as existing and offer worship to the Gods and say that they exercise providence, but in saying this
we express no belief, and avoid the rashness of the dogmatisers."
He then argues that people differ as to the nature of God; for instance, some think Him corporeal,
some incorporeal. Since we have no experience of Him, we cannot know His attributes. The
existence of God is not self-evident, and therefore needs proof. There is a somewhat confused
argument to show that no such proof is possible. He next takes up the problem of evil, and
concludes with the words:
"Those who affirm positively that God exists cannot avoid falling into an impiety. For if they say
that God controls everything, they make Him the author of evil things; if, on the other hand, they
say that He controls some things only, or that He controls nothing, they are compelled to make
God either grudging or impotent, and to do that is quite obviously an impiety."
Scepticism, while it continued to appeal to some cultivated individuals until somewhere in the
third century A.D., was contrary to the temper of the age, which was turning more and more to
dogmatic religion and doctrines of salvation. Scepticism had enough force to make educated men
dissatisfied with the State religions, but it had nothing positive, even in the purely intellectual
sphere, to offer in their place. From the Renaissance onwards, theological scepticism has been
supplemented, in most of its advocates, by an enthusiastic belief in science, but in antiquity there
was no such supplement to doubt. Without answering the arguments of the Sceptics, the ancient
world turned aside from them. The Olympians being discredited, the way was left clear for an
invasion of oriental religions, which competed for the favour of the superstitious until the triumph
of Christianity.
-239-CHAPTER XXVII The Epicureanstwo great new schools of the Hellenistic period, the Stoics and Epicureans, were
contemporaneous in their foundation. Their founders, Zeno and Epicurus, were born at about
the same time, and settled in Athens as heads of their respective sects within a few years of each
other. It is therefore a matter of taste which to consider first. I shall begin with the Epicureans,
because their doctrines were fixed once for all by their founder, whereas Stoicism had a long
development, extending as far as the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who died in A.D. 180.The main authority for the life of Epicurus is Diogenes Laertius, who lived in the third century
A.D. There are, however, two difficulties: first, Diogenes Laertius is himself ready to accept
legends of little or no historical value; second, part of his Life consists in reporting the
scandalous accusations brought against Epicurus by the Stoics, and it is not always clear
whether he is asserting something himself or merely mentioning a libel. The scandals invented
by the Stoics are facts about them, to be remembered when their lofty morality is praised; but
they are not facts about Epicurus. For instance, there was a legend that his mother was a quack
priestess, as to which Diogenes says:"They (apparently the Stoics) say that he used to go round from house to house with his mother
reading out the purification prayers, and assisted his father in elementary teaching for a
miserable pittance."On this Bailey comments:*"If there is any truth in the story that he went about with his mother
as an acolyte, reciting the formulae of her incantations, he may well have been inspired in quite
early____________________