1866) to the Homeric idea of the Top hav, "shepherd of the people," which appears in various passages of Xenophon's Memor. and Cyrop. (cf. Politicus, p. 301 d, and Rep., VII. p. 520 b, with Xen., Cyrop., V. 1, 24, with reference to the comparison of the human ruler with the queen-bee). That Antisthenes can not have anticipated Plato in the doctrine of the community of women and children, follows from Arist., Pol., II. 4, 1, where it is affirmed that Plato first proposed this innovation.

The religious faith of the people, according to the Cynics, is as little binding on the sage as are their laws. Says Cicero (De Nat. Deorum, I. 13, 32): Antisthenes in eo libro qui physicus inscribitur, populares deos mullos, naturalem unum esse (dicit). The one God is not known through images. Virtue is the only true worship. Antisthenes interpreted the Homeric poems allegorically and in accordance with his philosophy.

Diogenes of Sinope, through his extreme exaggeration of the principles of his teacher, developed a personality that is even comical. He is said himself not to have repelled the epithet "Dog," which was applied to him, but only to have replied that he did not, like other dogs, bite his enemies, but only his friends, in order that he might save them. He was also called "Socrates raving” (Zwkpárns μaivóμevos). With the immorality of the times he rejected also its morality and culture. As tutor of the sons of Xeniades, at Corinth, he proceeded not without skill, on the principle of conformity to nature, in a manner similar to that demanded in modern times by Rousseau. He acquired the enduring love and respect of his pupils and of their father (Diog. L., VI. 30 seq., 74 seq.). Diog. L. (VI. 80) cites the titles of many works ascribed to Diogenes, but says that Sosicrates and Satyrus pronounced them all spurious. Diogenes designates, as the end to which all effort should tend, evчuxía Kal Távos yvxñs (in opposition to mere physical force, Stob., Florileg., VII. 18). Of the disciples of Diogenes, Crates of Thebes, a contemporary of Theophrastus the Aristotelian, is the most important (Diog. L., VI. 86 seq.); through his influence Hipparchia and her brother Metrocles were won over to Cynicism. Monimus the Syracusan was also a pupil of Diogenes. Menippus of Sinope, who seems to have lived in the third century before Christ, and is mentioned by Lucian (Bis Accus., 33) as "one of the ancient dogs who barked a great deal" (cf. Diog. L., 99 seq.), was probably one of the earlier Cynics. There were probably several Cynics who bore the name Menippus.

Cynicism, in its later days, degenerated more and more into insolence and indecency. It became ennobled, on the other hand, in the Stoic philosophy, through the recognition and attention given to mental culture. The Cynic's conception of virtue is imperfect from its failure to determine the positive end of moral activity, so that at last nothing remained but ostentatious asceticism. "The Cynics excluded themselves from the sphere in which

is true freedom" (Hegel).

After Cynicism had for a long time been lost in Stoicism—which (as Zeller happily expresses it) "gave to the doctrine of the independence of the virtuous will the basis of a comprehensive, scientific theory of the universe, and so adapted the doctrine itself more fully to the requirements of nature and human life "—it was renewed in the first century after Christ under the form of a mere preaching of morals. But it was accompanied in this phase of its existence by much empty, ostentatious display of staves and wallets, of uncut beards and hair, and ragged cloaks. Of the better class of Cynics in this later period were Demetrius, the friend of Seneca and of Thrasea Pætus, Enomaus of Gadara (in the time of Hadrian), who (according to Euseb., Praeparat. Evang., V. 18 seq.) attacked the system of oracles with special violence, and Demonax of Cyprus (praised by Lucian, born about A. D. 50, died about 150), who, though holding fast to the moral and religious principles of Cynicism, advocated them rather with a Socratic mildness than with the vulgar Cynic rudeness.

38. Aristippus of Cyrene, the founder of the Cyrenaic or IIedonic school, and termed by Aristotle a Sophist, sees in pleasure, which he defines as the sensation of gentle motion, the end of life. The sage aims to enjoy pleasure, without being controlled by it. Intellectual culture alone fits one for true enjoyment. No one kind of pleasure is superior to another; only the degree and duration of pleasure determines its worth. We can know only our sensations, not that which causes them.

The most eminent members of the Cyrenaic school were Arete, the daughter of Aristippus, and her son, Aristippus the younger, surnamed the "mother-taught" (un-podidaктos), who first put the doctrine of Hedonism into systematic form, and was probably the author of the comparison of the three sensational conditions of trouble, pleasure, and indifference, to tempest, gentle wind, and seacalm, respectively; also Theodorus, surnamed the Atheist, who taught that the particular pleasure of the moment was indifferent, and that constant cheerfulness was the end sought by the true sage, and his scholars Bio and Euhemerus, who explained the belief in the existence of gods as having begun with the veneration of distinguished men; further, Hegesias, surnamed the "death-counseling" (TELσidávαTOC),—who accepted the avoidance of trouble as the highest attainable good, despaired of positive happiness, and considered life to be intrinsically valueless,--and Anniceris (the younger), who again made the feeling of pleasure the end of life, but included in his system, in addition to idiopathic pleasure, the pleasure of sympathy, and demanded a partial sacrifice of the former to the latter.

The Cyrenaics are treated of, and the fragments of their writings are brought together in Mullach's Fragm. Ph. Gr., II. pp. 397-488.

Amadens Wendt, De philosophia Cyrenaica, Gött. 1841; Henr. de Stein, De philosophia Cyrenaica, Part I.: De vita Aristippi, Gött. 1855 (cf. his Gesch. des Platonismus, II. Gött. 1864, pp. 60-64).

On Aristippus, cf. C. M. Wieland, Aristipp und einige seiner Zeitgenossen, 4 vols., Leipsic, 1800-1802; J. F. Thrige, De Aristippo philosopho Cyrenaico aliisque Cyrenaicis, in his Res Cyrenensium, Copenh. 1828.

There exist early monographs on individual members of the Cyrenaic school, one, in particular, on Arete, by J. G. Eck (Leipsic, 1776), and another on Hegesias metodávatos, by J. J. Rambach (Quedlinburg, 1771). The fragments of the iepà avaypapń of Euhemerus have been collected by Wesseling (in Diod. Sic. Bibl. Hist., tom. II., p. 623 seq.) Of Euhemerus, with special reference to Ennius, who shared in his views, Krahner treats in his Grundlinien zur Gesch. des Verfalls der röm. Staatsreligion (G.Progr.), Halle, 1837; cf. also Ganss, Quaestiones Euhemereae (G.-Pr.), Kempen, 1860, and Otto Sieroka, De Euhemero (Diss. Inaug.), Königsberg, 1869.

Aristippus of Cyrene was led by the fame of Socrates to seek his acquaintance, and joined himself permanently to the circle of Socrates' disciples. In criticism of an (oral) utterance of Plato, which he thought to have been too confidently delivered, he is reported to have appealed to the more modest manner of Socrates (Arist., Rhet., II. 23. p. 1398 b, 29:

̓Αρίστιππος πρὸς Πλάτωνα ἐπαγγελτικώτερόν τι εἰπόντα ὡς ᾤετο· ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅ γ' ἑταῖρος ἡμῶν, ἔφη, οὐδὲν τοιοῦτον, λέγων τὸν Σωκράτην). Perhaps, before the period of his intercourse with Socrates he had become familiar with the philosophy of Protagoras, of whose influence his doctrine shows considerable traces. The customs of his rich and luxurious native city were most likely of the greatest influence in determining him to the love of pleasure. That he, together with Cleombrotus, was absent in Egina at the time of Socrates' death, is remarked by Plato (Phaedo, 59 c), obviously with reproachful intent. Aristippus is said to have sojourned often at the courts of the elder and younger Dionysii in Sicily; several anecdotes are connected with his residence there and his meeting with Plato, which, though historically uncertain, are at least not unhappily invented, and illustrate the accommodating servility of the witty Hedonist, occasionally in contrast with the uncompromising Parrhesia of the rigid moralist and idealist (Diog. L., II. 78 et al.). Aristippus seems to have taught in various places, and particularly in his native city. He first, among the companions of Socrates, imitated the Sophists in demanding payment for his instructions (Diog. L., II. 65). It is perhaps for this reason, but probably also on account of his doctrine of pleasure and his contempt for pure science, that Aristotle calls him a Sophist (Metaph., III. 2).

According to the suppositions of H. von Stein (in the work cited above), Aristippus was born about 435 B. C., resided in Athens during a series of years commencing with 416, in 399 was in Ægina, in 389-388 was with Plato at the court of the elder Dionysius, and in 361 with the same at the court of the younger Dionysius, and, finally, after 356 was, apparently, again in Athens. Von Stein remarks, however (Gesch. des Platonismus, II., p. 61), on the uncertainty of the accounts on which these dates are founded. According to Diog. L., II. 83, Aristippus was older than Eschines.

The fundamental features of the Cyrenaic doctrine are certainly due to Aristippus. Xenophon (Memor., II. 1) represents him as discussing them with Socrates; Plato refers probably to them in Rep., VI. 505 b (perhaps also in Gorg., 491 e, seq.), and most fully in the Philebus, although Aristippus is not there named. But the systematic elaboration of his doctrines seems to have been the work of his grandson, Aristippus unpodidaкTos. Aristotle names, as representing the doctrine of pleasure (Eth. Nic., X. 2), not Aristippus, but Eudoxus.

The principle of Hedonism is described in the dialogue Philebus, p. 66 c, in these words: ἀγαθὸν ἐτίθετο ἡμῖν ἡδονὴν εἶναι πᾶσαν καὶ παντελή. Pleasure is the sensation of gentle motion (Diog. L., II. 85: τέλος ἀπέφαινε (Αρίστιππος) τὴν λείαν κίνησιν εἰς αἴσθησιν ἀναδιδομévm). Violent motion produces pain, rest or very slight motion, indifference. That all pleasure belongs to the category of things becoming (yéveois) and not to that of things being (ovoía), is mentioned by Plato in the dialogue Philebus (p. 53 c, cf. 42 d) as the correct observation of certain "elegants" (koμpoí), among whom Aristippus is probably to be understood as included. Yet the opposing of yévecis to ovoía is certainly not to be ascribed to Aristippus, but only probably the reduction of pleasure to motion (kivnois), from which Plato drew the above conclusion. No pleasure, says Aristippus, is as such bad, though it may often arise from bad causes, and no pleasure is different from another in quality or worth (Diog. L., II. 87: μù dɩagépew ýðovìv idovýc, cf. Phileb., p. 12 d). Virtue is a good as a means to pleasure (Cic., De Offic., III. 33, 116).

The Socratic element in the doctrine of Aristippus appears in the principle of selfdetermination directed by knowledge (the manner of life of the wise, says Aristippus, ap. Diog. L., 68, would experience no change, though all existing laws were abrogated), and in the control of pleasure as a thing to be acquired through knowledge and culture. The Cynics sought for independence throngh abstinence from enjoyment, Aristippus through

the control of enjoyment in the midst of enjoyment. Thus Aristippus is cited by Stob. (Flor., 17, 18) as saying that "not he who abstains, but he who enjoys without being carried away, is master of his pleasures." Similarly, in Diog. L., II. 75, Aristippus is said to have required his disciples "to govern, and not be governed by their pleasures." And, accordingly, he is further said to have expressed his relation to Lais, by saying: xw, ovr Exouai. In a similar sense Horace says (Epist., I. 1, 18): nunc in Aristippi furtim praecepta relabor, et mihi res, non me rebus subjungere conor. The Cynic sage knows how to deal with himself, but Aristippus knows how to deal with men (Diog. L., VI. 6, 58; II. 68, 102). To enjoy the present, says the Cyrenaic, is the true business of man; only the present is in our power.

With the Hedonic character of the ethics of Aristippus corresponds, in his theory of cognition, the restriction of our knowledge to sensations. The Cyrenaics distinguished (according to Sext. Εmpir., Adv. Math, VII. 91) τὸ πάθος and τὸ ἐκτὸς ὑποκείμενον καὶ τοῦ Tábove пOINTIKóv (the affection, and the "thing in itself" which is external to us and affects us); the former exists in our consciousness (rò Táboç ýμīv eσti paivóuɛvov); of the "thing in itself," on the contrary, we know nothing, except that it exists. Whether the sensations of other men agree with our own, we do not know; the affirmative is not proved by the identity of names employed. The subjectivism of the Protagorean doctrine of knowledge finds in these propositions its consistent completion. It is improbable that the motive of ethical Hedonism was contained in this logical doctrine; that motive must rather be sought, in part, in the personal love of pleasure of Aristippus, and in part in the eudamonistic element in the moral speculations of Socrates, which contained certain germs, not only for the doctrine of Antisthenes, but also for that of Aristippus (see, in particular, Xenophon, Memorab., I. 6. 7, respecting kapтɛpɛiv in immediate connection with the question, ibid. I. 6. 8: τοῦ δὲ μὴ δουλεύειν γαστρὶ μηδὲ ὕπνῳ καὶ λαγνείᾳ οἴει τι άλλο αιτιώτερον εἶναι ἢ τὸ ἕτερα ἔχειν τούτων ἡδίω). The essence of virtue lies, according to Socrates, in knowledge, in practical insight. But it is asked, what is the object of this insight? If the reply is, the Good, then the second question arises, in what the Good consists. If it consists in virtue itself, the definition moves in a circle. If in the useful, the useful is relative and its value is determined by that for which it is useful. But what is this last something, in whose service the useful stands? If Eudaemonia, then it must be stated in what the essence of Eudaemonia consists. The most obvious answer is: Pleasure, and this answer was given by Aristippus, while the Cynics found no answer not involving them in the circle, and so did not advance beyond their objectless insight and aimless asceticism. Plato's answer was: the Idea of the Good (Rep., VI. p. 505).

Later Cyrenaics (according to Sext. E., Adv. Math., VII. 11) divided their system of doctrines into five parts: 1) Concerning that which is to be desired and shunned (goods and evils, aiperà KaÌ þevкTá); 2) Concerning the passions (Tán); 3) Concerning actions (≈pážɛiç); 4) Concerning natural causes (airia); 5) Concerning the guaranties of truth (IOT). Hence it appears that these later Cyrenaics also treated the theory of knowledge, not as the foundation, but rather as the complement of ethics.

As the control of pleasure aimed at by Aristippus was in reality incompatible with the principle that the pleasure of the moment is the highest good, some modifications in his doctrine could not but arise. Accordingly we find Theodorus ålɛoç (Diog. L, II. 97 seq.), not, indeed, advancing to a principle specifically different from pleasure, but yet substituting for the isolated sensation a state of constant cheerfulness (xapá), as the "end" (réλoç). But mere reflection on our general condition is not sufficient to elevate us above the changes of fortune, since our general condition is not under our control, and so Hegesias εávaros (Diog. L., II. 93 seq.) despaired altogether of attaining that result.

Anniceris the Younger (ibid. 96 seq.; Clem., Strom., II. 417 b.) sought to ennoble the Hedonic principle, by reckoning among the things which afford pleasure, friendship, thankfulness, and piety toward parents and fatherland, social intercourse, and the strife after honors; yet he declared all labor for the benefit of others to be conditioned on the pleasure which our good will brings to ourselves. Later, Epicureanism reigned in the place of the Cyrenaic doctrine.

Euhemerus, who lived (300 B. C.) at the court of Cassander, and favored the principles of the Cyrenaic school, exerted great influence by his work iepà ȧvaypaoh, in which (according to Cic., De Nat. Deorum, I. 42; Sext. Empir., Adv. Math., IX. 17, and others) he developed the opinion that the Gods (as also the Heroes) were distinguished men, to whom divine honors had been rendered after their death. In proof of this opinion he referred to the tomb of Zeus, which was then pointed out in Crete. It is indisputable that Euhemerism contains a partial truth, but unjustly generalized; not only historical events, but natural phenomena and ethical considerations, served as a basis for the myths of the Gods, and the form of the mythological conceptions of the ancients was conditioned on various psychological motives. The one-sided explanation of Euhemerus strips the myths of the most essential part of their religious character. But for this very reason it found a more ready hearing at a time when the power of the ancient religious faith over the minds of men was gone, and in the last centuries of antiquity it was favored by many representatives of the new Christian faith.

§ 39. Plato, born in Athens (or Ægina) on the 7th of Thargelion, in the first year of the 88th Olympiad (May 26 or 27, 427 B. C.) or perhaps on the 7th of Thargelion, Olymp. 87.4 (June 5 or 6, 428), and originally named Aristocles, was the son of Aristo and Perictione (or Potone). The former was a descendant of Codrus; the ancestor of Perictione was Dropides, a near relative of Solon, and she was cousin to Critias, who, after the unfortunate termination of the Peloponnesian war, became one of the Thirty oligarchical Tyrants. From Olymp. 93.1 till 95.1 (408 or 407 to 399 B. c.) Plato was a pupil of Socrates. After the condemnation of the latter, he went with others of Socrates' disciples to Megara, to the house of Euclid. From there it is said that he undertook a long journey, in the course of which he visited Cyrene and Egypt, and perhaps Asia Minor, whence he seems to have returned to Athens; it is possible, however, that previous to this journey he had already returned to Athens and lived there a certain length of time. When he was about forty years old he visited. the Pythagoreans in Italy, and went to Sicily, where he formed relations of friendship with Dio, the brother-in-law of the tyrant Dionysius I. Here, by his openness of speech, he so offended the tyrant, that the latter caused him to be sold as a prisoner of war in Ægina, by Pollis, the Spartan embassador. Ransomed by Anniceris, he founded (387 or 386 B. c.) his philosophical school in the Academy. Plato undertook a second journey to Syracuse about 367 B. c., after