and Lightfoot’s _Philippians_, pp. 278-290.
[3] ‘For we are also his offspring’ Acts xvii 28.
[4] 1 Cor. i 20-25.
[5] John i 1.
[6] In the references to the New Testament books in this chapter no
attempt is made to apply any precise critical theory of their origin or
date. Since we suppose that all Christian doctrine was enunciated orally
long before it was committed to writing, the date and circumstances
of the written record become for the present purpose of secondary
importance. Translations from the New Testament are, as a rule, taken
from Dr R. F. Weymouth’s _New Testament in Modern Speech_ (London 1903).
This admirable translation has for the present purpose the great negative
advantage of keeping in the background the mass of associations which
hinder the modern reader from taking the words of the writers in their
simple and natural sense; but on the other hand, Dr Weymouth sometimes
disguises the technical terms of ancient philosophy so far as to make
them unrecognisable. In such cases the Revised Version is quoted, and
occasionally the Greek text.
[7] Matt. xiii 55, Luke ii 48; and see below, § 482.
[8] Luke ii 46, 47. Such men would of course be typical of the spirit of
‘Judaism,’ see § 22 above.
[9] See the treatment of the Jonah myth (Matt. xii 40 and 41), and of the
prophecy of the return of Elijah (Matt. xvii 10 to 13).
[10] Matt. xxiii 13.
[11] Matt. iv 1 to 11; Mark i 13; Luke iv 1 to 14.
[12] Matt. xii 1 to 13; Mark ii 23 to 28; Luke vi 1 to 10.
[13] John iv 21.
[14] Matt. v 5.
[15] Matt. vi 9 to 13; a doxology is first found in the MS of the
_Teaching of the Apostles_, and it was probably not specifically
connected with the prayer originally.
[16] John xiii 21.
[17] Luke xxii 44.
[18] John viii 6 and 8.
[19] Matt. v 48; Luke vi 40.
[20] Matt. xxvi 41; Mark xiv 38. The author of the _Epistle to the
Hebrews_ adopts the technical terms of Stoicism more completely.
According to him Christ was touched with all the passions of weak men,
but to a degree falling short of sin; οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα μὴ δυνάμενον
συμπαθῆσαι ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν ... χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας Heb. iv 15. Thus the
agony in the garden, though accompanied by loud cries and tears, did not
pass the limits of the healthy affection of caution (εὐλάβεια), or (as we
might say) ‘anxiety’; _ib._ v 7.
[21] John xx 28.
[22] Mark x 15.
[23] Acts xii 15.
[24] This antipathy to the Roman government finds biting expression in
the _Apocalypse of John_.
[25] There seems to be no definite reference even to the Lord’s prayer,
or to any of the parables, in the books named above.
[26] For instance, that of ‘love’ in 1 Cor. xiii, and of ‘faith’ in
Hebrews xi.
[27] For the conflict between St Paul and the church at Jerusalem, see
below, § 480; for his tone towards those who differed from him, see
Galatians i 8 and 9; Col. ii 4; 1 Tim. i 20, vi 3 to 5; Titus i 10. A
gentle expostulation as to this style of controversy is found in the
epistle of James, see note 39.
[28] ‘With such zeal do the inhabitants [of Tarsus] study philosophy and
literature, that they surpass Athens, Alexandria, and all other schools
of learning.... Rome knows well how many men of letters issue from this
city, for her streets swarm with them’ Strabo xiv p. 673.
[29] Juv. _Sat._ iii 117 and 118; and see above, § 25, note 65.
[30] Romans viii 20 and 21.
[31] Romans vi 17, 1 Cor. i 10.
[32] 2 Cor. xii 2 to 5.
[33] ‘a knowledge of the conduct which the Law requires is engraven on
the hearts [of the Gentiles]’ Rom. ii 15.
[34] _ib._
[35] ‘my conscience adds its testimony to mine’ Rom. ix 1.
[36] _ib._
[37] ‘Faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope’
Heb. xi 1. Thus whilst sense-knowledge, and especially sight, calls for
acceptance because it is ‘objective,’ and detached from personal bias,
faith is essentially subjective, and suggests a power by which (in
harmony with a divine source) personality dominates fact.
[38] 2 Cor. i 19.
[39] ‘Do not be eager to become teachers; for we often stumble and fall,
all of us’ James iii i and 2.
[40] ‘He who does what is honest and right comes to the light’ John
iii 21; ‘if any one is willing to do His will, he shall know about the
teaching’ _ib._ vii 17.
[41] ‘The cravings of the [flesh] are opposed to those of the spirit, and
the cravings of the spirit are opposed to those of the [flesh]’ Gal. v
17; cf. Romans viii 12 and 13.
[42] See above, § 460, note 20.
[43] ‘There are bodies which are celestial and there are bodies which are
earthly’ 1 Cor. xv 40; ‘as surely as there is an animal body, so there is
also a spiritual body’ _ib._ 44.
[44] 2 Cor. v 16.
[45] 1 Cor. xi 24, 25.
[46] ‘which are a shadow of the things to come, but the body is Christ’s’
Col. ii 17 (Revised Version).
[47] ‘The universe (τὰ πάντα) owes its origin to Him, was created by Him,
and has its aim and purpose in Him’ Rom. xi 36 (Weymouth’s translation);
‘of him and through him and unto him are all things’ _ib._ (Revised
Version); ‘God, the Father, who is the source of all things’ 1 Cor. viii
6. See further _ib._ xv 24 and 28.
[48] ‘Christ, who is the image of God’ 2 Cor. iv 4; ‘he brightly reflects
God’s glory and is the exact representation of His being’ Hebr. i 3.
[49] ‘Christ is the visible representation of the invisible God, the
First-born and Lord of all creation’ Col. i 15; ‘it is in Christ that the
fulness of God’s nature dwells embodied’ _ib._ ii 9.
[50] ‘in him were all things created ...; all things have been created
through him and unto him’ _ib._ i 16 (Revised Version); ‘through whom
[God] made the ages’ Hebrews i 2. Compare the discussion on the four
causes above, § 179, and the phrase of Marcus Aurelius: ἐκ σοῦ πάντα, εἰς
σὲ πάντα, ἐν σοὶ πάντα _To himself_, iv 23.
[51] ‘Those he has also predestined to bear the likeness of his Son’ Rom.
viii 29; ‘a man is the image and glory of God’ 1 Cor. xi 7.
[52] ‘woman is the glory of man; woman takes her origin from man’ 1 Cor.
xi 7 and 8 (with special reference to Eve); cf. 1 Thess. iv 4 (R. V.), 1
Pet. iii 7.
[53] ‘there were heavens which existed of old, and an earth, the latter
arising out of water by the [word] of God’ 2 Pet. iii 5.
[54] ‘the heavens will pass away with a rushing noise, the elements be
destroyed in the fierce heat, and the earth and all the works of man be
utterly burnt up’ _ib._ 10. But compare 1 Cor. iii 13 to 15.
[55] The omission is due to contempt of dumb creatures, see 1 Cor. ix 9.
[56] ‘It is in closest union with Him that we live and move and have our
being’ Acts xvii 28; ‘one God and Father of all ... rules over all, acts
through all, and dwells in all’ Eph. iv 6.
[57] ‘God is dealing with you as sons; for what son is there whom his
father does not discipline?’ Heb. xii 7.
[58] ‘for those who love God all things are working together for good’
Rom. viii 28.
[59] ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself’ 2 Cor. v 19;
cf. Col. i 20.
[60] ‘these men are without excuse, for ... their senseless minds were
darkened ... in accordance with their own depraved cravings’ Romans i 20
to 24. The point is brought out still more plainly by a writer of the
opposite party, James i 13 to 15.
[61] ‘ours is not a conflict with mere flesh and blood, but with the
despotisms, the empires, the forces that control and govern this dark
world, the spiritual hosts of evil arrayed against us in the heavenly
warfare’ Eph. vi 12.
[62] ‘let your thanks to God the Father be presented in the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ’ _ib._ v 20.
[63] ‘it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away
sins’ Hebr. x 4.
[64] ‘in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any
importance’ Gal. v 6.
[65] ‘if you receive circumcision Christ will avail you nothing’ _ib._ v
2.
[66] ‘you scrupulously observe days and months, special seasons, and
years. I am alarmed about you’ _ib._ iv 10 and 11; cf. Col. ii 16 to 19.
[67] παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν, τὴν
λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν Rom. xii 1.
[68] 2 Cor. xiii 5.
[69] 1 Cor. xiv 15.
[70] 1 Tim. ii 8.
[71] Rom. xvi 25 to 27; 1 Cor. i 4; 2 Cor. i 3; Eph. i 3 to 14, iii 20
and 21; 1 Tim. i 17. Compare 1 Peter i 3 to 5.
[72] ‘The whole body—its various parts closely fitting and firmly
adhering to one another—grows by the aid of every contributory link, with
power proportioned to the need of each individual part’ Eph. iv 16; cf.
Rom. xii 4 and 5.
[73] 1 Cor. xv 44.
[74] The point is continually emphasized that there is only one spirit.
In English translations the double printed form, Spirit and spirit,
disguises the real meaning, ‘if there is any common sharing of the
spirit’ Philipp. ii 1.
[75] ‘You may, one and all, become sharers in the very nature of God’ 2
Peter i 4.
[76] ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία Rom. i 21.
[77] ‘our mortal bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor will
what is perishable inherit what is imperishable’ 1 Cor. xv 50; ‘if we
have known Christ as a man (κατὰ σάρκα), yet now we do so no longer’ 2
Cor. v 16. The Pauline doctrine of the spiritual resurrection, in spite
of its place in the sacred canon, has never been recognised by popular
Christianity, but it has found notable defenders in Origen in ancient
times, and in Bishop Westcott recently. ‘No one of [Origen’s] opinions
was more vehemently assailed than his teaching on the Resurrection. Even
his early and later apologists were perplexed in their defence of him.
Yet there is no point on which his insight was more conspicuous. By
keeping strictly to the Apostolic language he anticipated results which
we have hardly yet secured. He saw that it is the “spirit” which moulds
the frame through which it is manifested; that the body is the same, not
by any material continuity, but by the permanence of that which gives the
law, the _ratio_ as he calls it, of its constitution (Frag. _de res._ ii
1, p. 34). Our opponents say now that this idea is a late refinement of
doctrine, forced upon us by the exigencies of controversy. The answer is
that no exigencies of controversy brought Origen to his conclusion. It
was, in his judgment, the clear teaching of St Paul’ Westcott, _Religious
Thought in the West_, p. 244.
[78] ‘my earnest desire being to depart and to be with Christ’ Philipp. i
23.
[79] ‘We shall be with the Lord for ever’ 1 Thess. iv 17. So another
Paulist writer: ‘we see them eager for a better land, that is to say, a
heavenly one. For this reason God has now prepared a city for them’ Heb.
xi 16.
[80] The term used is κόκκος ‘grain’ in 1 Cor. xv 37, but σπέρμα ‘seed’
_ib._ 38. The Stoic term σπερματικὸς λόγος is found in Justin Martyr
_Apol._ ii 8 and 13.
[81] 1 Cor. xv 16, 17.
[82] ‘while we are at home in the body we are banished from the Lord; for
we are living a life of faith, and not one of sight’ 2 Cor. v 6; ‘we by
our baptism were buried with him in death, in order that we should also
live an entirely new life’ Rom. vi 4; ‘surrender your very selves to God
as living men who have risen from the dead’ _ib._ 13.
[83] ‘He is not the God of dead, but of living men’ Matt. xxii 32.
[84] Matt. x 39, xvi 25, John xii 25.
[85] John v 24.
[86] ‘the end eternal life’ Rom. vi 22 (Revised version); ‘you have the
Life of the ages as the final result’ _ib._ (Weymouth).
[87] ‘the end sought is the love which springs from a pure heart, a clear
conscience, and a sincere faith’ 1 Tim. i 5.
[88] ‘it is as the result of faith that a man is held to be righteous,
apart from actions done in obedience to Law’ Rom. iii 28.
[89] Titus i 15.
[90] Romans xiv 14.
[91] 1 Cor. xii 23.
[92] 1 Tim. iv 4.
[93] Eph. ii 19.
[94] ‘in Him the distinctions between Jew and Gentile, slave and free
man, male and female, disappear’ Gal. iii 28.
[95] See above, § 355.
[96] πρᾳότης καὶ ἐπιείκεια 2 Cor. x 1.
[97] 1 Cor. xiii. For the constancy of Caution see § 460, note 20.
[98] Justice (δικαιοσύνη) 1 Tim. vi 11; Courage (ὑπομονή) 1 Tim. vi 11,
(δύναμις) 2 Tim. i 7; Soberness (ἐγκράτεια) Gal. v 23.
[99] Rom. i 26 to 30; Gal. v 19 and 20; Col. iii 5.
[100] 2 Cor. ii 7, vii 10.
[101] ‘I shall go on working to promote your progress’ Philipp. i 25;
‘with my eyes fixed on the goal I push on’ _ib._ iii 14. There is also
(paradoxically) progress in wrongdoing; ‘they will proceed from bad to
worse in impiety’ 2 Tim. ii 16.
[102] The technical term used is τὰ ἀνήκοντα (Eph. v 4, Philem. 8), once
only (in negative form) καθήκοντα (Rom. i 28).
[103] In the sense in which the word ‘political’ is used above, §§
302-311.
[104] Rom. xiii 1 to 9; Ephes. v and vi; Col. iii 18 to 25; Titus ii 1 to
10; 1 Peter ii and iii.
[105] ‘You are a priesthood of kingly lineage’ 1 Peter ii 9.
[106] ‘as poor, but we bestow wealth on many; as having nothing, and yet
we securely possess all things’ 2 Cor. vi 10.
[107] ‘where the spirit of the Lord is, freedom is enjoyed’ 2 Cor. iii 17.
[108] ‘every one who commits sin is the slave of sin’ John viii 34.
[109] ‘if I am destitute of love, I am nothing’ 1 Cor. xiii 2.
[110] It is ἱκανότης not αὐτάρκεια (2 Cor. iii 5 and 6), the latter word
being used in a different sense, for which see § 480, note 135.
[111] The term (ἁμαρτία, _peccatum_) is Stoic.
[112] Lightfoot, _Philippians_, p. 296. This view has become familiar
through Milton’s treatment of the Fall of man in _Paradise Lost_. There
the prohibition of the forbidden fruit is nothing but a test of readiness
to obey. This point of view seems quite foreign to St Paul, who always
speaks of sin as sinful in itself, not in consequence of the Creator’s
will.
[113] Eph. v 12 (R. V.).
[114] Rom. i 26.
[115] 1 Cor. v 1.
[116] 1 Cor. vii 1 to 8.
[117] ‘It is well for a man to abstain altogether from marriage. But
because there is so much fornication every man should have a wife of his
own’ 1 Cor. vii i and 2.
[118] ‘If you marry, you have not sinned’ _ib._ 28.
[119] ‘if a woman will not wear a veil, let her also cut off her hair’ 1
Cor. xi 6. For the savage tabu of women’s hair see Jevons, _Introduction
to the History of Religion_, p. 78.
[120] 1 Cor. xi 10.
[121] _ib._ xiv 34 and 35.
[122] Rigveda x 10.
[123] See the author’s translation in his _Rigveda_ (London, 1900).
[124] See above, § 307.
[125] ‘just as through Adam all die, so also through Christ all will be
made alive again’ 1 Cor. xv 22.
[126] ‘God in his great mercy has begotten us anew’ 1 Peter i 3;
‘you have been begotten again from a germ not of perishable, but of
imperishable life’ _ib._ 23.
[127] ‘you are all sons of God through faith’ Gal. iii 26.
[128] Gal. ii 1.
[129] _ib._ 6.
[130] _ib._ 12.
[131] 1 Cor. xiii 11.
[132] _ib._ i 22.
[133] James v 8.
[134] James i 27, ii 15 to 17, v 1 to 3.
[135] 2 Cor. ix 8 (the technical term is αὐτάρκεια); ‘if a man does not
choose to work, neither shall he eat’ 2 Thess. iii 10.
[136] ‘worldly (i.e. materialistic) stories, fit only for credulous old
women, have nothing to do with’ 1 Tim. iv 7.
[137] Titus i 14.
[138] Galatians ii 9.
[139] ‘[Christ] was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the
spirit’ 1 Peter iii 18.
[140] ‘[Jesus Christ] who, as regards His human descent, belonged to
the posterity of David, but as regards the holiness of His Spirit was
decisively proved by the Resurrection to be the Son of God’ Romans i 4;
‘God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born subject to Law’ Gal. iv 4.
[141] 1 Peter i 3.
[142] In the account of the transfiguration in the _Gospel to the
Hebrews_ (p. 15, 36 Hilgenfeld; Preuschen _Antileg._ 4) Jesus says
‘Lately my mother, the holy spirit, seized me by one of my hairs and
carried me away to the great mountain of Thabor.’ Here Origen restores a
philosophical interpretation by referring to Matt. xii 50; ‘whoever shall
do the will of my Father ... is my mother’ _Comm. in Joh._ ii 12, p. 64
D. Modern writers find an identification of Mary with the Wisdom (σοφία)
of God. See Gruppe, _Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte_,
vol. ii p. 1614.
[143] Matt. i 23.
[144] 1 Cor. i 30.
[145] Philipp. ii 6.
[146] ‘That which was from the beginning ... concerning the Word of life’
1 John i 1; ‘his name is the Word of God’ Rev. xix 13.
[147] John i 1 to 3.
[148] John i 12 to 14.
[149] ‘apud vestros quoque sapientes λόγον (id est sermonem atque
rationem) constat artificem videri universitatis’ Tert. _Apol._ 21; ‘Zeno
opificem universitatis λόγον praedicat, quem et fatum et necessitatem et
animum Iovis nuncupat’ Lact. _Div. inst._ iv 9. Naturally the Christian
writers regard the Stoic doctrine of the Logos as an ‘anticipation’ of
their own, exactly as in modern times the Darwinists, having borrowed
from Epicurus the doctrine of atoms, regard the original doctrine as a
‘marvellous anticipation’ of modern science. Justin Martyr goes further,
and concludes that all believers in the Logos were (by anticipation)
Christians: οἱ μετὰ λόγου βιώσαντες Χριστιανοί εἰσι κἂν ἄθεοι ἐνομίσθησαν
_Apol._ i 46.
[150] The term is first used by Theophilus (c. 180 A.D.), of God, his
Word, and his Wisdom.
[151] In this passage an ‘anticipation’ of the doctrine of the Trinity
has many times been discovered; for instance in the 18th century by the
Jesuit Huet (Winckler, _der Stoicismus_, p. 9); in our own country by Dr
Heberden (see Caesar Morgan, _An investigation of the Trinity of Plato_,
Holden’s edition, 1853, p. 155); and again recently by Amédée Fleury and
others (Winckler, p. 8).
[152] See above, § 242.
[153] For instance in 1 John v 8, and (in substance) in 1 Cor. xiii 13.
[154] Whatever may be the ecclesiastical or legal sense of the word
‘person,’ in its original philosophical meaning it expresses an aspect of
individuality, and not an individual: see Cicero’s use of the term quoted
above, § 271, note 42.
[155] See above, § 470, note 77.
[156] This book claims rank as a classic; amongst others of similar
purpose may be mentioned R. Garnett’s _Twilight of the gods_ (New
edition, London 1903).
[157] Amongst these elements we include all that Christianity has drawn
from Persism through Judaism. We have indeed referred to the Persian
beliefs embodied in the ‘Lord’s prayer’; but it has lain outside our
scope to discuss the Eschatology which figures so largely in popular
conceptions of Christianity, but is now thought to be but slightly
connected with its characteristic message. On this point see especially
Carl Clemen, _Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des Neuen Testaments_
(Giessen, 1909), pp. 90-135.
[158] Matthew Arnold, _St Paul and Protestantism_ (Popular edition, p.
80).
[159] The full title of Winckler’s book from which we have often already
quoted is _Der Stoicismus eine Wurzel des Christenthums_.
[160] Matt. v 37.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
The numbers in brackets are those of the British Museum catalogue.
The dates given are usually those of the latest available edition.
I. ANCIENT WRITERS AND PHILOSOPHERS.
=Achilles= (the astronomer). Isagoge ad Arati phaenomena. In Migne’s
Patrology. (2001 c.) A better text in E. Maass’ Aratea; see ‘Aratus.’
=Aëtius= (1st cent. A.D.). Placita philosophiae. In ‘Doxographi Graeci’
ed. H. Diels, 1879. (2044 f.)
=Alexander= of Aphrodisias (circ. 200 A.D.). In Aristotelis metaphysica,
ed. M. Hayduck (Ac. 855/9); in Arist. Top. ed. M. Wallies (Ac. 855/9); de
anima, de fato, de mixtione, etc. ed. I. Bruns (2044 f).
=Ammonius= (the grammarian) of Alexandria. In Aristotelis analytica, ed.
M. Wallies. (Ac. 855/9.)
=Antigonus= (of Carystus, circ. 250 B.C.). Mirae auscultationes, ed.
A. Westermann, in ‘Paradoxographi Graeci.’ [His life of Zeno is the
basis of that given by Diogenes Laertius.] Antigonus von Carystos, by
Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, 1881. (12902 ee 25.)
=Antipater= (of Tarsus). Fragments in H. von Arnim ‘Stoicorum veterum
fragmenta.’ (8460 k.)
=Antoninus, M. Aur.= See Aurelius.
=Apollonius= (of Tyana; Neo-Pythagorean philosopher, ob. 97 A.D.). Ap. of
T., a study of his life and times, by F. W. Groves Campbell, 1908. (10606
l 4.) See also Mead, G. R. S., and Whittaker, T.
=Aratus.= Phaenomena, ed. E. Maass, 1893. (11312 f 58.) Comm. in Aratum
reliquiae, coll. E. Maass, 1898. (11313 gg 1.)
_Maass, E._ Aratea. 1892.
=Areius Didymus= (time of Augustus). The presumed fragments collected by
H. Diels in ‘Doxographi Graeci.’ 1879. (2044 f.)
=Aristo.= De Aristone Chio et Herillo Carthaginiensi Stoicis commentatio.
N. Saal, 1852. (10605 e 33.) See also the article by H. von Arnim, in
Pauly-Wissowa ii 957 sqq.
=Aristotle.= The commentaries on Aristotle are valuable authorities for
Stoic teaching; new editions are in course of publication by the Royal
Prussian Society of Science. The most important for our purpose are those
of Alexander, Dexippus, Philoponus, Simplicius, and Themistius. (Ac.
855/9.)
_Butcher, S. H._ Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry and Fine Art. 1902.
(2236 cc 9.) [Contains a discussion of the phrase κάθαρσις τῶν
παθημάτων.]
_Hicks, R. D._ Arist. de anima, 1907.
_Wallace, Edwin._ Aristotle’s Psychology in Greek and English,
with introd. and notes. 1882. (2236 cc.)
=Arrianus, Flavius= (2nd cent. A.D.). Ed. A. G. Roos, in Bibl. Teub.
(2047 c.)
=Athenaeus.= Ed. G. Kaibel, 3 vols., in Bibl. Teub. (2047 e.)
=Augustinus= (353-430 A.D.). In the Corpus Script. Eccles., vols. 25-28.
(2003 d.)
=Aurelius, M. Antoninus.= Ed. with commentary by Gataker, 1652, with
preface ‘de Stoica disciplina cum sectis aliis collata.’ Of this book
G. Long says, ‘it is a wonderful monument of learning, and certainly no
Englishman has yet done anything like it.’ (12205 ff 3.) Also ed. by J.
Stich, in Bibl. Teub. (2047 e.) Also by J. H. Leopold, in Script. Cl.
Bibl. Oxon. (2046 b.)
There are numerous translations. By M. Casaubon, 5th ed. 1692 (231 c
14), and edited with introd. by W. H. D. Rouse, 1899; by G. Long, 1862,
and with an essay by Matthew Arnold attached, 1904 (12204 p 3/15); by J.
Collier, revised by Alice Zimmern, 1891 (012207 l 3); by John Jackson,
1906 (8410 ee 23); and by G. H. Rendall, with introductory study on
‘Stoicism and the last of the Stoics,’ 1898 (08461 g 1).
Treatises by the following:
_Alston, L._ Stoic and Christian in the second century. 1906.
(4532 de 6.)
_Bach, N._ De M. Aurelio Ant. Imperatore philosophante.
_Bodek, Arn._ M. Aur. Ant. als Freund und Zeitgenosse des Rabbi
Jehuda ha-Nasi, 1868. (10605 ee 29.)
_Braune, A._ M. Aurel’s Meditationen, 1878.
_Crossley, Hastings._ The fourth book, with translation,
commentary, and appendix on C. Fronto, 1882. (8462 d 12.)
_Dartigne-Peyrou, J._ Marc-Aurèle dans ses rapports avec le
christianisme, 1897. (4530 ee 30.)
_Davis, C. H. S._ Greek and Roman Stoicism and some of its
disciples, 1903. (08461 g 11.)
_Ellis, Robinson._ The correspondence of Fronto and M. Aurelius.
(11312 g 11/4.)
_Königsbeck, Max._ De Stoicismo M. Antonini, 1861. (8461 bbb 33.)
_Pollock_, Sir _Fred._ See _Mind_, 1st series, vol. iv, pp. 47-68.
_Renan, J. E._ Marc-Aurèle et la fin du monde antique. 1882. (A,
B 35090.) Translated by W. Hutchinson, 1904. (012208 ee 120.)
_Russell, E. W._ Marcus Aurelius and the later Stoics. 1910.
_Schuster, J._ Ethices Stoicae apud M. Aur. Ant. fundamenta. 1869.
_Smith, B. E._ Selections from the original Greek, with introd.
New York, 1899. (8411 de 4.)
_Steinhauser, K._ Filosofie stoicka a Cisar Mark Aurel. Caslau,
1892.
_Suckau, M. E._ Étude sur Marc-Aurèle, sa vie et sa doctrine,
1858. (8461 c. 10.)
_des Vergers, M. Noel._ Essai sur Marc-Aurèle, 1860. (10605 ee
19.)
_Watson, P. B._ M. Aurelius Ant. 1884.
_Zeller, Ed._ See his Vorträge und Abhandlungen, pp. 82-107.
=Censorinus.= De die natali liber, ed. F. Hultsch. (2047 g.)
=Chalcidius.= In Timaeum, ed. Wrobel. (8462 dd 2.)
=Chrysippus.= See Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, ed. Hans von Arnim. 3
vols., 1903-5. (8460 k.)
_Baguet, F. N. G._ De Chrysippi vita, etc. Louvain, 1822.
_Bergk, Theodor._ De Chrys. libris περὶ ἀποφατικῶν. Cassel, 1841.
_Gercke, A._ Chrysippea. 1885. (R. PP. 4986.)
_Nicolai, R._ De logicis Chrysippi libris. Quedlinburg, 1859.
_Petersen, C._ Philosophiae Chrysippeae fundamenta. 1827. (714 d
38.)
=Cicero, M. Tullius.= Philosophica omnia, ed. R. Klotz. 2 vols. 1840, 1.
Libros qui ad rempublicam et ad philosophiam spectant ed. Th. Schiche. 9
vols. Prag, 1881-1890. (11305 bb.)
_Bernhardt, C. M._ De Cicerone graecae philosophiae interprete.
1865.
_Brandis, C. A._ See Rheinisches Museum iii 541 sqq. (R. PP.
4980, 1.)
_Gedike, Fr._ Zusammenstellung der auf die Geschichte der
Philosophie bezüglichen Stellen des Cicero. Berlin, 1814.
_Hirzel, Rudolf._ Untersuchungen zu Cicero’s philosophischen
Schriften. 3 vols., 1877-83. (8462 cc 12.)
_Levin, T. W._ Six lectures introductory to the philosophical
writings of Cicero. 1871. (8461 ee 19.)
_Merguet, P. A. H._ Lexicon zu den philosophischen Schriften
Cicero’s. 3 vols. 1889-94. (12933 l 13.)
_Thiaucourt, C._ Essai sur les traités philosophiques de Ciceron
et leurs sources grecques. 1885. (8460 f 8.)
ACADEMICA. Edited with full commentary by J. S. Reid. Also translation. 2
vols. 1885. (2282 d 2.)
DE DIVINATIONE.
DE FATO.
DE FINIBUS. Ed. J. N. Madvig. 3rd ed., 1876. (8408 g 6.) Ed. with introd.
and commentary by W. M. L. Hutchinson, 1909. (08407 f 26.)
DE LEGIBUS.
DE NATURA DEORUM. Ed. with introd. and comm. by J. B. Mayor. 3 vols.
1880-5. (2236 e 8.)
DE OFFICIIS. Ed. H. Holden, 7th ed. 1891. (2282 a 1.) Erklärende Ausgabe
von C. F. W. Müller, 1882. Translated by G. B. Gardiner, 1899.
PARADOXA. Erklärt von Max Schneider, 1891.
DE REPUBLICA. La République de Ciceron traduite ... avec un discours
préliminaire, par A. F. Villemain. 1858. (12238 ee 2.)
TUSCULANAE DISPUTATIONES. Erk. von Otto Heine, 1896.
_Corssen, P._ De Posidonio Rhodio M. Tulli Ciceronis in libro i
Tusc. disp. et in Somnio Scipionis auctore. Rhein. Mus. xxxvi p.
505 sqq. (R. PP. 4980, 1.)
_Zietschmann, G._ De Tusc. disp. fontibus. 1868.
=Cleanthes.= The fragments collected by A. C. Pearson, 1891 (2280 aa 3);
and by H. von Arnim in ‘Stoic. veterum fragm.’ 1903-5. (8460 k.)
_Mohnike, G. C. F._ Cleanthes der Stoiker. (832 b 14.)
_Wachsmuth, C._ (i) Cleanthis physica; (ii) commentatio de
Cleanthe Assio, 1874.
=Clemens= (of Alexandria, 150-211 A.D., and head of the Catecheten-school
there), ed. G. Dindorf, 4 vols. 1869. (3805 bbb 22.) Protreptikos and
Paidagogos ed. Otto Stählin, 1905.
_de Faye, E. Clém._ d’Alexandrie. Études sur les rapports du
Christianisme et de la philosophie grecque au IIe siècle, 1906.
(R. Ac. 8929/7.)
=Cornutus, Lucius Annaeus.= De natura deorum 1 ed. Fr. Osann; adj. est J.
de Volloison, de theologia physica Stoicorum commentatio. 1844. (1385 g
4.) Ed. G. Lang. 1881. (2048 a.)
_de Martini, G. J._ Disp. de L. A. Cornuto, 1825. (8461 cc 12.)
_Reppe, R._ De L. A. Cornuto. 1906.
=Crates= (of Mallos). De Cr. Mall. adiectis eius reliquiis. C. Wachsmuth,
Leipzig, 1860.
=Demetrius= (of Magnesia, 1st cent. B.C.). D. Magnetis fragm. 1858.
(11335 f 43.) He wrote a life of Zeno which is quoted by Themistius.
=Dexippus= (Platonist of 4th century A.D.) Ed. A. Busse. (Ac. 855/9.)
=Diocles= (of Magnesia). He wrote lives of the philosophers, from which
Diogenes Laertius quotes freely.
=Diogenes= (of Seleucia or Babylon). See H. von Arnim ‘Sto. vet.
fragmenta.’ (8460 k.)
=Diogenes Laertius= (‘Laertius’ is a nickname based on a verse of Homer;
about 230 A.D.). Lives of the philosophers, in ten volumes, based upon
earlier works. Our principal authority for Stoic doctrine. In Bibl.
Teub., 2 vols. (10606 a 23.) English trans, by C. D. Yonge, 1848.
=Dion Cassius.= Historia Romana. Ed. J. Melber in Bibl. Teub. (2048 a.)
=Dion= of Prusa (popular philosopher, circ. 50 A.D.). Ed. J. de Arnim.
(11391 ee 5.)
_von Arnim, H._ Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa, mit einer
Einleitung ‘Sophistik, Rhetorik, und Philosophie in ihrem Kampfe
um die Jugendbildung.’ 1898. (8460 g 20.)
=Dionysius= (of Halicarnassus). Ed. H. Usener and L. Radermacher. In
Bibl. Teub. (2048 a.) Contains an account of Chrysippus.
=Epictetus.= Ep. diss. libri IV. Gr. et Lat. Ann. ill. J. Schweighäuser,
1799, 1800. (8459 g 4.) Ep. dissertationes, ed. H. Schenkl. In Bibl.
Teub. (2278 k 5.) The references to the life of Epictetus are also
collected here. A commentary exists dating from the 6th century A.D. See
Simplicius. Translation with notes, a life of Epictetus, and a view of
his philosophy, by G. Long, 1848. (8460 ccc 30.) Popular edition in 2
vols., 1891.
_Asmus, R._ Quaestiones Epicteteae. Freiburg, 1888. (8463 i 6/2.)
_Bernard, Edw. R._ Great Moral Teachers; Epictetus. (8410 p 29.)
_Bonhöffer, A._ Epictet und die Stoa. 1890. (8460 g 11.) Die
Ethik des Stoïker’s Epictet. 1894.
_Brandis, C. A._ Epictetus (Dict. of Greek and Roman Biography).
_Braune, A._ Epictet und das Christenthum. Zeits. f. kirchl.
Wiss., 1884-9.
_Bruns, Ivo._ De schola Epicteti. Kiel, 1897.
_Crossley, H._ Golden sayings of Epictetus, etc. 1903. (8462 de
8.)
_Farrar, F. W._ Seekers after God: Epictetus. 1876. (3605 bb 3.)
_Grosch, G._ Die Sittenlehre des Epictetus. Wernigerode, 1867.
_Rouse, W. H. D._ Words of the ancient wise, from Epictetus.
1906. (8462 de 14.)
_Schenkl, H._ Die epiktetischen Fragmente. Wien, 1888.
_Schranka, E. M._ Der Stoïker Epictetus und seine Philosophie.
Frankfurt, 1885.
_Stuhrmann, J._ De vocabulis notionum philosophicarum ab Epicteto
adhibitis. Neustadt, 1885.
_Thurot, Charles._ Epictète, Manuel. 1892. (8460 aaa 37.)
_Zahn, Theodor._ Der Stoïker Epiktet und sein Verhältniss zum
Christenthum. Erlangen, 1895.
=Epiphanius= (Bishop of Constantia). Adversus haereses prooemium. (3627 c
19.)
=Eusebius.= Evangelica praeparatio, etc. Berlin, 1897. (2004 f.)
=Fragmenta Herculaniensia.= Ed. by Walter Scott. 1885. (7706 ee 13.)
=Fronto.= M. Cornelii Frontonis et M. Aurelii imperatoris epistulae. Ed.
S. A. Naber. 1867. (10905 ccc 19.)
=Galenus, Claudius= (of Pergamus; circ. 131-200 A.D. He was a physician
who attended the family of Marcus Aurelius, and he gives large extracts
from Chrysippus’ books _de anima_ and _de affectibus_). Ed. C. G. Kuhn,
20 vols., 1821-3. (541 d 1 to 20.) This edition has a good index; its
pages are referred to by the letter K. Also edited by Marquardt, Müller,
and others in Bibl. Teub. 1884-93. (2048 b.) Also an edition by Iw.
Müller of the book _de placitis Hipp. et Plat._, the pages of which are
referred to by the letter M.
=Gellius, Aulus= (2nd cent. A.D.). Post M. Hertz ed. C. Hosius in Bibl.
Teub. (2048 b.)
=Hecataeus= (a geographer of Miletus, circ. 500 B.C.). Fragm. Gr. et Lat.
ed. C. et Th. Müller in ‘Hist. Graec. fragmenta,’ vol. i. Paris, 1878-85.
(2053 b.)
=Hecato= (of Rhodes). Panaetii et Hecatonis fr. coll. H. N. Fowler. 1885.
=Heracleides= (of the Pontus; a pupil of Plato, and propounder of the
heliocentric system). See Steigmüller, H. in the _Archiv f. d. Geschichte
d. Philosophie_ xv, pp. 141 sqq. (PP. 1253 ba.)
=Heracleitus= (of Ephesus). H. Ephesii reliquiae; rec. I. Bywater, 1877.
(8460 ee 18.) H. Diels in ‘die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker,’ 1903. (2044
e.) H. von Ephesos, gr. und deutsch, von H. Diels, 1909.
_Bernays, J._ Neue Bruchstücke des H. (4980, 1 and 204 g h); die
Heraklitischen Briefe, 1869. (8461 dd 18.)
_Campbell, Lewis._ Heraclitus and Parmenides, in his edition of
Plato’s _Theaetetus_. 1883. (12204 f 19.)
_Diels, H._ Heraklit: eine Studie. 1904. (8461 ee 41.)
_Drummond, James._ See his _Philo-Judaeus_, 1888. (8485 d f 18.)
_Gladisch, A._ Herakleitos und Zoroaster. 1859. (4504 d 15.)
_Gomperz, Th._ Zu Heraklit’s Lehre. 1887.
_Lassalle, F. J. G._ Die Philosophie H. 2 vols., 1858. (8461 e
22.) Also a new edition by Löwenthal in 4 vols.
_Pfleiderer, Edmund._ Die Philosophie des H. im Lichte der
Mysterienidee. 1886. (8485 e 28.)
_Schäfer, G._ Die Philosophie d. Heraklit von Ephesus u. d.
moderne Heraklitforschung. 1902.
_Schultz, W._ Pythagoras und Heraklit. 1905.
_Wendland, P._ Ein Wort des H. im neuen Testament. 1899.
=Herillus.= _Krug, W. T._ H. de summo bono sententia, 1822.
=Hermias= (perhaps 5th or 6th cent. A.D.). Irrisio gentilium
philosophorum. Ed. J. C. Th. von Otto, Jena, 1872. Quoted in Diels’
‘Doxographi Graeci.’
=Herodotus.= The history transl. into English by G. C. Macaulay. 2 vols.
1890. (2280 aa 2.)
=Hierocles= (Stoic). Ethische Elementarlehre, her. von H. von Arnim und
Schubart. 1906.
_Prächter, K._ Hierokles der Stoiker. 1901.
=Hippolytus= (Bishop in 2nd cent. A.D.). Ed. G. N. Bonwetsch and H.
Achelis. 1897. (2004 f.)
=Iamblichus= (Neo-platonist philosopher, early in 4th cent. A.D.). Rec.
G. Parthey, 1857.
=Iulianus= (the emperor). Ed. F. C. Hertlein, in Bibl. Teub. (2048 d);
transl. by C. W. King (2500 f 13.)
_Gardner, Alice._ Julian the Philosopher. 1890. (10601 f 30.)
_Rendall, G. H._ The Emperor Julian, Paganism and Christianity.
1879. (4534 cc 8.)
=Iustinus= (historian, circ. 4th cent. A.D.). Historiarum Philippicarum
libri xliv. Ed. C. H. Frotscher. 3 vols., 1827. (9040 cc 12.)
=Iustinus= (the martyr: circ. 105-165 A.D.). Op. Gr. et Lat. ed. J. C.
Th. von Otto. 3 vols. 1876-81. (3622 cc 3.)
=Lactantius= (3rd cent. A.D.). Ed. S. Brandt and G. Laubmann in Corpus
Script. Eccl. Lat. (2003 d.)
=Lucanus, M. Annaeus.= Pharsalia, ed. C. E. Haskins. 1887. (2045 e.)
Scholia in Lucanum. 1869. (11312 g 30.)
_Diels, H._ Seneca und Lucan. Abh. d. Ak. d. Wiss. z. Berlin,
1885. (Ac. 855/6.)
=Lucianus= (of Samosata, 130-200 A.D.). Ed. J. Sommerbrodt. 3 vols.
1886-99. Ed. Nils Nilén in Bibl. Teub. (2048 d.)
_Bernays, J._ Lucian und die Kyniker. 1879. (8462 cc 10.)
=Lucilius, C.= Rec. F. Marx. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1904-6.
=Lucretius, T. Carus.= Ed. H. A. J. Munro. 3 vols. 1893. (2045 h.)
_Masson, J._ Lucretius, Epicurean and Poet; with notes and
comments by J. S. Reid. 2 vols. 1907-9. (2282 c 22.)
=Macrobius.= Ed. F. Eyssenhardt in Bibl. Teub. (2278 c 9.) On the λόγοι
σπερματικοί see _Saturnalia_ vii 16.
=Marcellinus, Ammianus= (historian, of 5th cent. A.D.). Ed. V.
Gardthausen in Bibl. Teub. (2048 d.) Ed. C. U. Clark, Berlin, 1910.
_Michael, H._ De Amm. Marc. studiis Ciceronianis. Breslau, 1874.
=Maximus= (of Tyre: 2nd cent. A.D.). Ed. F. Dübner, Paris, 1840. (2046
e.) Ed. H. Hobein, 1910. Transl. by T. Taylor. 2 vols. 1804. (1385 g 3.)
=Minucius, M. Felix= (3rd cent. A.D.). Ed. H. Bönig in Bibl. Teub. 1903.
(2047 a.)
=Musonius, C. Rufus.= Ed. O. Hense in Bibl. Teub. (2048 e.)
_Baltzer, E._ Musonius’ Charakterbild aus der römischen
Kaiserzeit. 1871.
_Bernhardt, Otto._ Zu Musonius Rufus. Sorau, 1866.
_Pflieger, T._ Musonius bei Stobaeus. Tauberbischofsheim, 1897.
_Wendland, P._ Quaestiones Musonianae. Berlin, 1886. (11312 dd
12/4.)
=Nemesius= (5th cent. A.D..). De natura hominis (in Greek). In Migne’s
Patrology. (2001 d.) Nemesius drew largely from Aëtius.
=Origenes= (185-254 A.D.). In Migne’s Patrology. (2004 f.) Commentary
on St John, ed. A. E. Brooke. 1896. Philosophumena: revised text with
introd. etc., by J. A. Robinson, 1893.
_Fairweather, W._ Origen and Greek Patristic Theology. (10600 eee
7/13.)
_Falconer, J. W._ Origen and the return to Greek theology. Biblia
Sacra liii, pp. 466 sqq.
_Westcott, B. F._ Origen and the beginnings of Christian
philosophy. In his Essays in the history of religious thought in
the West. 1891. (8486 aaa 1.)
=Orphica.= Ed. E. Abel. Prag, 1885.
_Maass, E._ Orpheus; Untersuchungen z. gr. röm. altchristl.
Jenseitsdichtung und Religion. 1895.
=Panaetius= (180-110 A.D.). P. et Hecatonis librorum fragm. coll. H. N.
Fowler, 1855. Disputatio hist. de P. Rhodio. F. van Lynden. Leyden, 1802.
(8460 cc 16.)
=Papiri Ercolanesi=, ed. D. Comparetti. Turin, 1875. Contains an index to
the Stoic philosophers.
=Pausanias.= Ed. H. Hitzig and H. Blümer, 1896-1910. (2044 f.) Transl.
with comm. by J. G. Frazer, 1898. (2044 e.)
=Persius, A. Flaccus.= Ed. with transl. and comm. by J. Conington. Third
edition by H. Nettleship, 1893.
_Houck, M. E._ De ratione stoica in Persii satiris conspicua.
Daventriae, 1894.
=Philo= (of Alexandria, circ. 20 B.C. to 50 A.D.). Ed. T. Mangey, 1742.
(691 k 78.) Ed. L. Cohn et P. Wendland, 1896-1906. (8459 h and 3623 de.)
_Arnim, H. von._ Quellenstudien z. P. von Al. 1888.
_Drummond, James._ Philo Judaeus. 1888.
_Freudenthal. J._ Die Erkenntnisslehre P.’s von Al. 1891.
_Harnack, A._ De Phil. Jud. λόγῳ inquisitio. 1879.
_Heinze, Max._ Die Lehre vom Logos in d. griech. Philosophie.
1872.
_Lake, J. W._ Plato, Philo and Paul; or the pagan conception of a
divine λόγος the basis of the Christian dogma. 1874. (4027 e 7/5.)
_Mills, L. H._ Zarathustra, Philo, the Achaemenids, and Israel.
1905. (4506 ee 26.)
_Wendland, P._ Die philos. Quellen des P. in s. Schrift über die
Vorsehung. 1891. P.’s Schrift über die Vorsehung. 1892. (8460 f
4.)
=Philodemus= (of Gadara, 1st cent. B.C.). In Bibl. Teub. (2048 e.)
_Gomperz, Th._ Zu Philodem’s Büch. v. d. Musik. 1885.
=Philoponus= (Aristotelian commentator, 7th cent. A.D.). Ed. M. Hayduck
and others for Royal Prussian Academy. 1887-. (Ac. 855/9.) The _comm. in
Aristotelis physica_ is of special value for its account of the Stoic
logic.
=Plotinus= (Neo-platonist, 205-270 A.D.). Ed. R. Volkmann in Bibl. Teub.
(2048 f.) He criticized specially the Stoic doctrine of categories.
=Plutarchus= (circ. 46-120 A.D.). Moralia, ed. G. N. Bernardakis in Bibl.
Teub. (2047 a, etc.)
=Posidonius.= Pos. Rhodii rell. coll. J. Bake. 1810. (91 i 1.)
_Corssen, P._ De Pos. R. Ciceronis in lib. i. Tusc. disp. et in
somn. Scip. auctore. 1878. Rhein. Mus. xxxvi p. 505. (R. PP.
4980, 1 and 2049 h i.)
_Hultsch, F._ Pos. über d. Grösse und Entfernung d. Sonne. 1897.
(Ac. 6770.)
_Scheppig, R._ De Pos. Apamensi. Berlin, 1870. (8367 f 7/12.)
_Schühlein, F._ Zu Posidonius Rhodius. Freising, 1891. Über P.’s
Schrift περὶ ὠκεανοῦ. 1900.
_Töpelmann, V. E. P._ De Pos. Rhodio rerum scriptore. Bonn, 1867.
(8363 b 7/13.)
=Proclus Diadochus= (Platonic commentator, 5th cent. A.D.). In Bibl. Teub.
=Seneca, L. Annaeus.= Opera, ed. by O. Hense and others, in Bibl. Teub.
(2048 g 15, 16.) Quaestiones Naturales. Transl, by J. Clarke, with notes
by Sir Archibald Geikie. 1910. (08709 c 2.)
_Aubertin, C._ Sénèque et S. Paul. 1869. (4807 dd 3.)
_Badstübner, E._ Beitr. z. Erkl. der philos. Schriften Sen.’s.
Hamburg, 1901. (8460 l 5.)
_Baumgarten, M. L. A._ Seneca u. d. Christenthum. 1895.
_Baur, F. C._ Seneca und Paulus. 1858. In Zeitsch. f. wiss.
Theologie, 1, 2 and 3. (PP. 88 c.)
_Bernhardt, W._ Die Anschauung des Seneca vom Universum 1861.
(8705 ee 15/5.)
_Betzinger._ Weltfrohes u. Weltfreies aus S.’s Schriften. S. u.
d. Christenthum. 1899.
_Bock, F._ Aristoteles Theophrastus Seneca de matrimonio.
Leipzig, 1898.
_Burgmann, Rud._ S.’s Théologie in ihrem Verhältniss zum
Stoicismus und zum Christenthum. 1872.
_Diels, H._ Seneca und Lucan. Abh. d. Ak. d. Wiss. z. Berlin,
1885. (Ac. 855/6.)
_Fleury, Amédée._ Saint Paul et Sénèque. 2 vols. 1853.
_Gercke, Alf._ Seneca-studien. 1895. (R. PP. 4986 Bd. 22, Heft 1.)
_Heikel, J. A._ Seneca’s Charakter und politische Thätigkeit.
Helsingfors, 1888.
_Hense, O. F._ Seneca und Athenodorus. Freiburg, 1893.
_Lightfoot, J. B._ St Paul and Seneca. In his _Philippians_,
1879. (3266 ff 6.)
_Martens, A._ De L. A. Sen. vita, etc. Altona 1871. (10605 ee 6.)
_Martha, C._ Sénèque. C. R. Acad. d. Sci. mor. et pol., cxxxv,
1891.
_Ribbeck, W._ L. A. Sen. der Philosoph, und sein Verhältniss zu
Epikur, Plato, und dem Christenthum. Hannover, 1887. (8464 dd
34/9.)
_Rubin, Sol._ Die Ethik S.’s in ihrem Verhältniss zur älteren und
mittleren Stoa. München, 1901. (8409 m 15.)
_Summers, W. C._ Select letters. 1910. (010910 e 35.)
_Thomas, P._ Morceaux choisis. Extrait des lettres à Lucilius et
des traités de morale. 1896.
=Servius.= Comm. ad Verg. Aen. (11312 i 35.)
=Sextus Empiricus= (3rd cent. A.D.). Ed. I. Bekker, 1842. (1385 i 3.)
=Simplicius= (Aristotelian commentator, 6th cent. A.D.). Ed. Heiberg and
others for Royal Prussian Academy. (Ac. 855/9.)
=Stobaeus, Johannes= (4th or 5th cent. A.D.). A collector of extracts.
His works were formerly divided into _Eclogae_ and _Florilegium_. In the
current edition by C. Wachsmuth and O. Hense, 4 vols., Berlin, 1884-
(8462 ee), this distinction is dropped. This edition is not yet complete,
and occasionally reference has to be made to A. Meineke’s edition of the
Florilegium, 6 vols., Leipzig, 1855-7. (2047 a.)
=Strabo= (geographer, circ. 54 B.C. to 24 A.D.). Ed. A. Meineke. 3 vols.
Leipzig, 1877. Also in Didot’s Script. Gr. Bibl. (2046 c.)
=Suidas= (lexicographer). Lexicon, ed. I. Bekker. 1854. (12923 ee 14.)
=Tertullianus= (160-220 A.D.). Ed. A. Reifferscheid et G. Wissowa, in the
Corpus Script. Eccl. 1890-. (2003 d.)
=Themistius= (Aristotelian commentator, circ. 350 A.D.). Ed. R. Heinze
and others for Royal Prussian Academy. (Ac. 855/9.)
=Theodoretus= (bishop of Cyrus, circ. 425 A.D.). Graecorum affectionum
curatio, ed. J. Raeder in Bibl. Teub. (2049 a.) He has preserved long
extracts from Aëtius.
=Theophilus= (bishop). Ed. J. G. Wolf, 1724. (3622 cc 3.)
=Varro, M. Terentius.= De lingua Latina quae supersunt ed. G. Goetz et
Fr. Schöll. (12933 v 2.) Antiquitates divinae, ed. R. Agahd. In Bibl.
Teub.
=Xenocrates.= Darstellung d. Lehre und Sammlung d. Fragmente, von R.
Heinze. 1892.
=Zeno.= The fragments of Zeno and Cleanthes, by A. C. Pearson. 1891.
(2280 aa 3.) Also in von Arnim’s Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, 1903 to
1905. (8460 k.)
_Meuleman._ Commentatio literaria de Zenone Stoico. Groningen,
1858.
_Troost, K._ Z. Citiensis de rebus physicis doctrina. 1891. (PP.
4991 e.)
_Wachsmuth, C._ Commentatio de Zenone Citiensi. 1874.
_Wellmann, E._ Die Philosophie des Stoïker’s Z. 1873.
=Zoroaster.= See article by Karl F. Geldner in the Encyclopaedia
Britannica. Zoroaster the prophet of ancient Iran, by A. V.
Williams-Jackson. New York, 1899. (4505 eee 9.) See also Philo (Mills).
II. MODERN WRITERS.
=Aall, Anathon.= Der Logos. Geschichte seiner Entwicklung in d. griech.
Philosophie und in d. christlichen Literatur. 2 vols. 1896, 9. (08461 h
8.)
=Adam, James.= The religious teachers of Greece. 1908. (4506 i 7.)
=Allard, P.= Le Christianisme et l’Empire romain de Néron à Théodose. 2nd
ed., 1897. (2208 a.)
=Alston, L.= Stoic and Christian in the second century. 1906. (4532 de 6.)
=Apelt, O.= Beiträge zur Geschichte d. gr. Philosophie. 1891. (8486 e 3.)
=Archiv= für Geschichte der Philosophie. Herausg. von Ludwig Stein.
Berlin, 1888-. (PP. 1253 ba.)
=Arnim, Hans von.= Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. 3 vols., 1903-5. (8460
k.) See also Aristo and Philo.
=Arnold, Matthew.= Essay attached to an edition of Long’s Marcus
Aurelius, 1904. (12204 p 3/15.) St Paul and Protestantism. Popular
edition, 1887. (3266 bb 1.)
=Aubertin, C.= De sapientiae doctoribus, qui a Ciceronis morte ad Neronis
principatum Romae viguerunt. Paris, 1857. (8461 bb 8.) See also Seneca.
=Aust, E.= Die Religion der Römer. Münster i. W., 1899. (4506 f 29.)
=Avenel, J. d’.= Le Stoïcisme et les Stoïciens. 1886.
=Baldensperger, W.= Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu’s im Lichte der
messianischen Hoffnungen seiner Zeit. 2nd ed., 1892. (4226 h 2.)
=Barth, Paul.= Die Stoa. Stuttgart, 1908. (08464 f.)
=Baumhauer, J. C. M. von.= Veterum philosophorum, praecipue Stoicorum,
doctrina de morte voluntaria. Bonn, 1842. (8460 e 13.)
=Bäumker, Cl.= Das Problem d. Materie in d. griech. Philosophie. Münster,
1890.
=Baur, F. Ch.= Zur Geschichte d. alten Philosophie und ihres
Verhältnisses zum Christenthum. 1876.
=Benn, A. W.= The Greek Philosophers. 2 vols. 1882. (8461 dd 14.)
=Bergson, Henri L.= L’évolution créatrice. 1907. (7006 g 29.)
=Bernays, J.= Lucian und die Kyniker. 1879. (8462 cc 10.)
=Bois, Henri.= Essai sur les origines de la philosophie
judéo-alexandrine. 1890. (8486 bbb 28.)
=Boissier, Gaston.= La fin du paganisme. 1891. (4530 Le 1.) L’opposition
sous les Césars. 5th ed., 1905. (09039 bb 9.) La religion romaine
d’Auguste jusqu’aux Antonins. 2 vols. 2nd ed., 1878. (2212 g.)
=Bonhöffer, Adolf.= Zur stoischen Psychologie. Philologus liv, 1895, pp.
4023-4429. (R. PP. 5043.) See also Epictetus.
=Borchert, L.= Num Antistius Labeo ... Stoicae philosophiae fuerit
addictus? Breslau, 1869. (6006 e 11/2.)
=Brandis, Christian August.= Handbuch d. Gesch. d. gr-röm. Philosophie.
3 vols. 1835-66. (1386 d 20.) Gesch. d. Entwicklungen d. gr. Philosophie
und ihrer Nachwirkungen im römischen Reiche. 2 vols. 1862-4. (2236 e 2.)
=Bréheir, Émile.= La théorie des incorporels dans l’ancien stoïcisme.
Archiv f. d. Gesch. d. Philosophie xxi, pp. 115-125. (PP. 1253 ba.)
=Brochard, Victor.= Sur la logique des stoïciens. Archiv f. d. Gesch. d.
Philosophie v, p. 449. (PP. 1253 ba.)
=Bryant, J. H.= The mutual influence of Christianity and the Stoic
school. 1866. (8461 bbb 27.)
=Burnet, J.= Early Greek Philosophy. 1908. (2023 c.)
=Caird, Edward.= The Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers. 2
vols., 1904. [On Stoicism see vol. ii, chs. xvi to xx.]
=Caldecott, Alfred.= The philosophy of religion. 1901. (4372 cc 29.)
=Campbell, Lewis.= Religion in Greek literature. See also Heracleitus.
1898. (4503 g 15.)
=Capes, William Wolfe.= Stoicism. 1882. (4421 f 64.)
=Caspari, E.= De Cynicis, qui fuerunt aetate imperatorum Romanorum.
Chemnitz, 1896.
=Cheyne, T. K.= Zoroastrianism and Primitive Christianity. Hibbert
Journal, 1903, 4. (R. PP. 324 ga.)
=Clemen, Carl.= Die religionsgeschichtliche Bedeutung des
stoisch-christlichen Eudämonismus in Justin’s Apologie. 1891.
Religionsgeschichtliche Erklärung des neuen Testaments. 1909.
=Collins, J. Churton.= Studies in Shakespeare. 1904. [Gives parallels
between Seneca’s tragedies and Shakespeare.] (2300 b 9.)
=Cruttwell, C. H.= A literary history of early Christianity. 2 vols.,
1893. (2208 b 3.)
=Cumont, Fr.= Textes et monum. fig. relatifs aux mystères de Mithra.
2 vols., 1899. La théologie solaire du paganisme romain. 1909. Les
Religions Orientales dans le paganisme romain. 2nd ed., 1909.
=Dähne, A. F.= Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüdisch-alexandrinischen
Religionsphilosophie. 2 vols. 1834. (1363 d 8.)
=Davids, T. W. Rhys.= Buddhism. 1901. (4505 cc 26.) Hibbert Lectures on
some points in the history of Buddhism. 1881. (2217 aa 11.)
=Davidson, William Leslie.= The Stoic creed. 1907. (3605 i.)
=Deussen, Paul.= Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie, mit besonderer
Rücksicht der Religionen. 1894. (8486 d.)
=Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology=, ed. by J. M. Baldwin. 3 vols.,
1905. (2023 h.)
=Diderot, Denis.= Essai sur les règnes de Claude et de Néron, et sur les
mœurs et les écrits de Sénèque. 2 vols., 1782.
=Diels, H.= Über die Philosophenschulen der Griechen (Zeller-Aufsätze,
1887). Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, gr. und deutsch von H. D. 2nd
ed., 1906-10. (2044 e.) Doxographi Graeci, 1879.
=Dill, S.= Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius. 1904. (09039 cc 3.)
=Döring, A.= Geschichte d. griech. Philosophie. 2 vols., 1903.
=Dourif, J.= Du Stoicisme et du Christianisme considerés dans leurs
rapports. 1863. (8470 e 16.)
=Drummond, James.= Philo-Judaeus, or the Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy in
its development and completion. 1888. (8485 df 18.)
=Dyroff, A.= Die Ethik der alten Stoa. 1897, 8. (PP. 4991 e.)
=Eisler, Rudolf.= Geschichte der Philosophie im Grundriss. 1895.
Wörterbuch der phil. Begriffe und Ausdrücke. 3rd ed., 1910. (2236 c 18.)
=Eucken, Rudolph.= Die Lebensanschauungen der grossen Denker. 1909. (8486
ee 6.) Geschichte der philos. Terminologie in Umriss. 1879. (8486 de 5.)
=Ewald, P.= Der Einfluss d. stoïsch-ciceronianischen Moral a. d.
Darstellung d. Ethik bei Ambrosius. 1881. (8463 df 25/6.)
=Fairweather, W.= The Background of the Gospels; or Judaism in the period
between the Old and New Testaments. 1908. (03225 h 15.)
=Favre, Mme Jules.= La morale stoïcienne. 1888. (8460 bb 27.)
=Feine=, ——. Stoïcismus und Christenthum. Theol. Lit.-Blatt 1905, pp. 73
sqq.
=Ferraz=, ——. De Stoica disciplina apud poetas Romanos. Paris, 1863.
=Fischer, Kuno.= Geschichte d. neueren Philosophie. Jubiläums-ausgabe,
1897-1901. (8486 ee.)
=Fowler, W. Warde.= Social life at Rome in the age of Cicero. 1908. (2382
e 10.)
=Franke, Carl.= Stoïcismus und Christenthum. Breslau, 1876. (4378 l 1.)
=Freudenthal, Jakob.= Ueber den Begriff des Wortes φαντασία bei
Aristoteles. 1863. (11312 d 9.) Zur Geschichte d. Anschauungen über
die jüdischhellenische Religionsphilosophie. 1869. (4034 dd 36/6.) Die
Erkenntnisslehre Philo’s von Alexandria. 1891.
=Friedländer, L.= Darstellungen aus d. Sittengeschichte Roms. 8th ed.
1910. (2258 b 2.) Authorized translation of 7th ed. by L. A. Magnus.
1908. (09039 dd.)
=Friedländer, Moritz.= Die religiösen Bewegungen innerhalb des Judaïsmus.
1905. (4516 eee 26.)
=Geldner, K.= See article ‘Zoroaster’ in Encyclopaedia Britannica.
=Giesecke, Alfred.= De philosophorum veterum quae ad exsilium spectant
sententiis. 1891. (8460 dd 25.)
=Giles, J. A.= The writings of the early Christians of the second
century. 1857. (3627 c 44.)
=Girard, J.= Le sentiment religieux en Grèce d’Homère à Eschyle. 1869-79.
=Gladisch, A.= Herakleitos und Zoroaster. 1859. (4504 d 15.) Die Religion
und die Philosophie in ihrer weltgeschichtlichen Entwicklung. 1852. (4531
c 11.)
=Glover, T. R.= The conflict of religions in the Early Roman Empire. 3rd
ed., 1909.
=Gomperz, Theodor.= Griechische Denker. 3 vols. 1903-8. (8486 dd.)
English translation by Laurie Magnus and G. G. Berrie. 1905.
=Göttling, C. W.= Diogenes der Cyniker oder die Philosophie des
griechischen Proletariats. Halle, 1851.
=Grant=, Sir =Alexander=. The Ancient Stoics. 1858. (PP. 6119 c.)
=Gruppe, O.= Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte. 2 vols.,
1906. (2044 g.)
=Haake, A.= Die Gesellschaftslehre der Stoïker. 1887.
=Häbler, A.= Zur Kosmogonie der Stoïker. Jahrb. f. Phil, und Päd. cxlvii,
1893, pp. 298-300.
=Haeckel, E.= Die Welträthsel. 1899. English transl., ‘The Riddle of the
Universe,’ by J. McCabe. 1908.
=Hamelin=, ——. Sur la logique des stoïciens. Ann. philosophiques, 1902,
p. 23.
=Hardy, E. G.= Christianity and the Roman Government. 1894. (4532 df 2.)
=Harnack, A.= Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. 3 vols., 3rd ed., 1894-7.
(3544 i.) History of Dogma, transl. by N. Buchanan, J. Millar, and W.
McGilchrist. 7 vols. 1894-9. (2206 cc 3.)
=Harrison, J. E.= Prolegomena to the study of Greek Religion. 2nd ed.,
1908.
=Hatch, E.= The influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian
church. 1890. (2217 aa 4.)
=Heinze, Max.= Die Lehre vom Logos in d. griechischen Philosophie. 1872.
Zur Erkenntnisslehre der Stoïker. Leipziger Prog., 1879, 80. Stoicorum
de fato doctrina. Stoicorum de affectibus doctrina. Stoicorum ethica ad
origines suas relata. 1862.
=Henderson, Bernard W.= The life and principate of the Emperor Nero.
1903. (10606 e 12.)
=Hepke=, ——. De philosophis qui Romae docuerunt usque ad Antoninos.
Berlin, 1842.
=Herford, C. H.= The Stoics as teachers. 1889.
=Hicks, E.= Traces of Greek Philosophy and Roman Law in the New
Testament. 1896. (4430 aaa 22.)
=Hicks, R. D.= Stoic and Epicurean. 1910.
=Hirzel, Rudolf.= De logica Stoicorum. 1879. (7006 c 17.) See also Cicero.
=Höffding, H.= Philosophy of Religion. Transl. by B. E. Meyer, 1906.
=Hüber, N.= Die Philosophie der Kirchenväter. 1859.
=Jevons, Frank Byron.= An Introduction to the History of Religion. 2nd
ed., 1902. (2217 bb 9.)
=Kaerst, J.= Geschichte des hellenistischen Zeitalters. 1909.
=Knauer, Vincenz.= Die Hauptprobleme der Philosophie. 1892. (8462 g 2.)
=Krische, A. B.= Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der alten Philosophie. 1840.
(1134 c 19.)
=Laberthonnière, P. L.= Essai de philosophie religieuse.
=Laferrière, L. F. J.= Mémoire concernant l’influence du Stoicisme sur la
doctrine des Jurisconsultes romains. Mém. de l’acad. d. sciences morales,
x, 1860, pp. 579-685. (5254 aaa 11.)
=Le Blant, Edmond.= Les persecutions et les martyrs aux premiers siècles
de nôtre ère. 1893. (4530 ee 24.)
=Lehmann, Edv.= Die Perser. In de la Saussaye’s Lehrbuch der
Religionsgeschichte. 2nd ed., 1897. (3554 i.)
=Lewes, G. H.= History of Philosophy. New ed., 1897. (2023 a.)
=Lightfoot, J. B.= See Seneca.
=Lindsay, James.= Studies in European Philosophy. 1909. [Chap. iv deals
with ‘the ethical philosophy of Marcus Aurelius.’]
=Lodge=, Sir =Oliver J.= Life and Matter. 2nd ed., 1909. (08461 f 40/1.)
=Long, George.= See Aurelius, Epictetus.
=Luthe, Werner.= Die Erkenntnisslehre der Stoiker. 1890. (08464 f 9/1.)
=Mahaffy, J. P.= Greek Life and Thought. 1896. (9026 bbb 3.) The progress
of Hellenism in Alexander’s Empire. 1905. (9025 bbb 28.) The empire of
the Ptolemies. 1895. (2382 b 5.) A survey of Greek civilisation. 1897.
(2258 b 19.)
=Martha, C.= Les moralistes sous l’empire romain. Philosophes et poètes.
1865. (8407 ff 17.) See also Seneca.
=Masson, J.= See Lucretius.
=Mayor, J. B.= A sketch of ancient philosophy from Thales to Cicero.
1881. (2322 b 57.)
=Mead, G. R. S.= Apollonius of Tyana. 1901. (10606 cc 8.)
=Montée, P.= Le Stoïcisme à Rome. 1865. (8461 aaa 6.)
=Montefiore, Claude G.= The Wisdom of Solomon. 1887. (Ac. 2076.)
=Natorp, Paul.= Forschungen zur Geschichte des Erkenntniss-problems im
Alterthum. 1884. (8460 h 7.)
=Naville, H. Adrien.= Julian l’Apostat et la philosophie du polytheisme.
1877. (4504 bb 5.)
=Neander, A.= Vorlesungen über Geschichte d. christlichen Ethik. 1864.
[On Stoicism see pp. 29-57.]
=Nettleship, Henry.= Jus Gentium. Journal of Philology xiii (1885), p. 26.
=Neumann, C. J.= Der römische Staat und die allg. Kirche bis auf
Diocletian. 1890. (4534 d 16.)
=Ogereau, F.= Essai sur le système philosophique des stoïciens. 1885.
(8460 ee 20.)
=Oldenberg, H.= Buddha; his life, his doctrine, his order. Transl. by W.
Hoey. 1882. (759 d 4.)
=Orttoff, Jo. Andr.= Über den Einfluss d. stoïschen Philosophie auf die
römische Jurisprudenz. 1797.
=Pater, Walter H.= Marius the Epicurean. 2 vols., 1892. (12620 dd 18.)
=Pauly, A. F. von.= Realencyclopädie d. klassischen
Altertumswissenschaft. Neue Bearbeitung, herausg. von G. Wissowa. 1893-.
(2046 f.)
=Poussin, L. de la Vallée.= Bouddhisme: opinions sur l’histoire de la
Dogmatique. 1909.
=Prächter, Karl.= Hierocles der Stoïker. 1901. (8460 h 23.)
=Prosopographia Imperii Romani Saec. I, II, III.= Ed. E. Klebs and
others. 1897-. [Gives the authorities for biographies of this period.]
=Ramsay=, Sir =W. M.= The Church in the Roman empire before A.D. 170. 7th
ed. 1903. (2208 b 2.)
=Rauch, G.= Der Einfluss d. stoïschen Philosophie an d. Lehrbildung
Tertullianus.
=Ravaisson, F.= Essai sur le Stoïcisme. 1856.
=Renan, J. E.= See Aurelius.
=Rendall, G. H.= The Emperor Julian, Paganism and Christianity. 1879.
(4534 cc 8.) See also Aurelius.
=Renouvier, C. B.= Uchronie. [Deals with the secular importance of
Stoicism.] (8008 g 1.)
=Réville, Jean.= La religion à Rome sous les Sévères. 1886. (4505 ee 19.)
=Richter, D.= Die Überlieferung der stoïschen Definitionen über die
Affekte. 1873.
=Sachau, C. E.= Drei aramaïsche Papyrus-Urkunden aus Elephantine. 1907.
Royal Prussian Society. (Ac. 855/6.)
=Saussaye, P. D. C. de la.= Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte. 3rd ed., 2
vols., 1905. (3554 i.)
=Schiller, Hermann.= Die stoïsche Opposition unter Nero. 1867, 8. (8485
bbb 28.)
=Schmekel, August.= Die Philosophie der mittleren Stoa in ihrem
geschichtlichen Zusammenhange dargestellt. 1892. (8485 df 19.)
=Schmidt, C. G. A.= Essai historique sur la société civile dans le monde
romain et sur sa transformation par le christianisme. 1853. (4531 c 25.)
Trans. by Mrs Thorpe, 1907. (4532 de 10.)
=Schmidt, R. T.= Stoicorum Grammatica. 1839. (8462 b 1.)
=Schulze, Vict.= Geschichte des Untergangs der gr.-röm. Heidenthums. 2
vols. 1887-96. (4530 ee 8.)
=Seeck, O.= Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt. 3rd ed., 1910-.
(09039 dd.)
=Sidgwick, Henry.= Outlines of the History of Ethics. 1886. [Ch. 11 deals
with ‘Greco-Roman Ethics.’]
=Smiley, C. N.= Latinitas und Ἑλληνισμός. Wisconsin, 1906.
=Sonnenschein, E. A.= The new Stoicism. Hibbert Journal, April 1907. (R.
PP. 324 ga.) Shakespeare and Stoicism. University Review, i 1. (PP. 1187
ief.)
=Spiess, E.= Logos Spermatikos. Parallelstellen z. neuen Test. aus d.
Schriften d. alten Griechen. 1871. (3225 ee 29.)
=Stein, Ludwig.= Psychologie der Stoa. 2 vols., 1886-8. (PP. 4991 e.) Die
Willensfreiheit etc. bei den jüdischen Philosophen. 1882. (8469 bbb 26.)
Dualismus oder Monismus. 1909.
=Steinthal, H.= Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und
Römern. 2nd ed., 1890, 1. (12924 h 18.) [On the Stoic grammar see i pp.
265 sqq.]
=Stern, J.= Homerstudien der Stoïker. Lörrach, 1893.
=Stock, St George W. J.= Stoicism. (Phil. Ancient and Modern.) 1908.
(8467 de.)
=Striller, F.= De Stoicorum studiis rhetoricis. Breslau, 1886. (12902 f
25.)
=Susemihl, Fr.= Geschichte der gr. Litteratur in d. Alexandrinerzeit. 2
vols., 1891, 2. (2045 g.)
=Teuffel, W. S.= History of Roman Literature. Translated by G. C. W.
Warr. 2 vols., 1890. (2045 g.)
=Thiersch, W. J.= Politik und Philosophie in ihrem Verhältniss zur
Religion unter Traianus, Hadrianus, und den beiden Antoninen. Marburg,
1853. (4573 e 37.)
=Thomas, A.= Rome et l’Empire aux deux premiers siècles de nôtre ère.
1897. (9039 d 9.) Transl.: Roman Life under the Caesars. 1899. (7701 aa
11.)
=Thomson=, Sir =J. J.= The corpuscular theory of matter. 1907. (08709 dd
16.)
=Tiedemann, D.= System der stoischen Philosophie. 1776.
=Tucker, T. G.= Life in the Roman World of Nero and St Paul. 1910.
=Tylor, Edward B.= Primitive culture. 4th ed., 2 vols., 1903. (2034 a.)
Anthropology. 1881. (2024 b.)
=Überweg, Fr.= Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Tenth ed. by K.
Prächter, 1909-. (8485 ff.) Translated from the 4th German edition by G.
S. Morris. 2 vols. New York. 1872-4.
=Usener, H.= Epicurea. 1887. (8460 ee 36.) Religionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchungen. 3 vols. 1889-99. (4532 dd 2.)
=Vachereau, Étienne.= Histoire critique de l’école d’Alexandrie. 3 vols.,
1846-51. (2236 d 7-9.)
=de Villoison, J. d’Ansse.= De theologia physica Stoicorum commentatio.
Göttingen, 1844. (1385 g 4.)
=Voigt, M.= Die Lehre vom _ius naturale_, _aequum et bonum_, und
_ius gentium_ der Römer. 4 vols., 1856-76. (5207 d 5.) Römische
Rechtsgeschichte. 3 vols., 1892-1902. (5255 dd 1.)
=Vollers, Charles.= Die Weltreligionen in ihrem geschichtlichen
Zusammenhange.
=Vollman, F.= Über das Verhältniss der späteren Stoa zur Sklaverei im
römischen Reiche. Regensburg, 1890.
=Wachsmuth, Curtius.= Die Ansichten der Stoïker über Mantik und Dämonen,
1860. (8461 bb 44 (9).) De Cratete Mallota, 1860. (11312 g 40.)
=Wadskin, S. E.= Einfluss des Stoïcismus auf die christliche Lehrbildung.
Theol. Stud. und Krit., 1880. (PP. 150.)
=Wallace, William.= Epicureanism. 1880. (4421 f 64.)
=Walter, Julius.= Die Lehre von der praktischen Vernunft in der
griechischen Philosophie. 1874. (8462 cc 22.)
=Weissenfels, C. O.= De Platonicae et Stoicae doctrinae affinitate.
Berlin, 1890.
=Wellmann, Eduard.= Die pneumatische Schule bis auf Archigenes in ihrer
Entwicklung dargestellt. 1895. See also Fleckeisen’s Jahrb. 1873, pp. 477
sqq.
=Wendland, Paul.= Die hellenisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu
Judenthum und Christenthum. 1907.
=Westcott, B. F.= See Origenes.
=Westermarck, Edward.= The history of human marriage. 3rd ed. 1901. (2236
f 7.) The origin and development of the moral ideas. 2 vols., 1906-9.
(08407 f 21.)
=Wetzstein, O.= Die Wandlung der stoïschen Lehre unter ihren späteren
Vertretern. Neu-Strelitz, 1892-4.
=Weygoldt, G. P.= Die Philosophie der Stoa nach ihrem Wesen und ihren
Schicksalen dargestellt. 1883. (8462 b 8.)
=Whittaker, Thomas.= Apollonius of Tyana and other essays. 1906. (012356
l 62.)
=Winckler, H. A.= Der Stoïcismus eine Wurzel des Christenthums. 1878.
=Windelband, W.= Geschichte der alten Philosophie. In the Handbuch d.
klass. Alterthumswissenschaft. 1894. Translated by H. E. Cushmann, New
York, 1899. (2236 cc 8.)
=Winter, F. J.= Stoicorum pantheismus et principia doctrinae ethicae.
Leipzig, 1878.
=Zeller, Eduard.= Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen
Entwicklung. 5th ed. 1892-. (8486 h.) The Stoics, Epicureans and
Sceptics. Translated from the German by O. J. Reichel. 1892. (2234 b 22.)
Vorträge und Abhandlungen, 1875. (12250 i 13.) Philosophische Aufsätze,
1887. (8468 f 34.) Über eine Berührung des jüngeren Cynismus mit dem
Christenthum. Sitzungsb. d. Akad. Wiss. z. Berlin, ix pp. 129-132. Kleine
Schriften, unter Mitwirkung von H. Diels und K. Holl. Edited by Dr Otto
Leuze. Berlin, 1910-. (12252 g.)
=Zimmermann, D.= Quae ratio philosophiae Stoicae sit cum religione
Romana. Erlangen, 1858.
GENERAL INDEX.
_The numbers refer to the pages and notes._
Abstract ideas, 136 sqq.
Academy, 55 sqq.;
influence on Stoicism, 69, 93, 94, 100, 103, 106, 192, 302.
Essential difference between the two schools, 153.
_accessio_, 292, 316.
_acervus_, 147.
Achilles, 339.
AÇOKA, 15.
Acquirements, 305.
ACTE, 347 n. 110.
Action, 59.
Active and passive, 69, 156, 172.
Adam (and Eve), 278, 427.
ADAM, J., 30 n. 2, 30 n. 3, 32 n. 16, 34 n. 25, 37 n. 43, 46 n. 76.
ADDISON, J., 176 n. 9.
_adfectus_, see ‘Affections.’
_adsensio_, _adsensus_, see ‘Assent’;
_adsensum sustinere_, see ‘Suspense of judgment.’
Adultery condemned, 276, 347.
Advantages, 72, 290, 319 sqq.;
rejected by Aristo, 82.
_aegritudo_, 331;
_aeg. animi_, 338.
Aeneas, 297, 391.
AESCHYLUS, 38.
Aesculapius, 233.
_aestimatio_, 72, 289.
Aether, 180, 183, 186, 436;
as first principle, 70 n. 61;
as god, 219.
Affection for children, 341.
Affections, 332 sqq., 352;
good affections, 323;
in Jesus, 412.
_agitatio prima_, 351.
Agriculture, 369, 372.
AGRIPPINUS, PACONIUS, 399.
Ahura Mazdā, 8.
Air, 180 sqq.
Alcestis, 142.
ALEXANDER, 13, 62, 339.
Alexandria, 20, 64, 80, 83, 110.
_alienatio_, 256, 322.
Allegorism, 112, 151, 411.
_amarus_, 335.
_amor_, 317.
Analogy, in logic, 134;
in grammar, 145.
ANAXAGORAS, 40, 44, 156.
ANAXIMANDER, 33.
ANAXIMENES, 33, 158;
on elemental qualities, 173.
Angels, 8, 11, 21, 31;
guardian angels, 233, 264.
Anger, 333 sqq.
_anima_, 168, 242;
in St Paul, 420.
_an. inflammata_, 181, 243 n. 23.
Animals, 186 sqq.;
their place in the universe, 205;
have no rights, 274;
St Paul’s view, 417 n. 55.
Animism, 241.
_animus_, 242.
_annus, magnus_, 193.
Anomaly, 145.
Ant, 187.
_anticipatio_, 136.
ANTIGONUS GONATAS, 75, 79, 311.
ANTIOCHUS (of Ascalon), 109 sqq., 152.
ANTIPATER (of Tarsus), 96;
on the criterion, 141;
gives way to Carneades, 144;
on definition, 148;
definition of God, 222;
of virtue, 283;
on advantages, 292;
on marriage, 318.
ANTIPATER (of Tyre), 108, 186, 317;
teacher of Cato, 386.
ANTIPHON (sophist), 40.
Antipodes, 175.
Antiquarianism, 306.
ANTISTHENES, 48 sqq.
ANTONINUS, M. PIUS, 402 sqq.
Apathy, 324.
Apocalypse, 24 n. 64, 413 n. 24.
Aphrodite, 231.
Apollo, 231.
APOLLODORUS (of Athens), 97.
APOLLODORUS (of Seleucia, called Ephillus), 97;
on the criterion, 141;
on pleasure, 315.
APOLLONIDES, 108.
APOLLONIUS (of Tyre), 108.
APOLLOPHANES, 84.
_appellatio_, 145.
_appetitio_, _appetitus_, 256, 314;
_app. recta_, 256.
AQUILIUS, C. GALLUS, 385.
ARATUS, 80;
view of the universe, 182;
influence on Virgil, 389;
on St. Paul, 409.
_arbitrium liberum_, 210.
ARCESILAUS, 63;
converses with Zeno, 69 n. 48;
opposes Zeno, 74;
opposes Cleanthes, 90;
influence on Chrysippus, 93.
ARCHEDEMUS, 97;
on pleasure, 315.
AREIUS, 110, 343.
ARISTARCHUS, 146 n. 104, 179.
ARISTIPPUS, 50.
ARISTO, 79, 82 sqq., 129;
inclines to Cynism, 82;
opposes art, 153 n. 148;
rejects precepts, 357.
ARISTOCREON, 97.
ARISTOPHANES, 10, 175 n. 1.
ARISTOTLE, 58 sqq.;
on active and passive principles, 156;
on substance and quality, 165;
on the categories, 59, 164, 169;
on the solar system, 182;
on the microcosm, 61, 240;
on slavery, 271, 279;
on pleasure, 316;
on anger, 333.
ARIUS, see ‘Areius.’
ARNIM, H. von, 86 n. 59, 119 n. 123.
ARNOLD, MATTHEW, 435 n. 158.
ARRIA (the elder), 393.
ARRIA (the younger), 399.
ARRIANUS, 121.
Art disparaged, 153.
ARTEMIDORUS, 401.
Artemis, 112.
Arts (_artes_), 140, 144, 305, 306;
are passing conditions of soul, 168.
_articulus_, 145.
ARULENUS RUSTICUS, 401.
Asceticism, 258, 362, 409.
Assent (_adsensio_, _adsensus_), in logic, 68, 132, 249;
in morals, 256.
Astrology or Astronomy, 6, 101, 306.
Atheism, of Socrates, 46;
of the Cynics, 48 sqq.;
of Zeno, 217, 234.
Athene, 231.
ATHENODORUS CALVUS, 109.
ATHENODORUS (of Soli), 84.
ATHENODORUS (of Tarsus), (1) the elder, 98, 107;
denies that sins are equal, 355;
teacher of Cato, 386;
(2) the younger, 110.
Atoms, 41, 159, 189, 436.
ATTALUS, 111, 347.
AUGUSTUS, 110;
encourages flattery, 370;
longs for leisure, 377.
AURELIUS, M., 122 sqq.;
belief in providence, 123;
view of the future life, 125, 270;
on sufficiency of virtue, 293;
devotion to paganism, 124, 405;
persecutes the Christians, 405.
Austerity, 356.
Avesta, 11.
Babylonians, 3, 5.
BACON, FRANCIS, 335 n. 27.
BALBUS, L. LUCILIUS, 385.
BALBUS, Q. LUCILIUS, 109, 386.
BAREA SORANUS, 399.
BASILIDES, 98.
Baths, 372.
‘Bear and forbear,’ 126, 350.
Beard, 259, 365.
Beauty of the universe, 204, 226;
of body and soul, 312;
of women, 319;
of virtue, 325.
St Paul not appreciative, 417.
Beneficence, 307.
BERTHOLET, D. A., 21 n. 57.
Bigotry of Cleanthes, 90;
of M. Aurelius, 405.
Blessedness, 61.
BLOSSIUS, C., 382.
Body, the ultimate existence, 157;
definition, 157;
not the same as matter, 157;
moves and has life, 159;
moves through body, 159, 169;
how known, 242 n. 17;
is soul, 257;
in St Paul, 416.
Human body, 257;
is a temple, 259;
its humble parts, 254, 259, 313, 426.
See also ‘Flesh.’
BOËTHUS (of Sidon), 95;
on the criterion, 143.
BOISSIER, G., 397 n. 95.
_bonum_, 281;
_summum bonum_ or _ultimum bonorum_, 281, 422.
BOWEN, Lord (translation by), 265, 266.
Boy-favourites, 287, 425.
Brevity (_brevitas_), 149.
BRUTUS, M. JUNIUS, 110, 388.
Buddhism, 14 sqq., 54, 295 n. 159.
Burial, 66, 278.
CAESAR, C. JULIUS, his clemency, 370.
CALLIPHO, 64.