All mankind are to live together like a flock. No nation may have its own special laws and boundaries severing it from others. Confining themselves to the barest necessaries of life, needing no gold, that source of so much mischief, abstaining from marriage and family life, they wished to return to the simplicity of a state of nature; the leading thought of their enlarged political sympathies being not so much the oneness and the union of all mankind, but the freedom of the individual from the bonds of social life and the limits of nationality. Here again • The above description rests only in part on direct testimony, but the combination which is the basis of it does not lack great probability. We know on authority that Diogenes in his TOATEía (Diog. 80) demanded a community of wives and children, and that in the same treatise he proposed a coinage of bones or stones (aorpayάλo) instead of gold and silver, Athen. iv. 159, e. We know further that Zeno's TOλITEía ran to this effect: Iva μὴ κατὰ πόλεις μηδὲ κατὰ δήμους οἰκῶμεν, ἰδίοις ἕκαστοι διωρισμένοι δικαίοις, ἀλλὰ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἡγώμεθα δημότας καὶ πολίτας εἷς δὲ βίος ᾖ καὶ κόσμος, ὥσπερ ἀγέλης συννόμου νόμῳ κοινῷ τρεφομένης, Plut. Alex. Vit. i. 6, p. 329; and since this treatise of Zeno was always considered to express the opinions of the Cynic School, we have every reason to look in it for a Cynic's views. That such views were on the whole advocated by Antisthenes, probably in the treatise 1 περὶ νόμου ἢ περὶ πολιτείας, CHAP. XIII. СНАР. modesty. may be seen the negative spirit of their morality, destitute of all creative power. (c) Sup- The same character may be recognised in a feature pression of for us the most revolting in Cynicism-their deliberate suppression of the natural feeling of shame. This feeling they did not consider altogether unreasonable,' but they urged that you need only be ashamed of what is bad, and that what is in itself good may not only be unblushingly discussed, but done without reserve before the eyes of all. They therefore permitted themselves what they considered natural, without regard to places, not shrinking even from doing in the public streets3 what other men 1 It is expressly told of Diogenes, Diog. 37; 54, that he expostulated with a woman who lay in an indecent position in a temple, and that he called blushes the colour of virtue. 2 See the following note, and Cic. Off. i. 35, 128: Nec vero audiendi sunt Cynici aut si qui fuerunt Stoici pæne Cynici, qui reprehendunt et irrident, quod ea, quæ turpia non sint (for instance, the begetting of children) nominibus ac verbis flagitiosa dicamus (that we consider it unseemly to name them), illa autem quæ turpia sunt (stealing, &c.) nominibus appellemus suis. This is especially said of Diogenes, Diog. 22: паντ троп ἐχρῆτο εἰς πάντα, ἀριστῶν τι καὶ καθεύδων καὶ διαλεγόμενος, and according to Diog. 69, he supported this by the argument, If it is at all allowable to breakfast, it must be allowable to breakfast in public. Fol- prefer to do in secret. Lest he should in any way forego his independence, the Cynic puts out of sight all regard for others, and what he is not ashamed of by himself, he thinks he need not be ashamed of before others. The opinion of men is to him indifferent. He is neither hurt by their familiarity with his personal life, nor need he fear such familiarity. To the same source may be referred the Cynic attitude towards religion. No course of study under Antisthenes was needed to make men doubt the truth of the popular faith. Such doubts were raised on all sides, and since the appearance of the Sophists, had permeated the educated classes. Not even the Socratic circle had passed unscathed.' From his intercourse with Gorgias and the other Sophists, Antisthenes in particular must have been familiar with freer views respecting the Gods and their worship, and specially with the principles of the Eleatics, whose teaching in other respects he also worked into his own. For him, however, these views had a peculiar meaning. Hence, too, may be explained the iii. 15, who mentions it as the common practice of the Cynics; S. Aug. Civ. Dei, xiv. 20, who does not altogether credit it, but does not improve it by his interpretation. Yet all these are later authorities. The whole story may rest upon some such story as that this married couple once passed a night in the στοὰ ποικίλη, οι else upon the theoretical assertion of some Cynic philoso phers, that a public consum- As we gather from the dia- CHAP. XIII. (d) Re nunciation of religion. sharp and hostile attitude of the Cynics to the popular faith, in which they so distinctly deviated from the example of Socrates. The wise man, independent of everything external, cannot possibly be dependent on a traditional faith. He cannot feel pledged to follow popular opinions, or to connect his well-being with customs and devotional practices, which have nothing to do with his moral state.' Thus in religious matters the Cynics are decidedly on the side of free thought. The existence of a God they do not deny, nor can their wise man do without one; but they object to a number of gods resembling men-popular gods, owing, as they say,2 their existence to tradition in reality there is but one God, who resembles nothing visible, and cannot be represented by any symbol.3 The same reasoning holds good of In this way we must ex- 2 Cic. N. D. i. 13, 32: An- αὐτὸν οὐδεὶς ἐκμαθεῖν ἐξ εἰκόνος dúvaral. Tertull. Ad Nat. ii. 2: In reply to the question, Quid in cœlis agatur? Diogenes replied: Nunquam ascendi; to the question, Whether there were any Gods? he answered: Nescio nisi ut sint expedire. No very great dependence can, it is true, be placed in Tertullian's sayings. Id. Apol. 14; Ad. Nat. i. 10: Diogenes nescis quid in Herculem ludit, without, however, giving further particulars. Compare what was said of Socrates, p. 175. The Cynics are therefore Atheists in the ancient senseof the term, i.e. they denied the Gods of the state, although from their point of view they were certainly right in reject ing the charge of atheism. the worship of the gods. There is but one way of pleasing God-by virtue; everything else is superstition. Wisdom and uprightness make us followers and friends of the gods. What is generally done to secure their favour is worthless and unmeaning. The wise man honours God by virtue, and not by sacrifice,' which God does not require.2 He knows that a temple is not more holy than any other place.3 He does not pray for things which are considered goods by the unwise; not for riches, but for righteousness.1 Herewith the ordinary notion respecting prayer is also surrendered; for everyone owes virtue to his own exertions. Hence Diogenes may be understood ridiculing prayers and vows. The same sweeping judgment is pronounced on oracles, prophecy, and prophets. The mystic rites also were assailed with biting scorn, both by Diogenes and Antisthenes; these philosophers, as far as religious views are con Nothing follows from the anecdotes in Diog. 37; 42. 1 Julian, Or. vi. 199, B., excusing Diogenes because of his poverty, says that he never entered a temple or offered sacrifice. Crates, ibid. 200, A., promises to honour Hermes and the Muses où dañávais тpupepaîs, ἀλλ' ἀρεταῖς ὁσίαις. 2 See p. 315, 2. See Diog. 73: μndév TL ἄτοπον εἶναι ἐξ ἱεροῦ τι λαβεῖν. See the prayer of Crates in Julian 1. c. and Diog. 42. 5 Compare the anecdotes in Diog. 37; 59. 6 In Diog. 24 he says that, looking at pilots, physicians, and philosophers, he thinks 7 Diog. 4; 39; 42; Plut. Aud. Poet. 5, p. 21; Clemens, Protrept. 49, C. CHAP. XIII. |