GREEK PHILOSOPHY. 237 GKEEK RELIGION. great names arc Zeno. (lie founder, Cleanthes of Assos, and Clirysippus of Soli, called the second founder; in I'ana-lius of Rliodes and Posidonius of Apaniea. Stoicism sliowed a softened and eclectic tendency. The broad distinction noticed above between the Italic or Doric and the Ionic schools reap- pears in tile marked contrast between the two later materialistic schools. The Stoics are Doric and Pioman in character, the Epicureans are Ionic and Ureek. "The one might be said to rep- resent the law, the other the gospel of paganism." Epicureanism may be briefly described as a eom- Dination of the ])hysics of Demoeritus with the ethics of Aristippus ; its end was even more ex- clusively practical than that of the Stoics. After Epicurus himself the most distinEruished members of the school were Metrodorus, Hermarchus, Co- lotes. and Leonteus. But beneath the antagonism of the post- Aristotelian schools there was much in com- mon, and a constant tendency, especially in the Academic and Stoic schools, to approximate to each other. The rise of the Roman power and the growinq intercourse between Greece and Rome furthered a natural movement, on the one side toward Scepticism and on the other toward Eclec- ticism, as it was surmised that diflferent schools presented difl'erent aspects of truth. A considera- tion of the latter (see Eclecticism), which is typified in Cicero, would carry us outside the limits of purely Greek philosophy, as woidd the later hybrid between the ideas of the East and the West, known as Neo-Platonism (q.v.). For a popular yet scholarly account of the whole his- tory, consult Mayor, Sketch of Ancient Philos- ophy from 'f hales to Cicero (Cambridge, 1881) ; also Bender, M iitholorjie itnd Metaphysil; (Stutt- gart, 1899); Erdmann, History of Philosophy, vol. i. (Eng. trans.. London. 1890) : Brandis, Oeschichte der Entu-ickelunycn der griechischen Philosophic (Berlin, 1862-G4) ; and see the ar- ticles on the various schools and philosophers mentioned above. GREEK POLITICAL PARTIES, See Po- LITICAI. Partik.s. ]iaragraph on (freccc. GREEK RELIGION. As considered in this article, a term to express the relations in Avhich the Greek stood to his gods. Such relations are. of course, conditioned by the beliefs held at va- rious times as to the nature, power, and at- tributes of these gods, and these beliefs in turn are expressed in forms of worship, in literature, and in life. In the . developed civilization of Greece, this religion is a complex organism made up of various elements which the complete ab- sence of a system of theology has left unharmo- nized, so that few conceptions are sharply and consistently defined, while many of the details are hopelessly blurred. In spite, however, of this lack of precision, there is a certain unity in these religious views, and. as presented in litera- ture and art, the Greek polytheism has proved a powerful factor in the development of modern civilization. So far, indeed, as the literature is concerned, it must be admitted that it presents to us rather the mythology than the religion of the Greeks; that is to say, it gives less promi- nence to the belief in the gods as divinities than to the stories about them, in which the strictly religious element usually occupies but a small place. The nature and growth of mvth is treated in the article on ilYxiioi.ooY. and the chief myths rel.ating to the gods and heroes are to be found in the separate articles devoted to them. The Greek was a deeply religious person. He had .a strong sense of his weakness, as compared with the powers of nature by which he was sur- rounded, and gladly owned his dependence upon the divine beings by which he believed those powers were controlled. The perception of the uncertainty of human fortune and its apparently arbitrary course undoubtedly led to fear of the might which could produce such sudden alterna- tions of prosperity and adversity: yet it would be a mistake to regard this as the determining principle in the attitude of the Greeks toward their gods. In general, the relations between gods and men were friendly, and the wrath of the gods was directed against those who overstepped the limits assigned to human activities, and by overweening pride, reckless ambition, or even im- moderate prosperity, excited the divine envy, and brought Nemesis upon themselves. The words of Herodotus, "The god suffers none but himself to be proud," are the concise expression of a thought which is to be foimd throughout the whole range of Greek literature. While, therefore, fear was not prominent, there was a very distinct sense of human limitation; and the gods, as the single source of all that came to men, were approached with offerings and prayers either to win their favor for the future or in thanksgiving for the past. In front of every door stood the conical stone of Apollo Agyieus, and often a terminal figure of Hermes; in the court was the altar of Zeus Herkeios; at the hearth Hestia was wor- shiped ; while kitchen, storerooms, and bed- chamber had their appropriate divinities. From birth to death there were few events in the life of a (Jreek when the gods ^ere not remendicred. And if this is true of the individual, much more is it true of the State. On the favor of the gods depended its existence; consequently their festi- vals were celebrated with devout regularity under the care of high officials, while rich offerings marked the public thankfulness for unexpected deliverance or unusual pros]ierity. Thus the .thenian victories over the Persians were com- memorated by the erection of the colossal bronze Athena on the Acropolis and a group of statues at Delphi, while the zenith of the Athenian Em- pire saw the erection of the Parthenon and I'ropyhra on the .cropolis. as well as new temples at Eleusis, Rhamnus, and Suniuni. The limits of this article prevent a more detailed statement, but any careful study of Greek private life and public institutions will show how closely religion was connected with both. Yet. in spite of this, sacerdotalism is almost unknown. .Vt the seats of the Jlysteries or the oracles, such as Eleusis or Delphi, the priests were of course powerful, but in general they were merely ollicial renresent- ativcs of the community, chosen like other offi- cials, or sometimes allowed to purchase their position. Even where the office was hereditary or confined to a certain family, it was not re- garded as conferring on its possessor any peculiar knowledge as to the will of the gods, or special power to constrain them. The need of an inter- mediarv between the worshiper and the god was not felt, nor was the exact performance of a complicated ritual required. It is sometimes said that the religion of the Greeks was inde-
