CARNEA

carnea, one of the great national festivals of sparta, held in honour of apollo carneus. whether carneus (or carnus) was originally an old peloponnesian divinity subsequently identified with apollo, or merely an "emanation" from him, is uncertain; but there seems no reason to doubt that carneus means "the god of flocks and herds" (hesychius, s.v. [greek: karnos]), in a wider sense, of the harvest and the vintage. the chief centre of his worship was sparta, where the carnea took place every year from the 7th to the 15th of the month carneus (=metageitnion, august). during this period all military operations were suspended. the carnea appears to have been at once agrarian, military and piacular in character. in the last aspect it is supposed to commemorate the death of carnus, an acarnanian seer and favourite of apollo, who, being suspected of espionage, was slain by one of the heraclidae during the passage of the dorians from naupactus to peloponnesus. by way of punishment, apollo visited the army with a pestilence, which only ceased after the institution of the carnea. the tradition is probably intended to explain the sacrifice of an animal (perhaps a later substitute for a human being) as the representative of the god. the agrarian and military sides of the festival are clearly distinguished. (1) five unmarried youths ([greek: karneatai]) were chosen by lot from each [tribe] for four years, to superintend the proceedings, the officiating priest being called [greek: agaetaes] ("leader"). a man decked with garlands (possibly the priest himself) started running, pursued by a band of young men called [greek: stathulodromoi] ("running with bunches of grapes in their hands"); if he was caught, it was a guarantee of good fortune to the city; if not, the reverse. (2) in the second part of the festival nine tents were set up in the country, in each of which nine citizens, representing the phratries (or _obae_), feasted together in honour of the god (for huts or booths extemporized as shelters compare the jewish feast of tabernacles; and see w. warde fowler in _classical review_, march 1908, on the country festival in tibullus ii. 1). according to demetrius of scepsis (in athenaeus iv. 141), the carnea was an imitation of life in camp, and everything was done in accordance with the command of a herald. in regard to the sacrifice, which doubtless formed part of the ceremonial, all that is known is that a ram was sacrificed at thurii. other indications point to the festival having assumed a military character at an early date, as might have been expected among the warlike dorians, although some scholars deny this. the general meaning of the agrarian ceremony is clear, and has numerous parallels in north european harvest-customs, in which an animal (or man disguised as an animal) was pursued by the reapers, the animal if caught being usually killed; in any case, both the man and the animal represent the vegetation spirit. e.h. binney in _classical review_ (march 1905) suggests that the story of alcestis was performed at the carnea (to which it may have become attached with the name of apollo) as a vegetation drama, and "embodied a death and resurrection ceremony." the great importance attached to the festival and its month is shown in several instances. it was responsible for the delay which prevented the spartans from assisting the athenians at the battle of marathon (herodotus vi. 106), and for the despatch of a small advance guard under leonidas to hold thermopylae instead of the main army (herodotus vii. 206). again, when epidaurus was attacked in 419 by argos, the movements of the spartans under agis against the latter were interrupted until the end of the month, while the argives (on whom, as dorians, the custom was equally binding), by manipulating the calendar, avoided the necessity of suspending operations (see grote, _hist, of greece_, ch. 56; thucydides v. 54). see s. wide, _lakonische kulte_ (1893), and article "karneios" in roscher's _lexikon_; l. couve in daremberg and saglio's _dictionnaire des antiquites;_ w. mannhardt, _mythologische forschungen_ (1883), p. 170, and _wald- und feldkulte_ (2nd ed., 1905), ii. 254; l.r. farnell, _cults of the greek states_, iv. (1907); g. schomann, _griechische altertumer_ (ed. j.h. lipsius, 1902); j.g. frazer on pausanias, iii. 13, 3; h. usener in _rheinisches museum_, liii. (1898), p. 377; j. vurtheim in _mnemosyne_, xxxi. (1903), p. 234. carneades (214-129 b.c.), greek philosopher, founder of the third or new academy, was born at cyrene. little is known of his life. he learned dialectics under diogenes the stoic, and under hegesinus, the third leader, of the academy in descent from arcesilaus. the chief objects of his study, however, were the works of chrysippus, opposition to whose views is the mainspring of his philosophy. "if chrysippus had not been," he is reported to have said, "i had not been either." in 155, together with diogenes the stoic and critolaus the peripatetic, he was sent on an embassy to rome to justify certain depredations committed by the athenians in the territory of oropus. on this occasion he delivered two speeches on successive days, one in favour of justice, the other against it. his powerful reasoning excited among the roman youth an enthusiasm for philosophical speculations, and the elder cato insisted on carneades and his companions being dismissed from the city. carneades, practically a 5th-century sophist, is the most important of the ancient sceptics. negatively, his philosophy is a polemic against the stoic theory of knowledge in all its aspects. all our sensations are relative, and acquaint us, not with things as they are, but only with the impressions that things produce upon us. experience, he says, clearly shows that there is no true impression. there is no notion that may not deceive us; it is impossible to distinguish between false and true impressions; therefore the stoic [greek: phantasia katalaeptikae] (see stoics) must be given up. there is no criterion of truth. carneades also assailed stoic theology and physics. in answer to the doctrine of final cause, of design in nature, he points to those things which cause destruction and danger to man, to the evil committed by men endowed with reason, to the miserable condition of humanity, and to the misfortunes that assail the good man. there is, he concludes, no evidence for the doctrine of a divine superintending providence. even if there were orderly connexion of parts in the universe, this may have resulted quite naturally. no proof can be advanced to show that this world is anything but the product of natural forces. carneades further attacked the very idea of god. he points out the contradiction between the attributes of infinity and individuality. like aristotle, he insists that virtue, being relative, cannot be ascribed to god. not even intelligence can be an attribute of the divine being. nor can he be conceived of as corporeal or incorporeal. if corporeal, he must be simple or compound; if a simple and elementary substance, he is incapable of life and thought; if compound, he contains in himself the elements of dissolution. if incorporeal, he can neither act nor feel. in fact, nothing whatever can be asserted with certainty in regard to god. the general line of argument followed by carneades anticipates much in modern thought. the positive side of his teaching resembles in all essentials that of arcesilaus (q.v.). knowledge being impossible, a wise man should practise [greek: epochae] (suspension of judgment). he will not even be sure that he can be sure of nothing. ideas or notions are never true, but only probable; nevertheless, there are degrees of probability, and hence degrees of belief, leading to action. according to carneades, an impression may be probable in itself; probable and uncontradicted ([greek: aperispastos], lit. "not pulled aside," not distracted by synchronous sensations, but shown to be in harmony with them) when compared with others; probable, uncontradicted, and thoroughly investigated and confirmed. in the first degree there is a strong persuasion of the propriety of the impression made; the second and third degrees are produced by comparisons of the impression with others associated with it, and an analysis of itself. his views on the _summum bonum_ are not clearly known even to his disciple and successor clitomachus. he seems to have held that virtue consisted in the direction of activity towards the satisfaction of the natural impulses. carneades left no written works; his opinions seem to have been systematized by clitomachus. see a. geffers, _de arcesilae successoribus_ (1845); c. gouraud, _de carneadis vita et placitis_ (1848); v. brochard, _les sceptiques grecs_ (1887); c. martha, "le philosophe carneade a rome," in _revue des deux mondes_, xxix. (1878), and the histories of philosophy; also academy, greek.