what was natural, a mania for what was strange and extraordinary, a curious prying into the (pretended) occult arts, with an extinction of all sentiments truly great and noble. Such are the characteristics given by the Epicurean Lucian of Samosata (2nd cent. A.C.) in a Satire, which exposes with the most poignant ridicule the false philosophy of his age. (Cf. § 181.)

See † CHPH. MEINERS, History of the Decline of Morals under the Roman Government, Leips. 1782, 8vo.

177. Consequently the efforts of the Reason were directed in various ways, and tended 1st. To maintain the Schools and systems already existing; not without considerable modifications. 2ndly. To revive superannuated doctrines, such as those of the Pythagorean and Orphic philosophies. 3dly. To combine by Interpretation, Syncretism, or Eclecticism, the various systems, especially those of Plato and Aristotle; and to trace them all back to the ancient Dogmata of Pythagoras, the pretended Orpheus, Zoroaster, and Hermes.1 4thly To combine in one the spirit of Oriental and Occidental philosophy.

178. Nevertheless, Philosophy made at least some apparent progress in extension, and, at least apparently, in intensity. In extension, because the Romans and the Jews by this time had made themselves acquainted with the philosophical dogmas of the Greeks, and had produced some philosophical works sufficiently original. Nor does this progress of philosophy appear to have been merely external; inasmuch as Scepticism assumed a more intense character, and gave occasion for a fresh dogmatical system in the school of the Platonists. By imagining a new source of knowledge, the intuition of the Absolute; by labouring to combine the old and the new theories of the East and the West, they endeavoured to provide a broader basis for Dogmatic philosophy, to prop up the established religion, and to oppose a barrier to the rapid progress of Christianity;

* Syncretism professes to combine the elements of different systems: Eclecticism to extract from all what is consistent with a particular theory.-ED.

1 Cf. L. E. OTTO BAUMGARTEN-CRUSIUS, De Librorum Hermeticorum origine atque indole, Jena, 1827, 4to.

but eventually lost themselves in the region of Metaphysical dreams. On the other hand, the Doctors of the Catholic faith, who at one time had rejected and contemned the philosophy of the Greeks, ended by adopting it, at least in part, in order to complete and fortify their religious system. The invasions of the barbarous tribes, and the disunion of the Eastern and Western empires, brought on at last an almost utter extinction of philosophical research.

179. Unquestionably the national character of the Romans, more disposed for action than speculation, did not encourage philosophy to spring up among them unassisted.1 The revolutions also in their government, the loss of their republican constitution, the tyranny of the greater part of their emperors, and the general and continually increasing corruption, were little favourable to the development of a truly philosophical spirit, yet from time to time they manifested a degree of interest in such researches, which they looked upon as indispensable to a cultivated mind, and as serviceable for certain civil offices. Agreeably to their native character and habits, they showed more predilection for the doctrines of the Porch or of Epicurus, than those of Plato and Aristotle, which were of a more speculative character. The Romans thus applied themselves to Grecian philosophy; successfully transferred into their own language some of its treatises; enriched, by the application of them, their jurisprudence and policy, but did not advance a step by any original discovery of their own. Consequently, we can distinguish only a small number of Latins who have deserved a page in the history of philosophy. We shall proceed to mention the principal of those among them, who, whether Romans or foreigners, cultivated and diffused the philosophy of the Greeks, with some partial modifications in their manner of teaching it.

K. F. RENNER, De Impedimentis quæ apud Vett. Romanos Philosophiæ negaverint successum, Hal. 1825. See also the authors men tioned at the head of § 24, b.

Cicero.

Authorities: The works of Cicero; Plutarch, Life of Cicero. MORABIN, History of Cicero, Paris, 1745, 2 vols. 4to. CONYERS MIDDLETON, Life of Cicero. (Several editions). JAC. FACCIOLATI, Vita Ciceronis Literaria, Patav. 1760, 8vo. H. CHR. FR. HULSEMANN, De Indole Philosophicâ M. T. Ciceronis ex ingenii ipsius et aliis rationibus æstimandâ, Luneb. 1799, 4to.

GAUTIER DE SIBERT, Examen de la Philosophie de Cicéron; dans les Mém. de l'Acad. des Inscr. tom. XLI et XLIII.

CHPH. MEINERS, Oratio de Philosophiâ Ciceronis ejusque in Universam Philosophiam meritis; Verm. Philos. Schriften, I, § 274.

J. CHPH. BRIEGLEB, Progr. de Philosophiâ Ciceronis, Cob. 1784, 4to. Et, De Cicerone cum Epicuro Disputante, Ibid. 1779, 4to.

J. C. WALDIN, Oratio de Philosophiâ Ciceronis Platonicâ, Jen. 1753, 4to.

MATH. FREMLING (resp. SCHANTZ), Philosophia Ciceronis, Lund. 1795, 4to.

J. FR. HERBART, Dissert. on the Philosophy of Cicero: in the Königsb. Archiv. No. I.

R. KUHNER, M. T. Ciceronis in Philosophiam ejusque partes merita, Hamburg, 1825, 8vo.

ADAM BURSII Logica Ciceronis Stoica, Zamosc. 1604, 4to.

CONR. NAHMMACHERII Theologia Ciceronis; accedit Ontologiæ Ciceronis specimen. Frankenh. 1767, 8vo.

DAN. WYTTENBACHII Dissert. de Philosophiæ Ciceronianæ loco qui est de Deo, Amstel. 1783, 4to.

An Essay towards settling the Dispute between Middleton and Ernesti on the Philosophic Character of the Treatise De Natura Deorum; in five Dissert. Altona and Leips. 1800, 8vo.

GASP. JUL. WUNDERLICH (resp. ANDR. SCHMALER), Cicero de Animâ Platonizans Disp. Viteb. 1714. 4to.

ANT. BUCHERI Ethica Ciceroniana, Hamb. 1610, 8vo.

JASONIS DE NORES, Brevis et Distincta Institutio in Cic. Philos. de Vita et Moribus, Patav. 1597.

180. M. T. Cicero,1 like many other young Romans of good family, was instructed by Greek preceptors. In order to improve himself in eloquence and the science of polity, he travelled to Rhodes and Athens; where he occupied himself with the pursuit of Grecian philosophy, directing his attention particularly to the Academic and Stoic systems. He owed, in part, his success as an orator and a statesman, to the ardour with which he devoted himself to these studies. At a later period of his life, when his career as a statesman was closed by the fall of the Republic,

1 Born at Arpinum, 107 B.C., died B.C. 44.

with his characteristic patriotism he consecrated his leisure to the discussion of points of philosophy; labouring to transplant the theories of the Greeks into his native soil: with little gratitude on the part of his countrymen. In all speculative questions he maintained the freedom of opinion and the impartiality which became a disciple of the New Academy: following the method also of that school in the form of his writings. In questions of morality he preferred the rigid principles of the Stoics, but not without doing justice to Plato, Aristotle, and even Epicurus (as far as the correctness of his life was concerned3). His philosophical works, in which he appears to have made Plato his model, are a most valuable collection of interesting discussions and luminous remarks on the most important topics, e. g. On the Nature of the Divinity; On the Supreme Good; On the Social Duties; On Fate; Divination; the Laws; the Republic, etc. etc. and have proved a mine of information to succeeding ages, without, however, betraying any great depth of thought. They are likewise highly valuable as throwing light on the history of philosophy," and have contributed to form the technical language of this science.

6

Epicureans.

181. The doctrine of Epicurus, when first disseminated in their country, attracted among the Romans a crowd of partisans, in consequence of its light and accommodating character, and the indulgence it afforded to the inclinations of all; as also because it had the effect of disengaging the mind from superstitious terrors. Unhappily it favoured at the same time a frivolous and trifling spirit. Very few of the Roman Epicureans distinguished themselves by a truly philosophical character; and even these adhered literally to

1 CIC. Orat. pro Sextio. PLUTARCH. Vit. Cic. V.

2 De Offic. I, 2.

4 De Div. II, Init.

3 De Nat. Deor. I, 5; Acad. Quæst. IV. 3.

5 M. T. Ciceronis Historia Philosophiæ Antiquæ. Ex illius Script. ed. FRIED. GEDIKE, Berl. 1782, 8vo.

Among the most considerable were, Catius and Amafanius; C. Cassius, Tit. Pomponius Atticus, Caius Velleius, Bassus Aufidius; add to these the poet Horace, with several more.

7 Cic. Fin. I, 7; Tusc. Quæst. IV, 3; Ep. ad Div. XV, 19. SENEC. Ep. 21, 30.

the doctrines of their master, without advancing a step beyond them. Such, among others, was Lucretius,' who gave a statement of those doctrines in his didactic poem De Rerum Natura, as a poem, a work of superior merit.

Stoics and Cynics.

C. P. CONZ, Dissertations on the Hist. and Characteristics of the later Stoic Philosophy; with an Essay on Christian Morality, on Kant, and the Stoics, Tüb. 1794, 8vo.

G. P. HOLLENBERG, De Præcipuis Stoicæ Philosophiæ Doctoribus et Patronis apud Romanos, Leips. 1793, 4to.

J. A. L. WEGSCHEIDER, Ethices Stoicorum recentiorum fundamenta ex ipsorum scriptis eruta, cum principiis Ethicis quæ critica rationis practicæ sec. Kantium exhibet, comparata, Hamb. 1797, 8vo.

182. Next to those of Epicurus, the doctrines of the Stoics obtained the greatest success at Rome, especially among men of a severer character, who had devoted their lives to public affairs. With such men, the Stoic philosophy being more closely applied to real life, and exercising a marked influence over legislation and the administration of the laws, naturally acquired a more practical spirit, and began to disengage itself in some degree from speculative subtilties.5 Besides Athenodorus of Tarsus, C. Musonius

1 Born 95, died 50 B.C.

2 Übersetzt von KNEBEL, 2 Bde. (1821) 1831.

J. A. ORTLOFF, Abhandlung über den Einfluss der Stoischen Philosophie auf die Römische Jurisprudenz, 1797.

3 C. PLINIUS SECUNDUS, author of the Natural History, who died A.D. 79, by the eruption of Vesuvius, and LUCIAN of Samosata, the satirist (§ 176), who flourished in the second cent. after Christ, (see + J. C. TIEMANN, On the Philosophy and Language of Lucian, Zerbst, 1804, 8vo.), have been numbered among the Epicureans without sufficient grounds; as well as the contemporaries of the latter, Diogenes Laertius (flourished about 211), and Celsus. The latter is known to us as an adversary of Christianity, by the work of Origen. By some he is esteemed a Neoplatonist.

4 Such, in the days of the Republic, were the Scipios, and, in particular, the second Scipio Africanus, (cf. § 158); C. Lælius; the jurisconsult Pub. Rutilius Rufus, Q. Tubero, Q. Mucius Scævola the augur; and subsequently, Cato of Utica, and M. Brutus, the assassin of Cæsar. See the preceding note.

6

Flourished about two years after Christ.