Sextus Empiricus and Greek Scepticism

Relations of Se

t finds a parallel in the methods of modern philosophy. There is a common starting-point in the study of the power and limitations of human thought. There is a common

hical thought, we cannot carry the analogy farther, for Pyrrhonism as a whole lacked the essential element of all philoso

ent of Greek Scepticism, it is necessary to make ourselves somewhat familiar with the environment in which he lived a

phical details in regard to himself, nor does he refer to his contemporaries in a way to afford any exact knowledge of them. His name even furnishes us with a problem impossible of solution. He is called Σ?ξτο? ? ?μπειρικο? by Diogenes Laertius [1]: ?ροδ?του δ? δι?κουσε Σ?ξτο? ? ?μπειρρικ?? ο? κα? τ? δ?κα τ?ν σκεπτικ?ν κα? ?λλα κ?λλιστα' Σ?ξτου δ? δι?κουσε Σατορν?νο? ? Κυθ?να? ?μπεικ?? κα? α?τ??. Although in this passage Diogene

ame is often found in the manuscripts written with the surname, as for example at the end of Logic II.[4] In other places it

Laert. I

ius Testim

Isag. 4; Fabriciu

r Math. V

o is formally spoken of as an Empirical physician,[1] and his contemporary Theodas of Laodicea was also an Empirical physician. The date of Menedotus and Theodas is difficult to fix, but Brochard and Hass agree that it was about 150 A.D.[2] After the time of thes

g. IX.

Op. cit. Livr

g. IX.

hem, he goes on to say that "Empiricism is neither Scepticism itself, nor would it suit the Sceptic to take that sect upon himself",[1] for the reason that Empiricism maintains dogmatically the impossibility of knowledge, but he would prefer to belong to the Methodical School, which was the only medical school worthy of the Sceptic. "For this alone o

yp. I

yp. I

yp. I

[2] and all his illustrations show a breadth and variety of medical knowledge that only a physician could possess. He published a medical work which he refers to once as ?ατρικ? ?πομν?ματα, [3] and again as ?

nts of any kind, Sextus classes the Sceptics and Empiricists together in another instance, as regarding knowledge as impossible[6] ?λλ? ο? μ?ν φασιν α?τ? μ? καταλαμβ?νεσθαι, ?σπερ ο? ?π? τ?? ?μπειρ?α? ?ατρο? κα? ο? ?

yp. i

. Math.

Math. v

. Math.

r Op. cit

Math. v

Math. V

ions, as found in his works, agree with the teachings of the Methodical School, more nearly than with those of the Empiricists. Pappenheim also claims that we find no inconsistency with th

h?ltnisse des

fidelity to it to be doubted. He is called one of the leaders of Empiricism by Pseudo-Galen, and his only medical work bore the title ?μπειρικ? ?πομν?ματα. The opinion of the writers above referred to is that the passage which we have quoted from the Hypotyposes does not necessarily mean that Sextus was not an Empiricist, but as he was more of a Sceptic than a physician, he gave preference to those doctrines that were most consistent with Scepticism, and accordingly claimed that it was not absolutely necessary that a Sceptic physician should be an Empiricist. Natorp considers that the different standpoint from which Sextus judges the Empirical and Methodical Schools in his differe

IV. 317; Zeller Op. cit. III

rp Op. c

many other ways in which it could have originated, as those who have studied the origin of names will readily grant, perhaps indeed, from the title of the above-named work, ?μπειρικ? ?πομν?ματα. The chief argument for this view of the case is that there were other leaders of the Sceptical School, for whom we can claim far greater influence as Empiricists than for Sextus, and for whom the surname Empiricus would have been more appropriate, if it was given in consequence of prominence in the Empirical School. Sextus is known to the world as a Sceptic, and not as a physician. He was classed in later times with Pyrrho, and his philosophical works survived, while his medical writings did not, but are chiefly known from his own me

im Leb. Ver.

e Stoics,[3] and the influence of the Stoics began to decline in the beginning of the third century A.D. A fact often used as a help in fixing the date of Sextus is his mention of Basilides the Stoic, [4] ?λλ? κα? ο? στω?κο?, ?? ο? περ? Βασιλε?δην. This Basilides was supposed to be identical with one of the teachers of Marcus Aurelius.[5] This is accepted by Zeller in the second edition of his History of Philosophy, but not in the third for the reason that Sextus, in all the work from which this reference is taken, i.e. Math. VII.-XI., mentions no one besides Aenesidemus, who lived later than the mi

g. IX.

g Hist. of

yp. I

Math. V

icius Vi

r Op. cit

rd Op. cit

Empiricist. The question is made more complicated, as it is difficult to fix the identity of the Herodotus so often referred to by Galen.[3] As Galen died about 200 A.D. at the age of seventy,[4] we should fix the date of Sextus early in the third century, and that of Diogenes perhaps a little later than the middle, were it not that early in the third century the Stoics began to decline in influence, and could hardly have excited the warmth of animosity displayed by Sextus. We must then suppose that Sextus wrote at the very latter part of the second century, and either that Galen did not know him, or that Galen's books were published before Sextus became prominent either as a physician or as a Sceptic. The fact that he may have been better known as the latter than as the former doe

ller,

g. XI.

m Lebens. Ver

driss der Ges.

eligious customs of this land that he displays in regard to no other country except Egypt.[2] Fabricius thinks Libya was not his birth place because of a reference which he makes to it in the Hypotyposes- Θρ?κ?ν δ? κα? Γαιτο?λων (Λιβ?ον δ? ?θνο? το?το).[3] This conclusion is, however, entirely unfounded, as the explanation of Sextus simply shows that the people whom he was then addressing were not familiar with the nations of Libya. Suidas speaks of two men called Sextus, one from Ch?ronea and one from Libya, both of whom he calls Sceptics, and to one of whom he attributes Sextus' books. All authorities agree in asserting that great confusion exists in the w

246; Hyp. I. 152;

Op. cit

p. III

. Em. 5, 22; Zeller Op. cit. II

s Op. c

livered in public in that period of his life. Where then were they delivered? We know that the Sceptical School must have had a long continued existence as a definite philosophical movement, although some have contended otherwise. The fact of its existence as an organized direction of thought, is demonstrated by its formulated teachings, and

e Timon for a while resided.[5] The immediate disciples of Timon, as given by Diogenes, were not men known in Greece or mentioned in Greek writings. c the well-known testimony of Aristocle

XI. 12,

Hyp.

yp. I

yp. I

gnet Op.

f Euseb. Praep.

ld not have been delivered in Alexandria, as he often refers to that place in comparison with the place where he was then speaking. He says, furthermore, that he teaches in the same place where his master taught.[1] βλ?πον τε ?τι ?νθα ? ?φηγητ?? ? ?μ?? διελ?γετο, ?ντα?θα ?γ? ν?ν διαλ?γομαι. Therefore the school must have been removed from Alexandria, in or before the time of the teacher of Sextus, to some other centre. The Hypotyposes are from beginning to end a direct attack on the Dogmatics; therefore Sextus must have taught either in some city where the dogmatic philosophy was strong, or in some rival philosophical centre. The Hypotyposes show also that the writer had access to some large library. Alexandria, Rome and Athens are

p. III

yp. I

part of the antithesis 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 Sextus was not then in Rome. The character of the laws referred to by Sextus as παρ? ?μ?ν 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 Sextus, 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]

Op. cit

. 149, 152

yp. I

puls. IV. 11;

p. III

m. 123 B-126 D.

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 Sextus 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 Sextus 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

ptischen Schule. Archiv für

De Orat.

nat. qu.

de Sexto Empir

onsidered the real teacher of Sextus. 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 éclat 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 Sextus. Furthermore, Sextus' familiarity with Alexandrian customs bears the imprint of original knowledge, and he canno

g. IX.

Op. cit.

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 R

n Schule; Archiv für Geschichte de

r Op. cit

er Op. c

er Op. c

hard Op.

times by name in his works,[2] speak in favour of Rome in the matter under discussion, as Asclepiades made that city one of the centres of medical culture. On the other hand, the fact that there is no trace of the Hypotyposes in later Roman literature, with the one exception of the works of Hippolytus, as opposed to the wide-spread knowledge of them shown in the East for centuries, is incontestable historical proof that the Sceptical School could not long have had its seat at Rome. From the two passages given above from Sextus' work against physics, he must either have written that book in Alexandr

len VI

ekker

ians, two against physics, and one against systems of morals. If the last short work of the first book directed against the arithmeticians is combined with the one preceding against the geometricians, as it well could be, the two works together would be divided into ten different parts; there is evidence to show that in ancient times such a division was made.[1] There were two other works of Sextus which are now lost, the medical work before referred to, and a book entitled περ? ψυχ??. The character of the extant works of Sextus is similar, as they are all directed either against science or against the dogmatics, and they all present the negative side of Pyrrhonism. The vast array of arguments comprising the subject-matter, often repeated in th

onsideration of the general p

g. IX.