EPHRAIM
500
EPICUREANISM
remembered that his poems are known to most readers
only in versions, from which of course the original
rhythm has disappeared — precisely the charm and
most striking feature of this poetry. These hymns,
moreov'er, were not written for private reading, but
were meant to be sung by alternating choirs. We
ha\-e only to compare the Latin psalms as sung in the
choir of a Benedictine monastery with the private
reading of them by tlie priest in the recitation of his
Breviary. Nor must we forget that literary taste is
not everj'^here and at all times the same. We are
influenced by Greek thought more deeply than we are
aware or like to admit. In literature we admire most
the quahties of lucidity, sobriety, and varied action.
Orientals, on the other hand, never weary of endless
repetition of the same thought in slightly altered form ;
they delight in pretty verbal niceties, in the manifold
play of rhythm and accent, rhyme and assonance,
and acrostic. In this respect it is scarcely necessary
to remind the reader of the well-known peculiarities
and qualities of Arabic poetry.
.\s stated above there is no complete edition of the works of St. Ephraem; nor is there any satisfactory Ufe of the great doc- tor. Mention has been made of the .\ssemani edition of his worlds: Opera ovinia qua: extant grmce syriace latine in sex tomos distributa (Rome, 1732—46). It is considered imperfect from the te.xtual standpoint, while the Latin translation is rather a paraphrase. Overbeck, 5. Ephrwmi Syri opera selecta (Ox- ford, 1S65); BiCKELL, Carmina Nisibemi (Leipzig, 1866); L.\my, Hymni et Sermones (Mechlin, 1SS2-86 and 1902). Among the versions it may suffice to mention the Armenian version edited by the Mechitarists (Venice, 1S56. 1893). See also Bickell, Conspectus Tei Surorum litteraricE (Miinster, 1871); Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London. 1891); Zingerle in Kirchenlex., s. v. Ephram: especially Bardexhewer. Patrology, tr. Shahan (Freiburg im Br., 1908), 387-93. e.xcellent apprecia- tion and extensive bibliography; Rodiger-Nestle in Real- encyk. f. prot. Theol. und Kirche, s. v. Ephriim: Duval. Hist, de la litl. syriaque (3d. ed., Paris, 1906); Irem, Histoire d'Edesse, 150-61; L.vMY, Prolegomena to Vols. I and II of the Hymni et Sermones.
Jero.\ie Labourt.
Ephraim of Antioch CE^paf^ios), one of the defenders of the Faith of Chalcedon (451) against the Monophysites, b. at Amida in iVIesopotamia; d. in 545. He was Count of the East (Comes Orientis) under Justinian I. In 527 he succeeded Euphrasius as Patriarch of Antioch. Most of his many works are lost. We know the titles of them, however, from Anastasius Sinaita (c. 700), St. John Damascene (d. about 754) or whoever was the author of the "Sacra Parallela", and especially Photius (d. 891). Ana- stasius (P. G., LXXXIX, 1185-1188) quotes passages from a work of Ephraim against Severus, the Mono- physite Patriarch of Antioch (512-519). The "Sacra Parallela" give a short passage from "St. Ephraim, Archbishop of Antioch", taken from a work "On John the Grammarian and the Synod" (Tit. Ixi, cf. P. G., LXXXVI, 2, 2104-2109). Photius (P. G., CIII, 957- 1024) speaks of four books by Ephraim. The first consisted of sermons and letters, the second and third contained a treatise against Severus in three parts and an answer to five questions about Genesis addressed to the author by a monk named Anatolius. The fragments quoted by Photius represent practically all that is left of Ephraim's writings. Cardinal Mai was able to add a few more from a MS. Catena in the Vati- can library (P. G., LXXXVI, loc. cit.). Krumbacher (Byz. Lift ., loc. cit.) mentions a few other fragments in the Paris library, etc., and considers that Ephraim would deserve the same reputation as Leontius By- zantinus if more of his work had Ijeen preserved. He had an extensive knowledge of Greek Fathers and fol- lows chiefly St. Cyril of Alexandria in his Christology.
Krumbacher, Byzantinische Litteratur (Munich. 1897). 57; Bardenhewer, Patrology, tr. Shahan (St. Louis, 1908), 551. Adrian Fortescue.
Epicureanism. — This term has two distinct, though cognate, meanings. In its popular sense, the word stands for a refined and calculating selfishness,
seeking not power or fame, but the pleasures of sense,
particularly of the palate, and those in company rather
than solitude. An epicure is one who is extremely
choice and delicate in his viands. In the other sense.
Epicureanism signifies a philosophical system, which
includes a theory of conduct, of nature, and of mind.
Hi.sTORY. — Epicurus, from whom this system takes its name, was a Greek, born at Samos 341 b. c, who, in 307 B. c, founded a school at Athens, and died 270 B. c. The Stoic School, diametrically opposite to this, was founded about the same time, probably 310 b. c. Thus these two systems, having for their respective watchwords Pleasure and Duty, sprang up within the first generation after Aristotle (d. 322 b. c), each of them holding a half-truth and by exaggeration turn- ing it into falsehood. The Epicurean School was rather a practical discipline than a habit of specula- tion. The master laid down his principles dogmat- ically, as if they must be evident as soon as stated, to any one not foolish. His disciples were made to learn his maxims by heart; and they acquired a spirit of unity more akin to that of a political party, or of a sect, than to the mere intellectual agreement of a school of philosophers. About a century and a quar- ter after the death of its founder, the system was in- troduced into Rome, and there, as well as in its native country, it attracted in the course of time a number of adherents such as moved the astonishment of Cicero. It had the fortune to be adopted by the finest of didactic poets, Lucretius (91-51 b. c), and was ex- poimded by him in a poem (De rerum natura) with a beauty of expression and a fervour of eloquence worthy of a nobler theme. In the latter half of the second century, when Marcus Aurelius was founding chairs of philosophy at Athens, that emperor, himself a Stoic, recognized the Epicurean (together with his own, and the Platonic, and the Aristotelic systems) as one of the four great philosophies to be established and endowed on a footing of equality. In modern times Epicureanism has had many theoretical as well as practical adherents. In the seventeenth century, when Aristoteleanism and Scholasticism were as- sailed by the champions of the new sciences. Gassendi (q. V.) selected Epicmus for his master; but he seems to have been attracted chiefly by the physics, and to have aimed at reforming the moral theory so as to make it tolerable to a Christian. The numerous edi- tions of the poem of Lucretius which the present age is producing may be taken to indicate a sympathy with the philosophy expounded in it.
Epicure.vn Ethics. — Philosophy was described by Epicurus as "the art of making life happy", and he says that " prudence is the noblest part of philosophy ". His natural philosophy and epistemology seem to have been adopted for the sake of his theory of Ufe. It is, therefore, proper that his ethics should first be e.x- plained. The purpose of life, according to Epicurus, is personal happiness; and by happiness he means not that state of well-being and perfection of which the consciousness is accompanied by pleasure, but pleas- ure itself. Moreover, this pleasure is sensuous, for it is such only as is attainable in this life. This pleasure is the immediate purpose of every action. " Habitu- ate yourself", he says, " to think that death is nothing to us; for all good and evil is in feeling; now death is the privation of feeling. Hence, the right knowledge that death is nothing to us makes us enjoy what there is in this life, not adding to it an indefinite duration, but eradicating the desire of immortality." His idea of the pleasurable differs from that of the Cyrenaic School which preceded him. The CjTenaics looked to the momentary pleasures of gaiety and excitement. The pleasure of Epicurus is a state, equably diffused, "the absence of [bodily] pain and [mental] anxiety". "That which begets the pleasurable life is not [sensual indulgence], but a .sober reason which searches for the grounds of choosing and rejecting, and which ban-
