The sovereign good is "enjoyment of the gifts of nature," "union of virtue and happiness," and the like ambiguous expressions (Cic. Tusc. v. 30, 84). It is impossible to find any criterion of truth. If any, it must be either in sensation, conception, or reason. But reason deals only with objects first presented to it through conception, and this latter only with objects of sense; so that all comes back to sensation, which is notoriously untrustworthy, and carries false tidings, like an unfaithful messenger. Still even as to this scepticism he is sceptical; does not affirm positively, but doubts, questions, denies. His theory of probability is somewhat noticeable. There is no certainty of anything, only probability (Cic. Acad. Quæst. ii. 24, i. 12; Sext. Emp. adv. Math. vii. 150, 154, 408). We choose between opposite courses of conduct, not by blind impulse or necessity, but according to higher or lower degrees of probability. Every idea has two relations: one to the object, one to the subject, or the mind that conceives it. In the first case it is true or false, as it agrees or not with the object, and this we can never know. In the latter relation it appears true or not true; that is, it is probable or improbable; and it is of importance to determine which, for our conduct. proceeds on this principle. An idea is probable, according as it proceeds from a perception which is invariable and unquestioned; and if, on thorough examination, nothing be found to contradict it. Carneades recommends the study of philosophy as the best and only road to oratory.

§. 3-SUBSEQUENT FORTUNES OF THE SCHOOL.

Carneades was the last distinguished name of the New Academy. It began, after him, to decline and fall into disrepute. Philosophy, both with the Academy and the Porch, became less profound, more erudite, more artistical, more popular, more sceptical. This tendency shows the degradation of the science and of the age. The differences. between the Academy and the Porch became less clearly defined, and a sort of eclecticism grew up, and semi-concili

ation and agreement between the two, the Stoics growing more mild, and also more sceptical, as time passed on. Efforts were indeed made to restore the Academy again to its pristine purity, to bring it back to the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, but with little other than merely temporary success. Antiochus, pupil of Philo, is noted for his labors to this end. Meanwhile, alongside of the Academy and the Porch, the Epicurean philosophy now became almost obsolete, and the Aristotelian became quite so, dragged out a feeble existence represented by here and there a disciple. And so we reach the close of that period and movement which, commencing with Socrates, shed such lustre on the Greek-nay more, on the human mind. It is with melancholy interest that we take leave of Grecian philosophy; that we see it gradually losing its hold on the mind, as corruption and decay become more and more prevalent, until finally its brilliant light, which Socrates and Plato kindled, and Aristotle with a master's hand had trimmed and nourished, dwindles before our eyes into a dim and solitary taper, and finally goes out in darkness on a nation no longer worthy of his beams.

What was the result, now, of all these profound investigations from Thales downward ? Scepticism," says Lewes. "Centuries of thought had not advanced the mind one step nearer to a solution of the problem with which, child-like, it began; it began with a child-like question; it ended with an aged doubt.” "Was then all this labor in vain? Were these long, laborious years all wasted? Were those splendid minds all useless? No! Human endeavor is seldom without fruit. Those centuries of speculation were not useless. They were the education of the human race. They taught man's mind this truth at least : The infinite cannot be known by the finite; man can only know phenomena." To this view, eloquent as it is, we should somewhat demur; for Lewes is himself a sceptic as to the possibility of any solid results in philosophy. We

would not take so sad and sombre and despairing a view of the labors of these old Grecians. They are the germ of modern philosophy, the seeds of things, the dawn of a brighter, higher day, that shines on us; our eyes behold what these old kings and prophets of the mental world. desired to see, but died without the sight. Let us not forget our debt of gratitude to these first inquirers, these patient thinkers, these ancient masters.

CHAPTER V.

THE GREEK PHILOSOPHY AMONG THE ROMANS.

It remains only to notice the effect of Greek philosophy upon foreign nations; and of these I shall select only the Roman, as the one most directly and favorably influenced by the Greek mind, and the one with whose history and literary remains the student of the present day is most interested. The Romans, while they conquered Greece, were in turn conquered by it; the vassal became the master, and the master, conscious of inferiority, submitted to willing bondage; became the pupil and sat at the feet of the slave, to learn of him the secret of that higher power which intellect wields over mere brute force. The literature and philosophy of Greece held the Roman mind in complete and willing subjection. Even stern old Cato, who sent off the Grecian ambassadors, applied himself in his old age to learning the Greek language. Such men as Scipio Africanus and Caius Lælius and L. Furius were not only patrons of Grecian learning, but maintained friendly and intimate intercourse with the scholars and philosophers of Greece. Eminent lawyers became the disciples of Panatius, the Stoic and Platonic philosopher. But no one of Rome's distinguished men gave himself up with more

hearty relish, perhaps, to Grecian erudition and philosophy, than Cicero. At the outset, Epicurean doctrines gained a popularity in Rome, and found numerous advocates. Subsequently and in the time of Cicero, the New Academy, then in its brightest phase, became more generally the prevalent philosophy of the Romans. The Peripatetic doctrines also found adherents when Sylla brought home the works of Aristotle. On the whole, the Epicurean, the Stoic, and New Academy were the chief schools and favorite systems at Rome. The practical turn of the Roman mind led them to look with more favor on these schools, as being practical rather than speculative systems, as Tennemann suggests. The old Academy, however, had such adherents as Lucullus, M. Brutus, and Varro, who nevertheless mingled much of the Stoical philosophy with the Platonic. The same thing is more or less true of all those Roman disciples of Greek philosophy; they were really eclectics in good measure, no one more so than Cicero; and while they believed themselves to belong to this or that particular school, unconsciously or purposely mingled with that the views of other sects, and especially the prevalent Stoical doctrines.

The Stoics gained to their cause most of the learned legists and teachers of jurisprudence. Q. Mutius Scævola, C. Aquillius Gallus, and L. Lucilius Balbus, distinguished compeers of Cicero, were Stoics. So was Servius Sulpicius, and, still another, the younger Cato, who contributed more than any other to the glory of this school among the Romans. At a later period, Seneca, Epictetus, and M. Aurelius Antoninus shed honor on this philosophy by their writings. On the other hand, Pomponius Atticus, the bosom friend of Cicero, and C. Cassius, the conspirator against Cæsar, were Epicureans; while as authors, the Epicurean school could boast Lucretius, the poet, and the sparkling Horace. It was principally, however, by the labors of Cicero, that philosophy became domesticated in

the Latin tongue. He claims for himself the merit of being the first to earn for the Latin language the same reputation in philosophy as the Greek had acquired. A glance at the philosophical views of Cicero must suffice for the whole. Early educated in the philosophy of Greece, he owed to Grecian training whatever he had of intellectual culture. His fame rests, not so much on his political life as on his oratorical efforts and philosophical writings. To philosophy, when the ship of state foundered, he again devotes himself, in his later years, as a last and only resource. His philosophic writings are clear, elegant, popular in cast; never original, but noble in sentiment. He professes to follow the New Academy, yet is something of a Stoic and much a Sceptic. A sober scepticism is the philosophy accordant with his mind. He was eclectic, however, and strictly confined to neither of the three prevalent. schools. To the Epicureans, in fact, he was decidedly and unhesitatingly opposed. He wrote for the people, and combined eloquence with philosophy, and especially gives his philosophy a practical turn. As to the great problems discussed by the schools, he either does not thoroughly comprehend them, or thinks them of less difficulty and less importance than they really are, for he passes vaguely and superficially over most of them. With regard to morals, he is clear and earnest; as to physics most uncertain and wavering. He maintains eloquently the doctrines respecting God. and the human soul, but yet wavers between belief and doubt as to the popular religion. He takes lofty views of

* Cicero studied philosophy at Athens and at Rhodes. He heard the Epicurean, the Academic, and the Stoic teachers. In later life, he turned again to the study of philosophy, as a resource from the ills of the state; as he touchingly says (Tusc. v. 2), while in the early period of life, our inclination and love of acquisition compelled us to the study of philosophy, so, as a resort from these great calamities, we fly again, tempest-tossed, to the same peaceful harbor from which we wandered forth.