ONE:With a white oblong sheet of paper in his pocket with the signature of the chief magistrate at Bow Street, Prout went down jauntily to call upon Lawrence. The latter looked at him smilingly.Of these views, the first is taken by Ritter, and adopted with some modifications by M. Vacherot in his Histoire de lcole dAlexandrie. It is also unreservedly accepted by Donaldson in his continuation of Müllers History of Greek Literature, and is probably held at this moment by most Englishmen who take any interest in the subject at all. The second viewaccording to which Neo-Platonism is, at least in342 its main features, a characteristic although degenerate product of Greek thoughtis that maintained by Zeller. As against the Orientalising theory, it seems to us that Zeller has thoroughly proved his case.506 It may be doubted whether there is a single idea in Plotinus which can be shown to have its exact counterpart in any of the Hindoo or other Asiatic systems whence he is supposed to have drawn; and, as our own analysis has abundantly shown, he says nothing that cannot be derived, either directly or by a simple and easy process of evolution, from Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. On the other hand, has not Zeller gone much too far in treating Neo-Platonism as a product of the great religious reaction which unquestionably preceded and accompanied its appearance? Has he not altogether underrated its importance as a purely speculative system, an effort towards the attainment of absolute truth by the simple exercise of human reason? It seems to us that he has, and we shall offer some grounds for venturing to differ from his opinion.
TWO:In the face of such facts, to say, as Mr. Froude does, that Epicureanism was the creed of the men of science in the time of Julius Caesar111an assertion directly contradicted by Lange112is perhaps only of a piece with Mr. Froudes usual inaccuracy when writing about ancient history; but such declarations as that of Mr. Frederic Pollock, that the Epicurean system56 was a genuine attempt at a scientific explanation of the world; and was in its day the solitary protest against the contempt of physics which prevailed in the other post-Aristotelian schools;113 of Prof. Trezza, that the Epicurean school summed up in itself the most scientific elements of Greek antiquity;114 of Dr. Woltjer, that with respect to the laws and principles of science, the Epicureans came nearest of all the ancients to the science of our own time;115 and finally, of M. Ernest Renan, that Epicureanism was the great scientific school of antiquity,116 are absolutely amazing. The eminent French critic just quoted has elsewhere observed, with perfect justice, that the scientific spirit is the negation of the supernatural; and perhaps he argues that the negation of the supernatural must, reciprocally, be the scientific spirit. But this is only true when such a negation is arrived at inductively, after a disinterested survey of the facts. Epicurus started with the denial of supernatural interference as a practical postulate, and then hunted about for whatever explanations of natural phenomena would suit his foregone conclusion. Moreover, an enquirer really animated by the scientific spirit studies the facts for their own sake; he studies them as they actually are, not resting content with alternative explanations; and he studies them to the fullest extent of which his powers are capable. Epicurus, on the contrary, declares that physics would not be worth attending to if the mind could be set free from religious terrors in any other manner;117 he will not let himself be tied down to any one theory if there are others equally inconsistent with divine agency to be had;118 and when his demands in this respect are satisfied, that is, when the appearances vulgarly ascribed to supernatural causation have been provided with natural causes, he leaves off.
$125
Only
Add To Cart
