175

But if Stoicism is admirable, as promise of better things to come, what are we to say of it when it shows itself as the residuum of a dying faith? We may at least find it easier to understand the attraction which it had for the Thraseas and Arrias of the Empire, when we find pure Stoicism preached as the Gospel for our own day in such words as those of Carlyle. "This fair universe, were it in the meanest province thereof, is in very deed the star-domed City of God: through every star, through every grass-blade, and most through every Living Soul the glory of a present God still beams'.' "The situation which has not its Duty, its Ideal, was never yet occupied by man. Yes, here, in this poor, miserable, hampered, despicable Actual, wherein thou even now standest, here or nowhere is thy Ideal: work it out therefrom, and working, believe, live, be free. Fool! the Ideal is in thyself, the impediment too is in thyself: thy condition is but the stuff thou art to shape that same Ideal out of: what matters whether such stuff is of this sort or that, so the Form thou give it be heroic, be poetic?' 'Does not the whole wretchedness of man's ways in these generations shadow itself for us in that unspeakable Lifephilosophy of his: the pretension to be what he calls. happy?...We construct our theory of Human Duties not on any Greatest-Nobleness Principle, but on a GreatestHappiness Principle... But a life of ease is not for any man nor for any god. Again, what else is the 'New Faith'

1 Sartor Resartus, Bk. III. ch. 8.

2 Sartor Resartus, Bk. II. ch. 9.

3 Past and Present, Bk. III. ch. 4. Compare with the last clause the continual reference in Epictetus to the Labours of Hercules, as giving a pattern of the life which all men should lead ; e.g. Diss. III.

put forward by Strauss than a revival of the least Christian side of Stoicism together with even an exaggeration of its old unrealities? The nature of this Neo-Stoicism' will be sufficiently apparent from the following passage. 'In regard to the Cosmos we know ourselves as part of a part; our might as naught in comparison to the almightiness of Nature; our thought only capable of slowly and laboriously comprehending the least part of that which the universe offers to our contemplation as the object of knowledge... As we feel ourselves absolutely dependent on this world, as we can only deduce our existence and the adjustment of our nature from it, we are compelled to conceive of it as the primary source of all that is reasonable and good in ourselves as well as in it...That on which we feel ourselves thus dependent is no mere rude power to which we bow in mute resignation, but is at the same time both order and law, reason and goodness, to which we surrender ourselves in loving trust. More than this: as we perceive in ourselves the same disposition to the reasonable and the good, which we seem to recognize in the Cosmos, and find ourselves to be the beings by whom it is felt and recognized, in whom it is to become personified, we also feel ourselves related in our inmost nature to that on which we are dependent, we discover ourselves at the same time to be free in this dependence: and pride and humility, joy and submission, intermingle in our feeling for the Cosmos... We consider it arrogant and profane on the part of a single individual 26, 31 τρυφᾶν με οὐ θέλει ὁ θεός, οὐδὲ γὰρ τῷ Ἡρακλεῖ παρεῖχε τῷ υἱῷ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ.

1 The Old Faith and the New, Eng. tr. p. 161.

to oppose himself with such audacious levity [as the Pessimists do] to the Cosmos, whence he springs, from which also he derives that spark of reason [compare the ἀπόῤῥοια and ἀπόσπασμα of the Stoics] which he misuses. ...We demand the same piety for our Cosmos that the devout of old demanded for his God'.'

The hymn of Cleanthes may fitly conclude our account of the Stoics. 'O Thou of many names, most glorious of immortals, Almighty Zeus, sovereign ruler of Nature, directing all things in accordance with law; Thee it is right that all mortals should address, for Thine offspring we are, and, alone of all creatures that live and move on earth, have received from Thee the gift of imitative sound. Wherefore I will hymn thy praise and sing thy might for ever. The universe, as it rolls around this earth, obeys Thy guidance and willingly submits to Thy control. Such a minister Thou holdest in thine invincible hands, the twoedged thunderbolt of ever-living fire, at whose strokes all nature trembles...No work is done without Thee, O Lord, neither on earth, nor in the heaven, nor in the sea, except what the wicked do in their foolishness. Thou knowest how to make the rough smooth, and bringest order out of disorder, and things not friendly are friendly in Thy sight for so hast Thou fitted all things together, good and evil alike, that there might be one eternal law and reason for all things. The wicked heed it not,

1 It is worthy of note that Strauss also accepts the Stoic conflagration, see p. 180.

2 The Stoics thought that names were given þúσeɩ où vóμw, and that in some way they represented the real nature of the thing, μιμουμένων φωνῶν τὰ πράγματα, see Orig. c. Cels. I. 24.

3 Literally 'to make what is odd even.'

M. P.

12

unhappy ones, who, though ever craving for good, have neither eyes nor ears for the universal law of God, by wise obedience to which they might attain a noble life. But now they think not of right; but hasten each after their own way, some painfully striving for honour, others bent on shameful gains, others on luxury and the pleasures of the body. But do Thou, all-bounteous Zeus, who sittest in the clouds and rulest the thunder, save men, from their grievous ignorance: scatter it from their souls, and grant them to obtain wisdom, whereon relying Thou dost govern all things in righteousness; that so, being honoured, we may requite Thee with honour, as it is fitting for man to do, since there is no nobler office for mortals or for gods, than duly to praise for evermore the universal law.'

The broad distinction which we noticed at the beginning of our history between the Italic or Doric and the Ionic Schools, reappears in the marked contrast between the two materialistic schools of later times. As the Stoics are preeminently Doric and Roman in character, so the Epicureans are Ionic and Greek. The one might be said to represent the Law, the other the Gospel of Paganism. The former not unfrequently made themselves odious and ridiculous among the more educated class by their obstinacy, pride and intolerance, their exaggeration, pedantry and narrow-mindedness; while the latter won general favour in society by their freedom from prejudice, their good sense and amiability. But, in spite of this, it was the Porch which was the nurse and school of all that was noblest in the Graeco-Roman world; from it came the patriot, the martyr, the missionary, the hero:

it set the example of that renunciation which was followed by the ascetic orders of Christendom; it supplied to the technicalities of Roman law that ideal element which fitted it to become so important a factor in our modern civilization. On the other hand, if we ask what results proceeded from the Garden of Epicurus, we may point to such a life as that of Atticus, who passed unscathed through the Civil Wars of Rome, retaining the esteem of all parties, and using his influence to alleviate the sufferings of all; we may see in Epicureanism a needful protest in behalf of the rights of human nature and the freedom of individual thought and feeling, against the oppression of a superstitious religion and an over-strained morality. But it is only as protest and correction that it is of value; its own view of human nature is poorer and narrower than that put forward by any of the systems which it sought to supersede; it cares not for science in itself, it has no serious regard for truth as such, it offers no spirit-stirring ideal for action; there is nothing great, generous or self-sacrificing in the temper of mind which it tends to foster and encourage. And popular opinion, which only recognizes broad contrasts, fastened upon the essential differences in the two schools; it regarded with admiration the lofty character of a Zeno or a Cato, and looked with suspicion upon their Epicurean rivals, as undermining the foundations of religion and morality, and advocating a life of selfish enjoyment.

We have comparatively few remains of Epicurean writers, none in fact but the poem of Lucretius, together with some letters of Epicurus and the scarcely legible fragments of Philodemus and others discovered at Herculaneum ; while we have several complete treatises on