gratitude, piety, and friendship.--He who confers benefits upon others,
procures to himself the satisfaction of seeing the stream of plenty
spreading around him from the fountain of his beneficence; at the same
time, he enjoys the pleasure of being esteemed by others. The exercise
of gratitude, filial affection, and reverence for the gods, is
necessary, in order to avoid the hatred and contempt of all men.
Friendships are contracted for the sake of mutual benefit; but by
degrees they ripen into such disinterested attachment, that they are
continued without any prospect of advantage. Between friends there is a
kind of league, that each will love the other as himself. A true friend
will partake of the wants and sorrows of his friend, as if they were his
own; if he be in want, he will relieve him; if he be in prison, he will
visit him; if he be sick, he will come to him; nay-situations may occur,
in which he would not scruple to die for him. It cannot then be doubted,
that friendship is one of the most useful means of procuring a secure,
tranquil, and happy life."
No man will, we think, find anything in the foregoing summary to justify
the foul language used against Epicurus, and his moral philosophy; the
secret is in the physical doctrines, and this secret is, that Epicurus
was actually, if not intentionally, an Atheist. The following is a
summary of his physical doctrine:--
"Nothing can ever spring from nothing, nor can anything ever return to
nothing. The universe always existed, and will always remain; for there
is nothing into which it can be changed. There is nothing in Nature, nor
can anything be conceived, besides body and space. Body is that which
possesses the properties of bulk, figure, resistance, and gravity: it is
this alone which can touch or be touched. Space is the region which
is, or may be, occupied by body, and which affords it an opportunity of
moving freely. That there are bodies in the universe is attested by
the senses. That there is also space is evident; since otherwise bodies
would have no place in which to move or exist, and of their existence
and motion we have the certain proof of perception. Besides these, no
third nature can be conceived; for such a nature must either have bulk
and solidity, or want them; that is, it must either be body or space:
this does not, however, preclude the existence of qualities, which have
no subsistence but in the body to which they belong.
"The universe, consisting of body and space, is infinite, for it has
no limits. Bodies are infinite in multitude; space is infinite in
magnitude. The term above, or beneath, high or low, cannot be
properly applied to infinite space. The universe is to be conceived as
immoveable, since beyond it there is no place into which it can move;
and as eternal and immutable, since it is neither liable to increase
nor decrease, to production nor decay. Nevertheless, the parts of the
universe are in motion, and are subject to change.
"All bodies consist of parts, of which they are composed, and into
which they may be resolved; and these parts are either themselves simple
principles, or may be resolved into such. These first principles,
or simple atoms, are divisible by no force, and, therefore, must be
immutable. This may also be inferred from the uniformity of Nature,
which could not be preserved if its principles were not certain
and consistent. The existence of such atoms is evident, since it is
impossible that anything which exists should be reduced to nothing. A
finite body cannot consist of parts infinite, either in magnitude or
number; divisibility of bodies _ad infinitum_, is therefore
conceivable. All atoms are of the same nature, or differ in no essential
qualities--From their different effects upon the senses, it appears,
however, that they differ in magnitude, figure, and weight. Atoms exist
in every possible variety of figure--round, oval, conical, cubical,
sharp, hooked, etc. But in every shape, they are, on account of their
solidity, infrangible, or incapable of actual division.
"Gravity must be an essential property of atoms; for since they are
perpetually in motion, or making an effort to move, they must be moved
by an internal impulse, which may be called gravity.
"The principle of gravity, that internal energy which is the cause of
all motion, whether simple or complex, being essential to the primary
corpuscles or atoms, they must have been incessantly and from eternity
in actual motion."
Epicurus, who boasts that he was an inquirer and a philosopher in his
thirteenth year, was scarcely likely to bow his mind to the mythology of
his country. The man who, when he was but a schoolboy, insisted upon an
answer to the question, "Whence came chaos?" could hardly be expected
to receive as admitted facts the fabulous legends as to Jupiter and the
other gods. His theology is, however, in some respects, obscure, and
unintelligible; for while he zealously opposed the popular fables, which
men misname God-ideas, he at the same time admitted the existence of
material gods, whom he placed in the intervals between the infinite
worlds, where they passed a life undisturbed by aught, and enjoyed a
happiness which does not admit of augmentation. These inactive gods play
a strange part in the system of Epicurus; and it is asserted by many
that these extraordinary conceptions of Deity were put forward by the
philosopher to screen him from the consequences attaching to a charge of
Atheism. Dr. Heinrich Ritter, who does not seem very friendly disposed
towards Epicurus, or his philosophy, repudiates this notion, and argues
Epicurus was not in truth an Atheist, and alleges that it was a mere
pretence on his part; and that from his very theory of knowledge the
existence of gods could be deduced. This has been much litigated, (vide
Electric Review for 1806, p. 606.) It is quite evident that Epicurus
neither regarded "the gods" in the capacity of Creators, controllers, or
rulers, so that his Theism (if it be Theism) twas not of a very
superstitious character. The God who neither created man, nor exercised
any influence whatever over his actions or thinkings, could have but
little to do with man at all.
If we attempt to review the whole of the teachings of Epicurus, we and
they are defective and imperfect in many respects, and necessarily so.
We say necessarily so, because the imperfect science of the day limited
the array of facts presented to the philosopher, and narrowed the base
upon which he was to erect his system. We must expect, therefore, to
find the structure weak in many points, because it was too large for
the foundation; but we are not, therefore, to pass it on one side, and
without further notice; it should rather be our task to lay good, wide,
and sure foundations, On which to build up a system, and develope a
method, really having, for its end, the happiness of mankind. We live
2000 years later than the Athenian philosopher.--In those 2000 years
many facts have been dragged out of "the circle of the unknown and
unused." Astronomy, geology, physiology, psychology--all except theology
are belter understood. Men pretend they are searching after happiness,
and where do they try to find it? Not here amongst the known, but in the
possible hereafter amongst the unknowable. How do they try to find it?
Not by the aid of the known, not by the light of facts, gathered in
years of toil, and sanctified by the blood of some of the noblest
of truth's noble martyrs; no--but in the darkness of the unknown and
unknowable; in the next world. Question the men who fly to theology
for happiness, and they will tell you that the most learned of the
theologians sum up their knowledge in the word "incomprehensible." Is it
wonderful that their happiness is somewhat marred "here" by quarrels
as to the true definition of "hereafter?" G. H. Lewes says, of the
Epicurean philosophy, "that the attempt failed because the basis was
not broad enough. The Epicureans are therefore to be regarded as men who
ventured on a great problem, and failed because they only saw part
of the truth." And we might add that Christianity, and every other
religious "anity," fails, because the professors expect to obtain
happiness in the next life, and neglect to work for it in the present
one.
Epicurus says, no life can be pleasant except a virtuous life; and he
charges you to avoid whatever maybe calculated to create disquiet in the
mind, or give pain to the body. The Rev. Habbakuk Smilenot, of little
Bethel, says that all pleasure here, is vanity and vexation in the
hereafter; and he charges you to continually worry and harass your mind
with fears that you may be condemned to hell, and doubts whether you
will be permitted to enter heaven. Which is the best, the philosophy of
Epicurus, or the theology of Smilenof?
G. H. Lewes says:--"Epicureanism, in leading man to a correct
appreciation of the moral end of his existence, in showing him how to
be truly happy, has to combat with many obstructions which hide from
him the real road of life. These obstructions are his illusions, his
prejudices, his errors, his ignorance. This ignorance is of two kinds,
as Victor Cousin points out; ignorance of the laws of the external
world, which creates absurd superstitions, and troubles the mind with
false fears and false hopes. Hence the necessity of some knowledge of
physics." (We can scarcely blame Epicurus that he was not in advance of
his time, as far as the physical sciences are concerned, and therefore
imparted an imperfect system of physics. We must, with our improved
knowledge, ourselves remove the obstruction.) "The second kind of
ignorance is that of the nature of man. Socrates had taught men to
regard their own nature as the great object of investigation; and this
lesson Epicurus willingly gave ear to.--But man does not interrogate his
own nature out of simple curiosity, or simple erudition; he studies
his nature in order that he may improve it; he learns the extent of
his capacities, in order that he may properly direct them. The aim,
therefore, of all such inquiries must be happiness."
We may add that the result of all such inquiries will be happiness, if
the inquirer will but base his investigation and experiments upon
facts. Let him understand that, as he improves the circumstances which
surround him, so will he advance himself, becoming happier, and making
his fellows happy also. Remember the words of Epicurus, and seek that
pleasure for yourself which appears the most durable, and attended with
the greatest pleasure to your fellow men.
"I"
ZENO, THE STOIC
In the previous number we gave a short sketch of the opinions of
Epicurus. In this we shall deal with the founder of a rival sect--the
Stoics. Amongst the disciples and students in the Stoic schools have
been many illustrious names, and not the least worthy is the name with
which we are now dealing.
Zeno was born at Cittius, a small maritime town in the Island of Cyprus.
This place having been originally peopled by a colony of Phoenicians,
Zeno is sometimes called a Phoenician; but at the period when he
flourished, it was chiefly inhabited by Greeks. The date of his birth is
uncertain, but must have been about the year B.C. 362. His father was a
merchant, and Zeno appears to have been, in the early part of his life,
engaged in mercantile pursuits. He received a very liberal education
from his father, whom, we are told, perceived in his son a strong
inclination for philosophical studies, and who purchased for Zeno the
writings of the Socratic philosophers; which were studied with avidity,
and which undoubtedly exercised a considerable influence over his future
thinkings. When about thirty years of age, he made a trading voyage from
Cittius to Athens, with a very valuable cargo of Phoenician purple, but
was unfortunately shipwrecked on the coast of Greece, and the whole of
his freight destroyed. It is supposed that this severe loss, which must
have considerably reduced his means, materially influenced Zeno, and
induced him to embrace the tenets of the Cynics, whose leading principle
was a contempt of riches. We are told that upon is first arrival in
Athens, he went into the shop of a bookseller, and took up, by accident,
a volume of the "Commentaries of Xenophon." Alter reading a few pages,
Zeno was so much delighted with the work, that he asked the bookseller
to direct him where he might meet such men as the author? Crates, the
Cynic philosopher, passed by at the time, and the bookseller said,
"Follow that man!" He did so, and after listening to several of his
discourses, was so pleased with the doctrines of the Cynics, that
he became a disciple. He did not long remain attached to the Cynic
school--their peculiar manners were too gross for him; and his energetic
and inquiring mind was too much cramped by that indifference to all
scientific investigation which was one of their leading characteristics.
He therefore sought instruction elsewhere, and Stilpo, of Megara, became
his teacher, from whom he acquired the art of disputation, in which
he afterwards became so proficient. The Cynics were displeased at his
following other philosophy, and we are told that Crates attempted to
drag him by force out of the school of Stilpo, on which Zeno said, "You
may seize my body, but Stilpo has laid hold of my mind." The Megaric
doctrine was, however, insufficient. Zeno was willing to learn all that
Stilpo could teach, but having learned all, his restless and insatiable
appetite for knowledge required more, and after an attendance of several
years upon the lectures of Stilpo, he passed over to the expositors of
Plato, Xenocrates, and Polemo. The latter philosopher appears to have
penetrated Zeno's design in attending the various schools--_i.e._, to
collect materials from various quarters for a new system of his own;
and when he came to the school, Polemo said, "I am no stranger, Zeno, to
your Phoenician arts; I perceive that your design is to creep slily into
my garden, and steal away my fruit." After twenty years of study, having
mastered the tenets of the various schools, Zeno determined to become
the founder of a sect himself. In accordance with this determination, he
opened a school in a public portico, called the Painted Porch, from the
pictures of Polygnotus, and other eminent painters, with which it
was adorned. This portico became famous in Athens, and was called
(Stoa)---the Porch. From this Stoa the school derived its name, the
students being called the Stoics. Zeno was a subtle reasoner, and
exceedingly popular. He taught a strict system of morals and exhibited
a pleasing picture of moral discipline in his own life. As a man,
his character appears deserving of the highest respect. He became
exceedingly respected and revered at Athens for the probity and severity
of bis life and manners, and consistency thereof with his doctrine. He
possesed so large a share of public esteem that the Athenians decreed
him a golden crown, and on account of his approved integrity, deposited
the keys of their citadel in his hands. Antigouus Gonates, King of
Macedon, was a constant attendant at his lectures whilst at Athens,
and when that monarch returned, he earnestly invited Zeno to his court.
During the philosopher's lifetime, the Athenians erected a statue of
brass as a mark of the estimation in which they held him.
Zeno lived to the extreme age of ninety-eight, when, as he was leaving,
his school one day, he fell and broke his finger. The consciousness of
his infirmity afflicted him so much, that he exclaimed, "Why am I thus
importuned? Earth, I obey thy summons!" and immediately going home, he
put his affairs in order, and strangled himself. In person, Zeno was
tall and slender; his brow was furrowed with thought; and this, with
his long and close application to study, gave a tinge of severity to his
aspect. Although of a feeble constitution, he preserved his health by
his great abstemiousness, his diet consisting of figs, bread, and honey.
He was plain and modest in his dress and habits and very frugal in all
his expenses, showing the same respect for the poor as for the rich, and
conversing as freely with the slave as he did with the king. Independent
in spirit, he broke off all communication with his friend Democharis,
because that person had offered to procure a gratuity for Zeno from
the King of Macedon. His system appears to have been little more than a
collection from his various lessons of whatever was most in unison with
his peculiar habit of thought, and an attempt to reconcile and combine
in one system the various elements of different theories. Taking from
so many schools various portions of their doctrine, he seems to have
provoked the antagonism of many of his contemporaries, and several
philosophers of learning and ability employed their eloquence to
diminish the growing influence of the new school. Towards the close of
his life, he found a powerful antagonist in the person of Epicurus, and
the Epicureans and Stoics have since treated each other as rival sects.
Zeno's school appears to have been generally a resort for the poor, and
it was a common joke amongst his adversaries, that poverty was the charm
for which he was indebted for his scholars. The list of his disciples,
however, contains the names of some very rich and powerful men, who
may have regarded the Stoic theory as a powerful counter-agent to the
growing effeminacy of the age. After Zeno's death, the Athenians, at
the request of Antigonus, erected a monument to his memory, in the
Ceramicura.
From the particulars which have been related concerning Zeno, it will
not be difficult to perceive what kind of influence his circumstances
and character must have had upon his philosophical system. If his
doctrines be diligently compared with the history of his life, it will
appear, that having attended upon many eminent preceptors, and being
intimately conversant with their opinions, he compiled, out of their
various tenets, an heterogeneous system, on the credit of which he
assumed to himself the title of the founder of a new sect.... The
dialectic arts which Zeno learned in the school of Diodorus Chronus,
he did not fail to apply to the support of his own system, and to
communicate to bis followers. As to the moral doctrine of the Cynic
sect, to which Zeno strictly adhered to the last, there can be no doubt
that he transferred it almost without alloy, into his own school. In
morals, the principal difference between the Cynics and the Stoics was,
that the former disdained the cultivation of nature, the latter affected
to rise above it. On the subject of physics, Zeno received his doctrine
through the channel of the Platonic school, as will fully appear from
a careful comparison of their respective systems. The Stoic philosophy,
being in this manner of heterogeneous origin, it necessarily partook of
the several systems of which it was composed. The idle quibbles, jejune
reasonings, and imposing sophisms, which so justly exposed the schools
of the dialectic philosophers to ridicule, found their way into the
Porch, where much time was wasted, and much ingenuity thrown away, upon
questions of no importance. Cicero censures the Stoics for encouraging
in their schools a barren kind of disputation, and employing themselves
in determining trifling questions, in which the disputants can have no
interest, and which, at the close, leave them neither wiser nor better.
And that this censure, is not, as some modern advocates for Stoicism
have maintained, a mere calumny, but grounded upon fact, sufficiently
appears from what is said by the ancients, particularly by Sextus
Empiricus, concerning the logic of the Stoics. Seneca, who was himself
a Stoic, candidly acknowledges this. It may, perhaps, be thought
surprising that philosophers, who affected so much gravity and
wisdom, should condescend to such trifling occupations. But it must be
considered, that, at this time, a fondness for subtle disputations so
generally prevailed in Greece, that excellence in the arts of reasoning
and sophistry was a sure path to fame. The Stoics, with whom vanity
was unquestionably a ruling passion, were ambitious for this kind of
reputation. Hence it was that they engaged with so much vehemence
in verbal contests, and that they largely contributed towards the
confusion, instead of the improvement, of science, by substituting vague
and ill-defined terms in the room of accurate conceptions. The moral
part of the Stoical philosophy, in like manner, partook of the defects
of its origin. It may be as justly objected against the Stoics as the
Cynics, that they assumed an artificial severity of manners, and a tone
of virtue above the condition of a man. Their doctrine of moral wisdom
was an ostentatious display of words, in which little regard was paid
to nature and reason. It professed to raise human nature to a degree of
perfection before unknown; but its real effect was, merely to amuse
the ear, and captivate the fancy, with fictions which can never
be realized.... The extravagancies and absurdities of the Stoical
philosophy may also be in some measure ascribed to the vehement contests
which subsisted between Zeno and the Academics on the one hand, and
between him and Epicurus on the other. For, not only did these disputes
give rise to many of the dogmas of Stoicism, but led Zeno and his
followers, in the warmth of controversy, to drive their arguments to the
utmost extremity, and to express themselves with much greater confidence
than they would probably otherwise have done. This is, perhaps, the
true reason why so many extravagant notions are ascribed to the Stoics,
particularly upon the subject of morals. Whilst Epicurus taught his
followers to seek happiness in tranquillity, Zeno imagined his wise man,
not only free from all sense of pleasure, but void of all passions and
emotions, and capable of being happy in the midst of torture. That he
might avoid the position taken by the Epicureans, he had recourse to
a moral institution, which bore indeed the lofty front of wisdom, but
which was elevated far above the condition and powers of human nature.
The natural disposition of Zeno, and his manner of life, had, moreover,
no inconsiderable influence in fixing the peculiar character of his
philosophy. By nature severe and morose, and constitutionally inclined
to reserve and melancholy, he early cherished this habit by submitting
to the austere ami rigid discipline of the Cynics. Those qualities
which he conceived to be meritorious in himself, and which he found to
conciliate the admiration of mankind, he naturally transferred to his
imaginary character of a wise or perfect man.
In order to form an accurate judgment concerning the doctrine of
the Stoics, besides a careful attention to the particulars already
enumerated, it will be necessary to guard with the utmost caution
against two errors, into which several writers have fallen. Great care
should be taken, in the first place, not to judge of the doctrine of the
Stoics from words and sentiments, detached from the general system, but
to consider them as they stand, related to the whole train of premises
and conclusions.... The second caution is, not to confound the genuine
doctrines of Zeno, and other ancient fathers of this sect, with the
glosses of the later Stoics.... Out of the many proofs of this change,
which might be adduced, we shall select one, which is the more worthy
of notice, as it has occasioned many disputes among the learned. The
doctrine we mean is that concerning fate. This doctrine, according to
Zeno and Chrysippus, implies an eternal and immutable series of causes
and effects, within which all events are included, and to which the
Deity himself is subject: whereas, the later Stoics, changing the term
fate into the Providence of God, discoursed with great plausibility
on this subject, but still in reality retained the ancient doctrine of
universal fate. From this example, a judgment may be formed concerning
the necessity of using some caution, in appealing to the writings of
Seneca, Antoninus, and Epictetus, as authorities, in determining what
were the original doctrines of the Stoic philosophers.