Part 2 (1/2)

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.