Sextus Empiricus and Greek Scepticism Part 2

Of the different writers on s.e.xtus Empiricus, those who have treated this part of the subject most critically are Haas and Pappenheim. We will therefore consider, somewhat at length, the results presented by these two authors. Haas thinks that the _Hypotyposes_ were delivered in Rome for the following reasons.

s.e.xtus' lectures must have been given in some centre of philosophical schools and of learning. He never opposes Roman relations to those of the place where he is speaking, as he does in regard to Athens and Alexandria. He uses the name "Romans"

only three times,[1] once comparing them to the Rhodians, once to the Persians, and once in general to other nations.[2] In the first two of these references, the expression "among the Romans"

in the first part of the ant.i.thesis is followed by the expression, "among us," in the second part, which Haas understands to be synonymous. The third reference is in regard to a Roman law, and the use of the word 'Roman' does not at all show that s.e.xtus was not then in Rome. The character of the laws referred to by s.e.xtus as [Greek: par' haemin] shows that they were always Roman laws, and his definition of law[3] is especially a definition of Roman law. This argument might, it would seem, apply to any part of the Roman Empire, but Haas claims that the whole relation of law to custom as treated of by s.e.xtus, and all his statements of customs forbidden at that time by law, point to Rome as the place of his residence. Further, Haas considers the Herodotus mentioned by Galen[4] as a prominent physician in Rome, to have been the predecessor and master of s.e.xtus, in whose place s.e.xtus says that he is teaching.[5] Haas also thinks that s.e.xtus' refutation of the ident.i.ty of Pyrrhonism with Empiricism evidently refers to a paragraph in Galen's _Subfiguratio Empirica_,[6] which would be natural if the _Hypotyposes_ were written shortly after Galen's _Sub. Em._, and in the same place. Further, Hippolytus, who wrote in or near Rome very soon after the time of s.e.xtus, apparently used the _Hypotyposes_, which would be more natural if he wrote in the same place. According to Haas, every thing in internal evidence, and outward testimony, points to Rome as having been the city where s.e.xtus occupied his position as the head of the Sceptical School.

[1] Haas _Op. cit._ p. 15.

[2] _Hyp._ I. 149, 152; III. 211.

[3] _Hyp._ I. 146.

[4] Galen _de puls._ IV. 11; Bd. VIII. 751.

[5] _Hyp_. III. 120.

[6] Galen _Sub. Em._ 123 B-126 D. (Basileae, 1542).

Coming now to the position of Pappenheim on this subject, we find that he takes very decided ground against the seat of the Sceptical School having been in Rome, even for a short time, in his latest publication regarding it.[1] This opinion is the result of late study on the part of Pappenheim, for in his work on the _Lebensverhaltnisse des s.e.xtus Empiricus_ Berlin 1875, he says, "Da.s.s Herodotus in Rom lebte sagt Galen. Vermuthlich auch s.e.xtus." His reasons given in the later article for not connecting the Sceptical School at all with Rome are as follows.

He finds no proof of the influence of Scepticism in Rome, as Cicero remarks that Pyrrhonism is extinct,[2] and he also gives weight to the well-known sarcastic saying of Seneca, _Quis est qui tradat praecepta Pyrrhonis!_[3] While Haas claims that s.e.xtus would naturally seek one of the centres of dogmatism, in order most effectively to combat it, Pappenheim, on the contrary, contends that it would have been foolishness on the part of s.e.xtus to think of starting the Sceptical School in Rome, where Stoicism was the favored philosophy of the Roman Emperors; and when either for the possible reason of strife between the Empirical and Methodical Schools, or for some other cause, the Pyrrhonean School was removed from Alexandria, Pappenheim claims that all testimony points to the conclusion that it was founded in some city of the East. The name of s.e.xtus is never known in Roman literature, but in the East, on the contrary, literature speaks for centuries of s.e.xtus and Pyrrho.

The _Hypotyposes_, especially, were well-known in the East, and references to s.e.xtus are found there in philosophical and religious dogmatic writings. The Emperor Julian makes use of the works of s.e.xtus, and he is frequently quoted by the Church Fathers of the Eastern Church.[4] Pappenheim accordingly concludes that the seat of Pyrrhonism after the school was removed from Alexandria, was in some unknown city of the East.

[1] Pappenheim _Sitz der Skeptischen Schule. Archiv fur Geschichte der Phil._ 1888.

[2] Cicero _De Orat._ III. 17, 62.

[3] Seneca _nat. qu._ VII. 32. 2.

[4] Fabricius _de s.e.xto Empirico Testimonia_.

In estimating the weight of these arguments, we must accept with Pappenheim the close connection of Pyrrhonism with Alexandria, and the subsequent influence which it exerted upon the literature of the East. All historical relations tend to fix the permanent seat of Pyrrhonism, after its separation from the Academy, in Alexandria. There is nothing to point to its removal from Alexandria before the time of Menodotus, who is the teacher of Herodotus,[1] and for many reasons to be considered the real teacher of s.e.xtus. It was Menodotus who perfected the Empirical doctrines, and who brought about an official union between Scepticism and Empiricism, and who gave Pyrrhonism in great measure, the _eclat_ that it enjoyed in Alexandria, and who appears to have been the most powerful influence in the school, from the time of Aenesidemus to that of s.e.xtus. Furthermore, s.e.xtus' familiarity with Alexandrian customs bears the imprint of original knowledge, and he cannot, as Zeller implies, be accepted as simply quoting. One could hardly agree with Zeller,[2] that the familiarity shown by s.e.xtus with the customs of both Alexandria and Rome in the _Hypotyposes_ does not necessarily show that he ever lived in either of those places, because a large part of his works are compilations from other books; but on the contrary, the careful reader of s.e.xtus' works must find in all of them much evidence of personal knowledge of Alexandria, Athens and Rome.

[1] Diog. IX. 12, 116.

[2] Zeller _Op. cit._ III. p. 39.

A part of s.e.xtus' books also may have been written in Alexandria. [Greek: Pros phusikous] could have been written in Alexandria.[1] If these were also lectures, then s.e.xtus taught in Alexandria as well as elsewhere. The history of Eastern literature for the centuries immediately following the time of s.e.xtus, showing as it does in so many instances the influence of Pyrrhonism, and a knowledge of the _Hypotyposes_, furnishes us with an incontestable proof that the school could not have been for a long time removed from the East, and the absence of such knowledge in Roman literature is also a strong argument against its long continuance in that city. It would seem, however, from all the data at command, that during the years that the Sceptical School was removed from Alexandria, its head quarters were in Rome, and that the Pyrrhonean _Hypotyposes_ were delivered in Rome. Let us briefly consider the arguments in favour of such a hypothesis. Scepticism was not unknown in Rome.

Pappenheim quotes the remark of Cicero that Pyrrhonism was long since dead, and the sarcasm of Seneca, _Quis est qui tradat praecepta Pyrrhonis?_ as an argument against the knowledge of Pyrrhonism in Rome. We must remember, however, that in Cicero's time Aenesidemus had not yet separated himself from the Academy; or if we consider the Lucius Tubero to whom Aenesidemus dedicated his works, as the same Lucius Tubero who was the friend of Cicero in his youth, and accordingly fix the date of Aenesidemus about 50 B.C.,[2] even then Aenesidemus' work in Alexandria was too late to have necessarily been known to Cicero, whose remark must have been referred to the old school of Scepticism. Should we grant, however, that the statements of Cicero and Seneca prove that in their time Pyrrhonism was extinct in Rome, they certainly do not show that after their death it could not have again revived, for the _Hypotyposes_ were delivered more than a century after the death of Seneca.

There are very few writers in Aenesidemus' own time who showed any influence of his teachings.[3] This influence was felt later, as Pyrrhonism became better known. That Pyrrhonism received some attention in Rome before the time of s.e.xtus is nevertheless demonstrated by the teachings of Favorinus there.

Although Favorinus was known as an Academician, the t.i.tle of his princ.i.p.al work was [Greek: tous philosophoumenous auto ton logon, hon aristoi hoi Purrhoneioi].[4] Suidas calls Favorinus a great author and learned in all science and philosophy,[5] and Favorinus made Rome the centre of his teaching and writing. His date is fixed by Zeller at 80-150 A.D., therefore Pyrrhonism was known in Rome shortly before the time of s.e.xtus.

[1] Pappenheim _Sitz der Skeptischen Schule; Archiv fur Geschichte der Phil._, 1888; _Adv. Math._ X. 15, 95.

[2] Zeller _Op. cit._ III. 10.

[3] Zeller _Op. cit._ p. 63.

[4] Zeller _Op. cit._ p. 67.

[5] Brochard _Op. cit._ 329.

The whole tone of the _Hypotyposes_, with the constant references to the Stoics as living present opponents, shows that these lectures must have been delivered in one of the centres of Stoicism. As Alexandria and Athens are out of the question, all testimony points to Rome as having been the seat of the Pyrrhonean School, for at least a part of the time that s.e.xtus was at its head. We would then accept the teacher of s.e.xtus, in whose place he says he taught, as the Herodotus so often referred to by Galen[1] who lived in Rome. s.e.xtus' frequent references to Asclepiades, whom he mentions ten different times by name in his works,[2] speak in favour of Rome in the matter under discussion, as Asclepiades made that city one of the centres of medical culture. On the other hand, the fact that there is no trace of the _Hypotyposes_ in later Roman literature, with the one exception of the works of Hippolytus, as opposed to the wide-spread knowledge of them shown in the East for centuries, is incontestable historical proof that the Sceptical School could not long have had its seat at Rome. From the two pa.s.sages given above from s.e.xtus' work against physics, he must either have written that book in Alexandria, it would seem, or have quoted those pa.s.sages from some other work. May we not then conclude, that s.e.xtus was at the head of the school in Rome for a short time, where it may have been removed temporarily, on account of the difficulty with the Empiricists, implied in _Hyp_. I. 236-241, or in order to be better able to attack the Stoics, but that he also taught in Alexandria, where the real home of the school was certainly found? There it probably came to an end about fifty years after the time of s.e.xtus, and from that centre the Sceptical works of s.e.xtus had their wide-spread influence in the East.

[1] Galen VIII. 751.

[2] Bekker _Index_.

The books of s.e.xtus Empiricus furnish us with the best and fullest presentation of ancient Scepticism which has been preserved to modern times, and give s.e.xtus the position of one of the greatest men of the Sceptical School. His works which are still extant are the _Pyrrhonean Hypotyposes_ in three volumes, and the two works comprising eleven books which have been united in later times under the t.i.tle of [Greek: pros mathematikous], one of which is directed against the sciences in general, and the other against the dogmatic philosophers. The six books composing the first of these are written respectively against grammarians, rhetoricians, geometricians, arithmeticians, astronomers and musicians. The five books of the latter consist of two against the logicians, two against physics, and one against systems of morals. If the last short work of the first book directed against the arithmeticians is combined with the one preceding against the geometricians, as it well could be, the two works together would be divided into ten different parts; there is evidence to show that in ancient times such a division was made.[1] There were two other works of s.e.xtus which are now lost, the medical work before referred to, and a book ent.i.tled [Greek: peri psuches]. The character of the extant works of s.e.xtus is similar, as they are all directed either against science or against the dogmatics, and they all present the negative side of Pyrrhonism. The vast array of arguments comprising the subject-matter, often repeated in the same and different forms, are evidently taken largely from the Sceptical works which s.e.xtus had resource to, and are, in fact, a summing up of all the wisdom of the Sceptical School. The style of these books is fluent, and the Greek reminds one of Plutarch and Thucydides, and although s.e.xtus does not claim originality, but presents in all cases the arguments of the Sceptic, yet the ill.u.s.trations and the form in which the arguments are presented, often bear the marks of his own thought, and are characterized here and there by a wealth of humor that has not been sufficiently noticed in the critical works on s.e.xtus. Of all the authors who have reviewed s.e.xtus, Brochard is the only one who seems to have understood and appreciated his humorous side.

We shall now proceed to the consideration of the general position and aim of Pyrrhonism.

[1] Diog. IX. 12, 116.

CHAPTER II.

_The Position and Aim of Pyrrhonism_.

The first volume of the _Pyrrhonean Hypotyposes_ gives the most complete statement found in any of the works of s.e.xtus Empiricus of the teachings of Pyrrhonism and its relation to other schools of philosophy. The chief source of the subject-matter presented is a work of the same name by Aenesidemus,[1] either directly used by s.e.xtus, or through the writings of those who followed Aenesidemus. The comprehensive t.i.tle [Greek: Purrhoneioi hupotuposeis] was very probably used in general to designate courses of lectures given by the leaders of the Sceptical School.

In the opening chapters of the _Hypotyposes_ s.e.xtus undertakes to define the position and aim of Pyrrhonism.[2] In introducing his subject he treats briefly of the differences between philosophical schools, dividing them into three cla.s.ses; those which claim that they have found the truth, like the schools of Aristotle and Epicurus and the Stoics; those which deny the possibility of finding it, like that of the Academicians; and those that still seek it, like the Sceptical School. The accusation against the Academicians, that they denied the possibility of finding the truth, was one that the Sceptics were very fond of making. We shall discuss the justice of it later, simply remarking here, that to affirm the "incomprehensibility of the unknown," was a form of expression that the Pyrrhonists themselves were sometimes betrayed into, notwithstanding their careful avoidance of dogmatic statements.[3]

[1] Diog. IX. 11, 78.

[2] _Hyp._ I. 3, 4.

[3] _Adv. Math._ VIII. 191.

After defining the three kinds of philosophy as the Dogmatic, the Academic and the Sceptic, s.e.xtus reminds his hearers that he does not speak dogmatically in anything that he says, but that he intends simply to present the Sceptical arguments historically, and as they appear to him. He characterizes his treatment of the subject as general rather than critical, including a statement of the character of Scepticism, its idea, its principles, its manner of reasoning, its criterion and aim, and a presentation of the Tropes, or aspects of doubt, and the Sceptical formulae and the distinction between Scepticism and the related schools of philosophy.[1]

The result of all the gradual changes which the development of thought had brought about in the outward relations of the Sceptical School, was to increase the earnestness of the claim of the Sceptics to be simply followers of Pyrrho, the great founder of the movement. In discussing the names given to the Sceptics, s.e.xtus gives precedence very decidedly to the t.i.tle "Pyrrhonean," because Pyrrho appears the best representative of Scepticism, and more prominent than all who before him occupied themselves with it.[2]

It was a question much discussed among philosophers in ancient times, whether Pyrrhonism should be considered a philosophical sect or not. Thus we find that Hippobotus in his work ent.i.tled [Greek: peri haireseon], written shortly before our era, does not include Pyrrhonism among the other sects.[3] Diogenes himself, after some hesitation remarking that many do not consider it a sect, finally decides to call it so.[4]

[1] _Hyp._ I. 5, 6.

[2] _Hyp._ I. 7.

[3] Diog. _Pro._ 19.

[4] Diog. _Pro._ 20.

s.e.xtus in discussing this subject calls Scepticism an [Greek: agoge], or a movement, rather than a [Greek: hairesis], saying that Scepticism is not a sect, if that word implies a systematic arrangement of dogmas, for the Sceptic has no dogmas. If, however, a sect may mean simply the following of a certain system of reasoning according to what appears to be true, then Scepticism is a sect.[1] From a quotation given later on by s.e.xtus from Aenesidemus, we know that the latter used the term [Greek: agoge].[2] s.e.xtus gives also the other t.i.tles, so well known as having been applied to Scepticism, namely, [Greek: zetetike], [Greek: ephektike], and [Greek: aporetike].[3] The [Greek: dunamis][4] of Scepticism is to oppose the things of sense and intellect in every possible way to each other, and through the equal weight of things opposed, or [Greek: isostheneia], to reach first the state of suspension of judgement, and afterwards ataraxia, or "repose and tranquillity of soul."[5] The purpose of Scepticism is then the hope of ataraxia, and its origin was in the troubled state of mind induced by the inequality of things, and uncertainty in regard to the truth. Therefore, says s.e.xtus, men of the greatest talent began the Sceptical system by placing in opposition to every argument an equal one, thus leading to a philosophical system without a dogma, for the Sceptic claims that he has no dogma.[6]

The Sceptic is never supposed to state a decided opinion, but only to say what appears to him. Even the Sceptical formulae, such as "Nothing more,"[7] or "I decide nothing,"[8] or "All is false," include themselves with other things. The only statements that the Sceptic can make, are in regard to his own sensations. He cannot deny that he is warm or cold or hungry.

[1] _Hyp._ I. 15, 17.

[2] _Hyp._ I. 210.