« PreviousContinue »
mation is far too scanty to enable us to bring the CHAP.
XII. fragments of their teaching into a perfectly satisfactory context,' granting that enough is known to evidence one and the same tendency in all these thinkers. It may then be assumed as probable, that the Megarians did not confine themselves to those logical subtleties which are known to us; our notices are, however, too deficient for us to be able to attribute others to them with anything like certainty.?
A peculiar position in the Megarian philosophy is (6) That that occupied by Stilpo. Ever ready to defend the which
of Stilpo, teaching of the School at the head of which he stood, adopted
much from clinging to universal conceptions, maintaining the im- the possibility of becoming, the unity of being, 3 and the Cynics.
(a) Every difference between sensuous and rational perceptions, combina
tion of he at the same time combines with his Megarian
subject views theories and aims which originally belonged to and predithe Cynics. In the first place he rejected, as did An
impossible. | Ritter's (Rh. Mus. ii. 310, would not have used such lanGesch. der. Phil. ii. 140) con- guage, as may be gathered jectures seem in many respects from the Sophistes, 246, C., to go beyond historical proba- and the introduction to the bility, and beyond the spirit of Theætetus ; and Eubulides had the Megarian teaching. To not appeared when Plato comillustrate this here would take posed the Euthydemus. That too long.
the Megarians made use of 2 Prantl, p. 43, believes that many of the Sophistic fallacies, the majority of the sophisms is of course not denied. Only enumerated by Aristotle really nothing for certain is known belong to the Megarians. Most of such use. of them, however, would ap- 3 See pp. 260, 3; 263, 4. pear to come from the So
4 Compare the passage in phists; in proof of which a Aristocles quoted p. 259, 1, in reference may be made which οι περί Στίλπωνα και τους Plato's Euthydemus, which Meyapikoùs are spoken of in can hardly have the Megarians addition to the Eleatics. in view. Towards Euclid Plato
tisthenes, every combination of subject and predicate, since the conception of the one is different from the conception of the other, and two things with different conceptions can never be declared to be the same. The doctrine of the unity of being,” in as far as it can be shown to have originated with Stilpo, may be deduced as a corollary from this view; for if nothing can be predicated of anything else, it follows that being can alone be predicated of itself.
Truly cynical are also Stilpo's moral principles. The captious logic to wbich other Megarians devoted themselves with speculative onesidedness, to the entire neglect of the ethical element,3 was also a charac
In Plut. adv. Col. 22, 1, p. Stilpo's assertion as 1119, the Epicurean Stilpo raises joke. The same proof is given the objection: τον θεόν αναιρεί- by Simpl. Phys. 26, a. : διά δε σθαι υπ' αυτού, λέγοντος έτερον την περί ταύτα (the distinction ετέρου μή κατηγορείσθαι. πως between the different cateγάρ βιωσόμεθα, μη λέγοντες άν- gories and the ambiguity of θρωπον αγαθόν. αλλ' άνθρω- words) άγνοιαν και οι Μεγαρικοί πον άνθρωπος και χωρίς αγαθών κληθέντες φιλόσοφοι λαβόντες ως αγαθόν και and again, c. 23: εναργή πρότασιν, ότι ών οι λόγοι ου μην αλλά το επί Στίλπωνος έτεροι ταύτα έτερά εστι και ότι τοιούτόν έστιν. ει περί ίππoυ τo τα έτερα κεχώρισται αλλήλων, τρέχειν κατηγορούμεν, ού φησι έδόκουν δεικνύναι αυτόν αυτού κεταυτόν είναι τα περί ου κατηγο- χωρισμένον έκαστον: i.e. since ρείται το κατηγορούμενον, αλλ' ihe conception of Σωκράτης έτερον μέν ανθρώπων του τί ήν μουσικός is a different one to είναι τον λόγον, έτερον δε τώ that of Σωκράτης λευκός, the αγαθώ και πάλιν το ίππον είναι one according to Megarian του τρέχοντα είναι διαφέρειν' έκα- hypothesis must be a different τέρου γαρ απαιτούμενοι τον λόγον person to the other. ου τον αυτόν αποδίδομεν υπέρ 2 See p. 263. αμφοίν. όθεν αμαρτάνειντους έτερον 3 Excepting Euclid's docετέρου κατηγορούντας. The very trine of the oneness of virtue, same thing will be found in the nothing bearing on Ethics is case of Antisthenes. All the less known as belonging to the reason has Plutarch to regard Megarians.
teristic of Stilpo;' and perhaps it is only an accident that no captious assertion or discovery of his is on record. His character, however, is not only always (6) The
highest mentioned by biographers with the greatest respect, but many traits are recorded of him, which identify placed in
apathy. his morality with that of the Cynics. The highest good he placed in that apathy, which forbids the feeling of pain even to exist. The wise man is required to be in himself independent, and not even to stand in need of friends to secure happiness. When Demetrius Poliorcetes enquired after his losses by the plunder of Megara, he gave for answer that he had seen no one carrying off his knowledge. When reminded of the immoral life of his daughter, he rejoined, that if he could not bring honour on her, she could not bring disgrace on him. Banishment he
See Chrysipp. in Plut. Sto. at the death of relatives. Rep. 10, 11, p. 1036, and pp. 211, What Alex. Aphr. De An. 103, 2; 210,
a, remarks also probably applies 2 See p. 251, note 3.
to Stilpo, that the Megarians 3 Sen. Ep. 9, 1: “An merito look on άσχλησία as πρώτον reprehendat in quadam epistola oireîov. Epicurus eos, qui dicunt sapi- 4 Plutarch, Demet. c. 9; entem se ipso esse contentum Tranquil. An. c. 17, p. 475; et propter hoc amico non indi. Puer. Ed. c. 8, p. 6; Sen. de gere desideras scire. Hoc ob- Const. 5, 6; Epis. 9, 18; Diog. jicitur Stilboni ab Epicuro et ii. 115: Floril. Joan. Damasc. iis, quibus summum bonum ii. 13, 153 (Stob. Floril. ed. visum est animus impatiens.' Mein. iv. 227). That Stilpo And a little further on : `Hoc thereby lost his wife and inter nos et illos interest: daughter is probably a rhetonoster sapiens vincit quidem rical exaggeration of Seneca. incommodum omne sed sentit; The well-known 'omnia mea illorum sentit quidem.' mecum porto, attributed by Connected herewith is the ob- Seneca to Stilpo, is by Cicero servation of Stilpo in Teles. in referred to Bias of Prisne. Stob. Floril. 103, 83, in order 5 Plut. An. Tran. c. 6; Diog. to warn from excessive grief ii. 114.
CHAP. would not allow to be an evil. To be independent XII.
of everything without, and to be absolutely free from wants—this highest standard of Cynicism for the wise man—was also his ideal. And lastly, the free attitude towards religion adopted by the Cynics was also shared by him, and finds expression in many of his utterances.?
Whether, and if so, in what way, he attempted (c) The
to set up a logical connection between the Cynic and Cynic and Negarian Megarian theories, we are not told. In itself, such a theories task was not difficult. With the assertion that no not logically har. subject can admit a predicate, Euclid's hostile attitude monised by towards proof by analogy is closely related; this too him.
rests on the general proposition that things dissimilar cannot be compared. It is also quite in harmony with the negative criticism of the Megarians; and if Euclid denied to the good any form of manifoldness, others might add, as Antisthenes really did, that the one and not the manifold could alone exist. Moreover from the oneness of the good the apathy of the wise man might be deduced, by considering that all else besides the good is unreal and indifferent. The denial of the popular faith was also involved in the doctrine of the one, even as it was first taught by Xenophanes. In the Cynic element as adopted by
· In the fragment in Stob. these subjects could not be Flor. 40, 8.
discussed in the street. The 2 According to Diog. ii. 116, story in Plut. Prof. in Virt. he proved that the Athene of 12, p. 83, of the dream in which Phidias was not a God, and he conversed with Poseidon is then before the Areopagus apparently invented to justify evasively replied that she was his omission to sacrifice. not a Oeds but a ded, and when 3 Conf. Diog. ii. 106, and p. Crates asked him as to prayers 263, 3. and sacrifices, replied that
Stilpo, there were not wanting, it is true, points of CHAP. approach to the Megarians, but it was a deviation from the original form of the Megarian teaching to allow explicitly such an element to exist. Closely connected with the Megarian school is II. Elean
Eretrian the Elean-Eretrian, respecting which, however, very School. little information has reached Its founder A. Its was Phædo of Elis, the well-known favourite of history.
| See Preller's Phædo's Life story, that no conquest of Elis and Writings, Rhein. Mus. took place at that time, wherefür Philol. iv. 391. Phædo, as Diog. says of Phædo : outhe scion of noble Elean νεάλω τη πατρίδι. He therefore family, had been taken cap- infers that Mņaios should be tive not long before the death read for 'Hielos in Diog. ii. 105. of Socrates, probably 400 or Yet Phædo is called an Elean 401
Preller concludes by both Gell. 1. c. and Strabo, from Phædo, 89, B., that he ix. 1, 8, p. 393, and his school was not eighteen years of age called Elean. If Elis itself at the time of the death of did not fall into an enemy's Socrates; it may, however, be hand, its suburbs were occuasked whether Phædo followed pied by the Spartan army in Athenian customs in his dress. the Elean-Spartan war, proHe was employed as a slave bably in the spring of 408 B.C. in most humiliating services at (Xen. Hell. iii. 2, 21, and PrelAthens, until one of Socrates' ler, on the passage, Curtius, Gr. friends (besides Crito, Cebes Gesch. iii. 149. 757.) Phædo and Alcibiades are both men- appears to have been taken tioned, the latter certainly not captive at that time. Most being at Athens at the time, probably Phædo left Athens on and probably not being alive) the death of Socrates. But redeemed him at the interces- whether he at once returned sion of Socrates. See Diog. ii. home, or repaired with others 31, 105 ; Suid. under paidwv; to Euclid at Megara, is unand Hesych. Vir Illustr. Þaidwv; known. Diog. ii. 105, mentions Gell. N. A. ii. 18; Macrob. Sat. two genuine and four spurious i. 11; Lact. Inst. iii. 25, 15; dialogues of his. His Zopyrus Orig. c. Cels. iii. 67; Cic. N. D. is even quoted by Pollux, iii. i. 33, 93; Athen. xi. 507, C. 18, and the Antiatheista in Preller not improbably finds Bekker’s Anecdot. i. 107. Panæthe source of the story in tius seems to have had doubts Hermippus, περί των διαπρε- as to all the treatises passing ψάνεων έν παιδεία δούλων. . Grote under his name, Diog. ii. 64. (Plato, iii. 503) objects to this He is called by Gellius ‘philo