The following treatise on Sextus Empiricus and Greek Scepticism
has been prepared to supply a need much felt in the English
language by students of Greek philosophy. For while other
schools of Greek philosophy have been exhaustively and critically discussed by English scholars, there are few sources
of information available to the student who wishes to make
himself familiar with the teachings of Pyrrhonism. The aim has
been, accordingly, to give a concise presentation of Pyrrhonism
in relation to its historical development and the Scepticism of
the Academy, with critical references to the French and German
works existing on the subject. The time and manner of the
connection of Sextus Empiricus with the Pyrrhonean School has
also been discussed.
As the First Book of the _Hypotyposes_, or Pyrrhonic Sketches by
Sextus Empiricus, contains the substance of the teachings of
Pyrrhonism, it has been hoped that a translation of it into
English might prove a useful contribution to the literature on
Pyrrhonism, and this translation has been added to the critical
part of the work.
In making this translation, and in the general study of the
works of Sextus, the Greek text of Immanuel Bekker, Berlin,
1842, has been used, with frequent consultation of the text of
J.A. Fabricius, 1718, which was taken directly from the existing
manuscripts of the works of Sextus. The divisions into chapters,
with the headings of the chapters in the translation, is the
same as Fabricius gives from the manuscripts, although not used
by Bekker, and the numbers of the paragraphs are the same as
those given by both Fabricius and Bekker. References to Diogenes
Laertius and other ancient works have been carefully verified.
The principal modern authors consulted are the following:
Ritter, _Geschichte der Philosophie_, II. Auf., Hamburg, 1836-38.
Zeller, _Philosophie der Griechen_, III. Auf., Leipzig, 1879-89.
Lewes, _History of Philosophy_, Vol. I., London, 1866.
Ueberweg, _History of Philosophy_, IV. ed., translated by
Brochard, _Les Sceptiques Grecs_, Paris, 1877.
Brochard, _Pyrrhon et le Scepticism Primitive_, No. 5, Ribot's
_Revue Phil._, Paris, 1885.
Saisset, _Le Scepticism Aenésidème-Pascal-Kant_, Paris, 1867.
Chaignet, _Histoire de la Psychologie des Grecs_, Paris, 1887-90.
Haas, _Leben des Sextus Empiricus_, Burghausen, 1882.
Natorp, _Forschungen zur Geschichte des Erkenntnisproblems bei
den Alten_, Berlin, 1884.
Hirzel, _Untersuchungen zu Cicero's philosophischen Schriften_,
Pappenheim, _Erläuterung zu des Sextus Empiricus Pyrrhoneischen
Grundzügen_, Heidelberg, 1882.
Pappenheim, _Die Tropen der Greichischen Skeptiker_, Berlin,
Pappenheim, _Lebensverhältnisse des Sextus Empiricus_, Berlin,
Pappenheim, _Der angebliche Heraclitismus des Skeptikers Ainesidemos_, Berlin, 1887.
Pappenheim, _Der Sitz der Schule der Griechischen Skeptiker,
Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie_, I. 1, S. 47, 1887.
Maccoll, _The Greek Sceptics from Pyrrho to Sextus_, London,
My grateful acknowledgments are due to Dr. Ludwig Stein, Professor of Philosophy in the University of Bern, for valuable
assistance in relation to the plan of the work and advice in
regard to the best authorities to be consulted. Thanks are also
due to Dr. Louisos Iliou, of Robert College, Constantinople, for
kind suggestions concerning the translation.
THE HISTORICAL RELATIONS OF SEXTUS EMPIRICUS ... 1
Introductory paragraph.--The name of Sextus Empiricus.
His profession.--The time when he lived.--The place of his birth.--The seat of the Sceptical School while Sextus
was at its head.--The character of the writings of Sextus
THE POSITION AND AIM OF PYRRHONIC SCEPTICISM ... 23
The subject-matter of the Hypotyposes.--The origin of Pyrrhonism.--The nomenclature of Pyrrhonism.--Its criterion.--Its aim.--[Greek: epochê] and [Greek: ataraxia].--The
standpoint of Pyrrhonism.
THE SCEPTICAL TROPES ... 31
Origin of the name.--The ten Tropes of [Greek: epochê].-
First Trope.--The Second Trope.--The Third Trope.--The Fourth
Trope.--The Fifth Trope.--The Sixth Trope.--The Seventh Trope.--The Eighth Trope.--The Ninth Trope.--The Tenth Trope.--The five Tropes of Agrippa.--The two Tropes.--
of Aenesidemus against Aetiology.
AENESIDEMUS AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF HERACLITUS ... 63
Statement of the problem.--The theory of Pappenheim.--
of Brochard.--Zeller's theory.--The theory of Ritter and Saisset.--The theory of Hirzel and Natorp.--Critical examination
of the subject.
CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF PYRRHONISM ... 81
Pyrrhonism and Pyrrho.--Pyrrhonism and the Academy.
weakness of Pyrrhonism.
* * * * *
THE FIRST BOOK OF THE PYRRHONIC SKETCHES BY SEXTUS
EMPIRICUS, TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK ... 101
_The Historical Relations of Sextus Empiricus._
Interest has revived in the works of Sextus Empiricus in recent
times, especially, one may say, since the date of Herbart. There
is much in the writings of Sextus that 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 desire to investigate the phenomena of sense-perception, and the genetic relations of man to the lower
animals, and a common interest in the theory of human knowledge.
While, however, some of the pages of Sextus' works would form a
possible introduction to certain lines of modern philosophical
thought, we cannot carry the analogy farther, for Pyrrhonism as
a whole lacked the essential element of all philosophical
progress, which is a belief in the possibility of finding and
establishing the truth in the subjects investigated.
Before beginning a critical study of the writings of Sextus
Empiricus, and the light which they throw on the development of
Greek Scepticism, it is necessary to make ourselves somewhat
familiar with the environment in which he lived and wrote. We
shall thus be able to comprehend more fully the standpoint from
which he regarded philosophical questions.
Let us accordingly attempt to give some details of his life,
including his profession, the time when he lived, the place of
his birth, the country in which he taught, and the general aim
and character of his works. Here, however, we encounter great
difficulties, for although we possess most of the writings of
Sextus well preserved, the evidence which they provide on the
points mentioned is very slight. He does not give us biographical 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 [Greek: Sextos ho empeirikos] by Diogenes
Laertius: [Greek: Hêrodotou de diêkouse Sextos ho empeirikos
hou kai ta deka tôn skeptikôn kai alla kallista' Sextou de
diêkouse Satorninos ho Kythênas, empeirikos kai autos].
in this passage Diogenes speaks of Sextus the second time
without the surname, we cannot understand the meaning otherwise
than that Diogenes considered Sextus a physician of the Empirical School. Other evidence also is not wanting that Sextus
bore this surname. Fabricius, in his edition of the works of
Sextus, quotes from the _Tabella de Sectis Medicorum_ of Lambecius the statement that Sextus was called Empiricus because
of his position in medicine.
Pseudo-Galen also refers to him as one of the directors of the
Empirical School, and calls him [Greek: Sextos ho empeirikos]. His name is often found in the manuscripts
written with the surname, as for example at the end of _Logic
II_. In other places it is found written without the surname,
as Fabricius testifies, where Sextus is mentioned as a Sceptic
in connection with Pyrrho.
 Diog. Laert. IX. 12, 116.
 Fabricius _Testimonia_, p. 2.
 Pseudo-Galen _Isag._ 4; Fabricius _Testimonia_, p. 2.
 Bekker _Math._ VIII. 481.
The Sceptical School was long closely connected with the Empirical School of medicine, and the later Pyrrhoneans, when
they were physicians, as was often the case, belonged for the
most part to this school. Menedotus of Nicomedia is the first
Sceptic, however, who is formally spoken of as an Empirical
physician, 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. After the time of these two physicians, who were
also each in turn at the head of the Sceptical School, there
seems to have been a definite alliance between Pyrrhonism and
Empiricism in medicine, and we have every reason to believe that
this alliance existed until the time of Sextus.
 Diog. IX. 12, 115.
 Brochard _Op. cit. Livre_ IV. p. 311.
 Diog. IX. 12, 116.
The difficulty in regard to the name arises from Sextus'
testimony. In the first book of the _Hypotyposes_ he takes
strong ground against the identity of Pyrrhonism and Empiricism
in medicine. Although he introduces his objections with the
admission that "some say that they are the same," in recognition
of the close union that had existed between them, he goes on to
say that "Empiricism is neither Scepticism itself, nor would it
suit the Sceptic to take that sect upon himself", 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 of all the medical sects, does not proceed
rashly it seems to me, in regard to unknown things, and does not
presume to say whether they are comprehensible or not, but it is
guided by phenomena. It will thus be seen that the Methodical
School of medicine has a certain relationship to Scepticism
which is closer than that of the other medical sects."
 _Hyp_. I. 236.
 _Hyp_. I. 237.
 _Hyp_. I. 241.
We know from the testimony of Sextus himself that he was a
physician. In one case he uses the first person for himself as a
physician, and in another he speaks of Asclepius as
founder of our science," 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 [Greek: iatrika hupomnêmata], and again as
empeirika hupomnêmata] These passages probably refer to the
same work, which, unfortunately for the solution of the
difficult question that we have in hand, is lost, and nothing is
known of its contents.
In apparent contradiction to his statement in _Hypotyposes_ I.,
that Scepticism and Empiricism are opposed to each other, in
that Empiricism denies the possibility of knowledge, and Scepticism makes no dogmatic statements of any kind, Sextus
classes the Sceptics and Empiricists together in another instance, as regarding knowledge as impossible
[Greek: all oi
men phasin auta mê katalambanesthai, hôster hoi apo tês empeirias iatroi kai hoi apo tês skepseôs phiolosophoi].
another case, on the contrary, he contrasts the Sceptics sharply
with the Empiricists in regard to the [Greek: apodeixeis].
[Greek: hoi de empeirikoi anairousin, hoi de skeptikoi en epochê
 _Hyp_. ii. 238.
 _Adv. Math_. A. 260.
 _Adv. Math_. vii. 202.
 _Adv. Math_. A. 61.
 Zeller _Op. cit._. iii. 43.
 _Adv. Math._ viii. 191.
 _Adv. Math._ VIII. 328.
Pappenheim thinks that Sextus belonged to the Methodical School,
both from his strong expression in favor of that school in
_Hyp_. I. 236, as above, and also because many of his medical opinions, 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 this view in the passage given where Sextus
classes the Sceptics with the Empiricists, but considers that
statement an instance of carelessness in expressing himself, on
the part of Sextus.
 _Lebensverhältnisse des Sex. Em._ 36.
The position of Pappenheim is assailable for the reason that in
dealing with any problem regarding an author on the basis of
internal evidence, we have no right to consider one of his
statements worthy of weight, and another one unworthy, on the
supposition that he expressed himself carelessly in the second
instance. Rather must we attempt to find his true standpoint by
fairly meeting all the difficulties offered in apparently
conflicting passages. This has been attempted by Zeller, Brochard, Natorp and others, with the general result that all
things considered they think without doubt that Sextus belonged
to the Empirical School. His other references are too strong
to allow his 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 [Greek: empeirika hupomnêmata.] 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 different works is accounted for on
the supposition that he was an Empiricist, but disagreed with
that school on the one point only. Natorp points out that
Sextus does not speak more favourably of the medical stand of
the Methodical School, but only compares the way in which both
schools regarded the question of the possibility of knowledge,
and thinks that Sextus could have been an Empiricist as a
physician notwithstanding his condemnation of the attitude of
the Empirical School in relation to the theory of knowledge.
This difference between the two schools was a small one, and on
a subtle and unimportant point; in fact, a difference in philosophical theory, and not in medical practice.
 Brochard _Op. cit. Livre_ IV. 317; Zeller _Op.
III. 15; Natorp _Op. cit._ p. 155.
 Natorp _Op. cit_. 157.
While we would agree with the authors above referred to, that
Sextus very probably recognized the bond between the Empirical
School of medicine and Pyrrhonism, yet to make his possible
connection with that school the explanation of his name, gives
him more prominence as a physician than is consistent with what
we know of his career. The long continued union of Empiricism
and Scepticism would naturally support the view that Sextus was,
at least during the earlier part of his life, a physician of
that school, and yet it may be that he was not named Empiricus
for that reason. There is one instance in ancient writings where
Empiricus is known as a simple proper name. It may have been
a proper name in Sextus' case, or there are 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, [Greek: empeirika hupomnêmata.]
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 mention of them.
Moreover, the passage which we have quoted from the _Hypotyposes_ is too strong to allow us easily to believe that
Sextus remained all his life a member of the Empirical School.
He could hardly have said, "Nor would it suit the Sceptic to
take that sect upon himself," if he at the same time belonged to
it. His other references to the Empirical School, of a more
favorable character, can be easily explained on the ground of
the long continued connection which had existed between the two
schools. It is quite possible to suppose that Sextus was an
Empiricist a part of his life, and afterwards found the Methodical School more to his liking, and such a change would
not in any way have affected his stand as a physician.
 Pappenheim _Leb. Ver. Sex. Em_. 6.
In regard to the exact time when Sextus Empiricus lived, we gain
very little knowledge from internal evidence, and outside
sources of information are equally uncertain. Diogenes Laertius
must have been a generation younger than Sextus, as he mentions
the disciple of Sextus, Saturninus, as an Empirical physician. The time of Diogenes is usually estimated as the
first half of the third century A.D., therefore Sextus cannot
be brought forward later than the beginning of the century.
Sextus, however, directs his writings entirely against the
Dogmatics, by whom he distinctly states that he means the
Stoics, 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, [Greek: alla kai oi stôikoi, ôs oi peri ton
Basileidên]. This Basilides was supposed to be identical with
one of the teachers of Marcus Aurelius. 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.-
mentions no one besides Aenesidemus, who lived later than the
middle of the last century B.C. The Basilides referred to by
Sextus may be one mentioned in a list of twenty Stoics, in a
fragment of Diogenes Laertius, recently published in Berlin by
Val Rose. Too much importance has, however, been given to the
relation of the mention of Basilides the Stoic to the question
of the date of Sextus. Even if the Basilides referred to by
Sextus is granted to have been the teacher of Marcus Aurelius,
it only serves to show that Sextus lived either at the same time
with Marcus Aurelius or after him, which is a conclusion that we
must in any case reach for other reasons.
 Diog. IX. 12, 116.
 Ueberweg _Hist. of Phil._ p. 21.
 Hyp. I. 65.
 _Adv. Math_. VII. 258.
 Fabricius _Vita Sexti._
 Zeller _Op. cit_. III. 8.
 Brochard _Op. cit_. IV. 315.
The fact that has caused the greatest uncertainty in regard to
the date of Sextus is that Claudius Galen in his works mentions
several Sceptics who were also physicians of the Empirical
School, and often speaks of Herodotus, supposed to be identical with the teacher of Sextus given by Diogenes Laertius, but makes no reference whatever to Sextus.
Galen's time passes the limit of the second century A.D., we
must either infer that Sextus was not the well-known physician
that he was stated to be by Pseudo-Galen, and consequently not
known to Galen, or that Galen wrote before Sextus became prominent as a Sceptic. This silence on the part of Galen in
regard to Sextus increases the doubt, caused by Sextus'
criticism of the Empirical School of medicine, as to his having
been an Empiricist. The question is made more complicated, as it
is difficult to fix the identity of the Herodotus so often
referred to by Galen. As Galen died about 200 A.D. at the age
of seventy, 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 does not
sufficiently account for Galen's silence, as other Sceptics are
mentioned by him of less importance than Sextus, and the latter,
even if not as great a physician as Pseudo-Galen asserts, was
certainly both a Sceptic and a physician, and must have belonged
to one of the two medical schools so thoroughly discussed by
Galen--either the Empirical or the Methodical.
Sextus were a contemporary of Galen, he was so far removed from
the circle of Galen's acquaintances as to have made no impression upon him, either as a Sceptic or a physician, a
supposition that is very improbable. We must then fix the date
of Sextus late in the second century, and conclude that the
climax of his public career was reached after Galen had finished
those of his writings which are still extant.
 Zeller, III. 7.
 Diog. XI. 12, 116.
 Pappenheim _Lebens. Ver. Sex. Em._ 30.
 Zeller _Grundriss der Ges. der Phil._ p. 260.
Sextus has a Latin name, but he was a Greek; we know this from
his own statement. We also know that he must have been a
Greek from the beauty and facility of his style, and from his
acquaintance with Greek dialects. The place of his birth can
only, however, be conjectured, from arguments indirectly derived
from his writings. His constant references throughout his works
to the minute customs of different nations ought to give us a
clue to the solution of this question, but strange to say they
do not give us a decided one. Of these references a large
number, however, relate to the customs of Libya, showing a
minute knowledge in regard to the political and religious
customs of this land that he displays in regard to no other
country except Egypt. Fabricius thinks Libya was not his
birth place because of a reference which he makes to it in the
_Hypotyposes_--[Greek: Thrakôn de kai Gaitoulôn (Libyôn de
ethnos touto)]. 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 Chæronea and one from Libya, both of whom he calls Sceptics, and to one of whom he attributes Sextus'
authorities agree in asserting that great confusion exists in
the works of Suidas; and Fabricius, Zeller, and Pappenheim place
no weight upon this testimony of Suidas. Haas, however,
contends that it is unreasonable to suppose that this confusion could go as far as to attribute the writings of Sextus
Empiricus to Sextus of Chæronea, and also make the latter a
Sceptic, and he considers it far more reasonable to accept the
testimony of Suidas, as it coincides so well with the internal
evidence of Sextus' writings in regard to his native land. It is
nevertheless evident, from his familiarity with the customs,
language, and laws of Athens, Alexandria and Rome, that he must
have resided at some time in each of these cities.
 _Adv. Math._ A. 246; _Hyp._ I. 152; _Hyp._ III.
 Haas _Op. cit._ p. 10.
 _Hyp._ III. 213.
 Pappenheim _Lebens. Ver. Sex. Em._ 5, 22; Zeller _Op.
cit._ III. 39; Fabricius _Vita de Sextus_.
 Haas _Op. cit_. p. 6.
Of all the problems connected with the historical details of the
life of Sextus, the one that is the most difficult of solution,
and also the most important for our present purpose of making a
critical study of his teaching, is to fix the seat of the
Sceptical School during the time that he was in charge of it.
The _Hypotyposes_ are lectures delivered 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 the
list given by Diogenes Laertius of its principal leaders, and
by references from the writings of Sextus. In the first book of
_Hypotyposes_ he refers to Scepticism as a distinct system of
philosophy, [Greek: kai taen diakrisin taes skepseos apo ton
parakeimenon autae philosophion]. He speaks also of the older
Sceptics, and the later Sceptics.
Pyrrho, the founder of the school, taught in Elis, his native
village; but even as early as the time of Timon, his immediate
follower, his teachings were somewhat known in Alexandria, where
Timon for a while resided. The immediate disciples of Timon,
as given by Diogenes, were not men known in Greece or mentioned
in Greek writings. Then we have the well-known testimony of
Aristocles the Peripatetic in regard to Aenesidemus, that he
taught Pyrrhonism in Alexandria--[Greek: echthes kai proaen
en Alexandreia tae kat' Aigypton Ainaesidaemos tis anazopyrein
aerxato ton huthlon touton].
 Diog. XI. 12, 115, 116.
 _Hyp_. I. 5.
 _Hyp_. I. 36.
 _Hyp_. I. 164.
 Chaignet _Op. cit._ 45.
 Aristocles of Euseb. _Praep. Ev._ XIV. E. 446.
This was after the dogmatic tendency of the Academy under
Antiochus and his followers had driven Pyrrhonism from the
partial union with the Academy, which it had experienced after
the breaking up of the school under the immediate successors of
Timon. Aenesidemus taught about the time of our era in Alexandria, and established the school there anew; and his
followers are spoken of in a way that presupposes their continuing in the same place. There is every reason to think
that the connection of Sextus with Alexandria was an intimate
one, not only because Alexandria had been for so long a time the
seat of Pyrrhonism, but also from internal evidence from his
writings and their subsequent historical influence; and yet the
_Hypotyposes_ could 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. [Greek: Blepon te hoti
entha ho huphaegaetaes ho emos dielegeto, entautha ego nun
dialegomai]. 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 the three places the most
probable for selection for such a purpose. For whatever reason
the seat of the school was removed from Alexandria by the master
of Sextus, or by himself, from the place where it had so long
been united with the Empirical School of medicine, Athens would
seem the most suitable city for its recontinuance, in the land
where Pyrrhonism first had its birth. Sextus, however, in one
instance, in referring to things invisible because of their
outward relations, says in illustration, "as the city of Athens
is invisible to us at present." In other places also he
contrasts the Athenians with the people whom he is addressing,
equally with the Alexandrians, thus putting Athens as well as
Alexandria out of the question.
 _Hyp._ III. 120.
 _Hyp._ II. 98.
Of the different writers on Sextus Empiricus, those who have
treated this part of the subject most critically are Haas and
Pappenheim. We will therefore consider, somewhat at length, the
results presented by these two authors. Haas thinks that the
_Hypotyposes_ were delivered in Rome for the following reasons.
Sextus' lectures must have been given in some centre of philosophical schools and of learning. He never opposes Roman
relations to those of the place where he is speaking, as he does
in regard to Athens and Alexandria. He uses the name
only three times, once comparing them to the Rhodians, once
to the Persians, and once in general to other nations. In the
first two of these references, the expression "among the Romans"
in the first 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 [Greek: par' haemin] shows that they
were always Roman laws, and his definition of law 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.
Haas considers the Herodotus mentioned by Galen as a prominent physician in Rome, to have been the predecessor and
master of Sextus, in whose place Sextus says that he is teaching. Haas also thinks that Sextus' refutation of the
identity of Pyrrhonism with Empiricism evidently refers to a
paragraph in Galen's _Subfiguratio Empirica_, which would be
natural if the _Hypotyposes_ were written shortly after Galen's
_Sub. Em._, and in the same place. Further, Hippolytus, who
wrote in or near Rome very soon after the time of Sextus,
apparently used the _Hypotyposes_, which would be more natural
if he wrote in the same place. According to Haas, every thing in
internal evidence, and outward testimony, points to Rome as
having been the city where Sextus occupied his position as the
head of the Sceptical School.
 Haas _Op. cit._ p. 15.
 _Hyp._ I. 149, 152; III. 211.
 _Hyp._ I. 146.
 Galen _de puls._ IV. 11; Bd. VIII. 751.
 _Hyp_. III. 120.
 Galen _Sub. Em._ 123 B-126 D. (Basileae, 1542).
Coming now to the position of Pappenheim on this subject, we
find that he takes very decided ground against the seat of the
Sceptical School having been in Rome, even for a short time, in
his latest publication regarding it. This opinion is the
result of late study on the part of Pappenheim, for in his work
on the _Lebensverhältnisse des Sextus Empiricus_ Berlin 1875, he
says, "Dass Herodotus in Rom lebte sagt Galen.
Sextus." His reasons given in the later article for not connecting the Sceptical School at all with Rome are as follows.
He finds no proof of the influence of Scepticism in Rome, as
Cicero remarks that Pyrrhonism is extinct, and he also gives
weight to the well-known sarcastic saying of Seneca, _Quis est
qui tradat praecepta Pyrrhonis!_ 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 that all testimony points to the conclusion
that it was founded in some city of the East. The name of Sextus
is never known in Roman literature, but in the East, on the
contrary, literature speaks for centuries of Sextus and Pyrrho.
The _Hypotyposes_, especially, were well-known in the East, and
references to Sextus are found there in philosophical and
religious dogmatic writings. The Emperor Julian makes use of the
works of Sextus, and he is frequently quoted by the Church
Fathers of the Eastern Church. Pappenheim accordingly concludes that the seat of Pyrrhonism after the school was
removed from Alexandria, was in some unknown city of the East.
 Pappenheim _Sitz der Skeptischen Schule. Archiv für
Geschichte der Phil._ 1888.
 Cicero _De Orat._ III. 17, 62.
 Seneca _nat. qu._ VII. 32. 2.
 Fabricius _de Sexto Empirico Testimonia_.
In estimating the weight of these arguments, we must accept with
Pappenheim the close connection of Pyrrhonism with Alexandria,
and the subsequent influence which it exerted upon the literature of the East. All historical relations tend to fix the
permanent seat of Pyrrhonism, after its separation from the
Academy, in Alexandria. There is nothing to point to its removal
from Alexandria before the time of Menodotus, who is the teacher
of Herodotus, and for many reasons to be considered 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.