The Formation of Christendom, Volume IIAllies, T. W. (Thomas William)
Religion
The Formation of Christendom, Volume II
Allies, T. W. (Thomas William)
Christianity; Christianity -- Miscellanea
In the seventy-seven years which elapsed from the death of Socrates, B.C.
399, to that of Aristotle, B.C. 322, Greek life had suffered a great
change. That dear-loved independence which every state had cultivated, and
which concentrated every energy of the mind in civil life, had vanished.
During the forty years of Plato’s work as a teacher it was becoming less
and less: Chæronea gave it the death-blow; while Aristotle is the son of a
time at which scientific study had already begun to take the place of
active political life.(419) But the conquest effected by his great pupil
Alexander completed this change. He opened the East to the Greek mind,
bringing it into close contact with Asiatic thought, beliefs, and customs.
Under his successors Alexandria, Antioch, and Seleucia, Tarsus, Pergamus,
and Rhodes became great centres of Greek culture: but Greek
self-government was gone. Athens with the rest of the Greek cities had
lost its political independence, but it remained the metropolis of Greek
philosophy. From the last decade of the fourth century before Christ four
great schools, the Platonic, Peripatetic, Stoic, and Epicurean, all seated
here, as embodied in the dwelling-place and oral teaching of their
masters, stand over against each other. The point most interesting to our
present subject is this, that all these schools take up a common ground,
one which we consider to belong properly to religion, that is, the
question wherein the happiness of man consists, and how to attain it.(420)
Thus the political circumstances of the land gave the tone to its
philosophy. What the time required was something which would compensate
men for the lost position of a free citizen and a self-governed
fatherland. The cultivated classes looked to philosophy for consolation
and support. The answers to this question which the various systems gave
were very different from each other, but an answer they all attempted.
What they have in common is, the drawing-back of man upon himself, his
inner mind, his consciousness, as a being who thinks and wills:(421) while
on the other hand the mental view was widened from the boundaries of a
narrow state to that which touches man in general. The field of morality
opened out beyond the range of this or that city, territory, or monarchy.
Thus two hundred full years were occupied with the struggles of the Stoic
and Epicurean schools, and the sceptical opposition to them of the middle
and later Academy. At the very beginning of this time the man who sat
first in Aristotle’s chair after him, and therefore the head of the most
speculative school, Theophrastus, had shocked the students of philosophy
by declaring that fortune, not wisdom, was the ruler of the world. But it
was precisely against the despondence which such a conviction would work
in the mind that the Stoics struggled with their doctrine of apathy,
Epicurus with his self-contentment, the Sceptics with their tranquillity
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account