the Stoics and Epicureans, St. Paul was face to face with the most influential philosophies of the day. Unfortunately, we know but little of the character of the interview or its results. The discussion was probably not hostile on the part of the philosophers, though Chevne seems to incline to this view (EBi, vol.'ii. col." 1323 n.). That St. Paul's teaching must have been antagonistic to theirs seems obvious.
1. Epicurus and the Epicureans. — [\) Epicurus. — Epicurus was bom in 341 B.C., probably at Samos, an island ott' the coast of Asia INIinor, and lived about 70 years. His father Neocles was an Athenian, who had gone to Samos as a colonist after the Greeks had expelled a large number of the natives. His occupation was that of a humble schoolmaster, and his son is said to have assisted him for some time. At the age of 18 Epicurus left for Athens, returning home a year later to Colophon, Avhere his father now lived. Of the beginnings of Epicurus' acquaintance with philo- sophy our knowledge is slight and uncertain. Two of his teachers were Nausiphanes, a disciple of Democritus, and Pamphilus, a Platonist. But, as the former owed much to Pyrrho, the well-known Sceptic, it is hardly likely that Epicurus failed to share in that obligation. He claims to have Ijeen his own teacher, and this is true to the extent that he rejected the prevalent philosophies of his time and turned to such predecessors as Democritus, Anaxagoras, and Archelatis. It was at Mitylene that he began to teach philosophy, and at Lamp- sacus his position as the head of a school was recognized. He returned to Athens in 307 B.C., and settled there for the remainder of his life. There he purchased a house and garden, the latter becoming famous as the home of a large band of men and women who became his devoted disciples and friends. He died in 270 B.C. He had never enjoyed robust health, and his general feebleness and ailments were the ground upon which his enemies based charges of evil living.
(2) The Epicureaiu. — The community lived its own separate life. The calls and claims of public life were ignored and the usual ambitions of men stifled. From all the political upheavals through which Athens passed tlie Epicureans held strictly aloof, exemplifying their principles by indiflerence to environment and the endeavour to extract the maximum of tranquil gratification from life by the prudent and unimpassioned use of it. They passed their time in the study of Nature and ]\lorality, and their friendly intercourse Avith each other supplied the necessary human elements. Most serious charges Avere made from time to time against both Epicurus himself and the community, but the accusers were generally either disaflected ex-disciples or rivals, and their motives were malicious. One cannot but admit that the ideal of 'pleasure' was well calculated to produce the most disastrous results except in the case of the noblest of men ; and it is hard to believe that the garden contained only such. Yet consideration must be given to the extraordinary devotion of the brotherhood towards their head, in whom they recognized their deliverer from the worst fears and desires of life. An example of their unceasing allegiance to their master may be found in the statues erected in Epicurus' honour after his death. Simplicity was the note of the community's life. For drink they had water with a small quantity of wine on occasion, and for food barley bread. In a letter Epicurus writes : ' Send me some Cynthian cheese, so that, should I choose, I may fare sumptu- ously.' And during the severe famine which attiicted Atliens, Plutarch informs us that the Epicureans lived on beans which they shared out from day to day {Demetrius, 34). But the bond
352
EPICUEEAXS
EPICUKEANS
■which held this remarkable company together was the personality of Epicurus, who regarded his followers not only as disciples but as friends.
2. Teaching. — Epicurus is said to have written 300 books, but all have disappeared, and we are dependent for our knowledge on writers two centuries later. This misfortune is probably due to the teacher's habit of summarizing his system so that the disciples might commit it to memorj'. His reputed lack of style may have contributed to the same end. Nevertheless, the main outlines of his teaching are clear enough, though on import- ant details uncertainty prevails. Epicurus had no interest in theories, except as they aided practical life. Mere knowledge was worthless, and culture he despised. His tlieoretical teaching treated of Man and the Universe (his Physics) ; his practical teaching used the knowledge so gained for the regulation of human conduct (his Ethics). Under- lying these was his peculiar Logic. Real Logic of the Aristotelian type he could not tolerate. All he wanted was a criterion of truth, or to ascertain the grounds on which statements of fact could be based. This is usually called the Canonic.
(a) Canonic. — The criteria of truth or reality according to Epicurus may be grouped under two heads. — (1) Sensation. Every sensuous impression received by the mind is produced by something other than itself, and is infallibly true. When these feelings are clear, distinct, and vivid, the knowledge they attbrc. is real. Even the sensations of the dreamer and lunatic are true, since they are caused by some other object operating on the mind. Any error arising from sensations is due not to the sensations themselves but to the mind's misinter- pretation of them. But Epicurus does not make clear what that vividness is which is reliable and incapable of misinterpretation. (2) Conceptions or pre-conceptions, i.e. ideas which have been left in the mind by preceding sensations. Here memory, which recalls past impressions, and reasoning, which interprets them, have been active, with the result that the mind unconsciously confronts every new sensation with impressions which may modify any effect it may make. Tliese conceptions, the repetition of earlier observations, are true. But it is well that they should be brought from time to time into immediate connexion with the sensation itself. Thus, if a distant square tower appear round, closer examination will discover the error and modify the impression for the future. It is difficult to see how Epicurus would apply this admirable criterion to his tiieory of the ' atoms ' and the ' void.'