Chapter XXIII: The New Academy (11)

[1057] According to Hermippus (Diog. 2) Democritus first gave him the impulse to pursue philosophy; but this is only a conjecture. Besides Democritus, Aristippus is also mentioned as a philosopher whose doctrines he followed (Diog. 4). Epicurus is even said to have expressed a disparaging opinion of Democritus (Cic. N. D. i. 33, 93; Diog. 8). Nor is this denied by Diog. 9: but it probably refers to particular points only, or it may have reference to the attitude of later Epicureans, such as Colotes (Plut. Adv. Col. 3, 3, p. 1108). Plut. l.c., says, not only that Epicurus for a long time called himself a follower of Democritus, but he also quotes passages from Leonteus and Metrodorus, attesting Epicurus’ respect for Democritus. Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας, Vol. Herc. v. 2, col. 20, seems to refer to expressions of Epicurus which excuse certain mistakes of Democritus. Lucret. iii. 370, v. 620, also speaks of Democritus with great respect; and Philodem. De Mus. Vol. Herc. i. col. 36, calls him ἀνὴρ οὐ φυσιολογώτατος μόνον τῶν ἀρχαίων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἱστορουμένων οὐδενὸς ἧττον πολυπράγμων.

[1058] Diog. 1, 15 mentions Colophon, Mytilene, and Lampsacus. Strabo, xiii. 1, 19, p. 589, also affirms that Epicurus resided for some time at Lampsacus, and there made the acquaintance of Idomeneus and Leonteus.

[1059] Diog. 2, on the authority of Heraclides and Sotion. According to him, Epicurus returned to Athens in the archonship of Anaxicrates, 307–6 B.C. In that case the numbers must be slightly reduced in the statement (Diog. 15) that he came to Mytilene when 32, and taught there and in Lampsacus for five years.

[1060] Not immediately, however, since Diog. 2 says, on the authority of Heraclides: μέχρι μέν τινος κατ’ ἐπιμιξίαν τοῖς ἄλλοις φιλοσοφεῖν, ἔπειτ’ ἰδίᾳ πως τὴν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ κληθεῖσαν αἵρεσιν συστήσασθαι.

[1061] On this celebrated garden, after which the Epicureans were called οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν κήπων, see Diog. 10, 17; Plin. H. N. xix. 4, 51; Cic. Fin. i. 20, 65; v. 1, 3; Ad Fam. xiii. 1; Sen. Ep. 21, 10; Steinhart, p. 462, 45; 463, 72. Epicurus had purchased it for 80 minæ.

[1062] This subject will be discussed at a later period.

[1063] Such as Themista or Themisto, the wife of Leonteus (Diog. 5; 25; 26; Clem. Strom. iv. 522, D).

[1064] Diog. 4; 6; 7; Cleomed. Meteor. p. 92, Balfor.; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 4, 8; 16, 1 and 6; Lat. Viv. 4, 2. The best-known among these ἑταῖραι is Leontion, who lived with Metrodorus, a pupil of Epicurus (Diog. 6; 23), and wrote with spirit against Theophrastus (Cic. N. D. i. 33, 93; Plut. Hist. Nat. Præf. 29). Conf. Diog. 5; Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας, Vol. Herc. v. 2, Fr. 9. Athen. xiii. 593, b, tells a fine story of self-sacrifice of her daughter Danaë.

[1065] Ol. 127, 2, in the archonship of Pytharatus, and in his seventy-second year. Diog. 15; Cic. De Fat. 9, 19.

[1066] Diog. 15; 22; Cic. Ad Fam. vii. 26; Fin. ii. 30, 96; Sen. Ep. 66, 47; 92, 25. That he put an end to his own life (Baumhauer, Vet. Philo. Doct. De Mort. Volunt. 322), Hermippus (Diog. 15) by no means implies.

[1067] According to Diog. Pro. 16, x. 26, he was, next to Chrysippus, the most voluminous writer of the ancient philosophers, his writings filling 300 rolls. The titles of his most esteemed works are given by Diog. 27. Conf. Fabric. Bibl. Gr. iii. 595, Harl.

[1068] Three epistles in Diog. 35; 84; 122; and the κύριαι δόξαι, an epitome of his ethics, mentioned by Cic. N. D. i. 30, 85, and 139. Of his 37 books περὶ φύσεως, fragments of books 2 and 11 have been edited (Vol. Hercul. ii.).

[1069] Fragments in Diog. 5; 7. Besides the testament and the letter to Idomeneus (Diog. 16–22), many individual expressions of Epicurus have been preserved by Seneca.

[1070] Aristophanes (in Diog. 13) calls his style ἰδιωτικωτάτη. Cleomed. Meteor. p. 91, complains of his awkward and barbarous expressions, instancing: σαρκὸς εὐσταθῆ καταστήματα· τὰ περὶ ταύτης πιστὰ ἐλπίσματα· λιπάσμα ὀφθαλμῶν· ἱερὰ ἀνακραυγάσματα· γαργαλισμοὺς σώματος. In this respect, Chrysippus may be compared with him. See above, p. 48, 1.

[1071] See Fabric. Bibl. Gr. iii. 598, Harl. They were, no doubt, very numerous. Diog. x. 9, probably exaggerates their number in saying the friends of Epicurus would fill towns. Cic. Fin. i. 20, 65, speaks of magni greges amicorum. Plut. Lat. Viv. 3, 1, also mentions his friends in Asia and Egypt. In Greece, however, on his own testimony, and that of Metrodorus (Sen. Ep. 79, 15), they attracted little notice.

[1072] A native of Lampsacus (Strabo, xiii. 1, 19, p. 589), and, next to Epicurus, the most celebrated teacher of the School. Cicero, Fin. ii. 28, 92, calls him pæne alter Epicurus, and states (Fin. ii. 3, 7) that Epicurus gave him the name of a wise man (Diog. 18; Sen. Ep. 52, 3). Further particulars respecting him and his writings in Diog. x. 6; 18; 21–24; Philodem. De Vitiis, ix. (Vol. Herc. iii.), col. 12; 21; 27; Athen. vii. 279; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 7, 1; 12, 2; 16, 6 and 9; Adv. Col. 33, 2 and 6; Sen. Ep. 98, 9; 99, 25. Fragments of the letters are to be found in Plutarch, Seneca, and Philodemus. Whether the fragments of a treatise περὶ αἰσθητῶν in vol. vi. of Vol. Hercul. belong to him, is very uncertain. According to Diog. 23, he died seven years before Epicurus, in his fifty-third year, and must therefore have been born 330 or 329 B.C. For the education of his children probably by Leontion, whom Diog. 23 calls παλλακὴ, and Sen. Fr. 45 in Hieron. Adv. Jovin. i. 191 calls his wife, provision is made by Epicurus in his will (Diog. 19, 21).

[1073] Son of Athenodorus, likewise a native of Lampsacus (Diog. 24), a capital mathematician, according to Cic. Acad. ii. 33, 106; Fin. i. 6, 20. Diog. l.c. calls him ἐπιεικὴς καὶ φιλήκοος; Metrodorus, in Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας (Vol. Herc. v. a), col. 6, ἀποφθεγματίας. Sen. Ep. 6, 6, calls him, Metrodorus, and Hermarchus, viros magnos. Philodemus (vol. v. b), Fr. 49. praises his frankness towards his teacher. A son of his is also mentioned in Epicurus’ will (Diog. 19), whose mother would appear to have been a courtesan, according to Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 16, 6.

[1074] This individual’s name, formerly written Hermachus, appears as Hermarchus in the modern editions of Diogenes, Cicero, and Seneca. The latter form is now established beyond doubt by the Herculanean fragments from Philodemus (περὶ θεῶν διαγωγῆς, vol. vi. col. 13, 20; De Vitiis, ix. vol. iii. col. 25, 1), and the inscription on a monument to him (Antiquitat. Hercul. V. 17). His birthplace was Mytilene, Agemarchus being his father. (Diog. 17, 15, 24.) Diog. 24 gives a list of his books. Epicurus (Diog. 20) describes him as one of his oldest and most faithful friends, in the words: μετὰ τοῦ συγκαταγεγηρακότος ἡμῖν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ. On his character, see Sen. Ep. 6, 6.

[1075] According to what is stated in the testament of Epicurus. Diog. 16.

[1076] Colotes, a native of Lampsacus. Diog. 25. Further particulars about him may be obtained from Plut. Adv. Col. 17, 5; 1, 1; N. P. Suav. Vivi, 1, 1; Macrob. Somn. Scip. i. 2. Vol. Hercul. iv. Introd. in Polystr. p. iii.

[1077] In particular, Neocles, Chairedemus, and Aristobulus, the brothers of Epicurus (Diog. 3, 28; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 5, 3; where Ἀγαθόβουλος is evidently a copyist’s error; 16, 3; De Lat. Viv. 3, 2); Idomeneus, a native of Lampsacus (Diog. 25; 22; 23; 5; Plut. Adv. Col. 18, 3; Strabo, xiii. 1, 19, p. 589; Athen. vii. 279; Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας. Fr. 72, Vol. Herc. v. 2; Sen. Ep. 21, 3 and 7; 22, 5; Phot. Lex.; and Suid. Πύθια καὶ Δήλια), from whose historical writings many fragments are quoted by Müller, Fragm. Hist. Gr. ii. 489; Leonteus, likewise a native of Lampsacus (Diog. 5; 25; Plut. Adv. Col. 3, 3; Strabo, l.c.); Herodotus (Diog. 4 and 34); Pythocles (Diog. 5 and 83; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 12, 1; Adv. Col. 29, 2; Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας, Fr. 6); Apelles (Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 12, 1); Menœceus (Diog. 121); Nicanor (Diog. 20); Timocrates, the brother of Metrodorus, who afterwards fell out with Epicurus (Diog. 4 and 6; 23 and 28; Cic. N. D. i. 33, 93: Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 16, 9; Adv. Col. 32, 7; Comment. in Hesiod. Fr. 7, 1; Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας, Vol. Herc. v. a, col. 20). This Timocrates must not be confounded with the Athenian Timocrates, whom Epicurus appointed his heir, jointly with Amynomachus (Diog. 16; Cic. Fin. ii. 31, 101). The two last named were probably pupils of Epicurus. Other pupils were: Mithras, a Syrian, an official under Lysimachus (Diog. 4 and 28; Plut. Adv. Col. 33, 2; N. P. Suav. Viv. 15, 5); Mys, a slave of Epicurus, on whom he bestowed liberty (Diog. 21; 3; 10; Gell. ii. 18, 8; Macrob. Sat. i. 11; the ladies mentioned on p. 407, 2, 3; likewise Anaxarchus, to whom Epicurus addressed a letter, and Timarchus, to whom Metrodorus addressed one (Plut. Adv. Col. 17, 3); Hegesianax, who died early (Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 20, 5); the poet Menander, whose wondrous epigram on Epicurus is to be found in the anthology; and probably Dionysius ὁ μεταθέμενος. (See above, p. 44, 1.)

[1078] Diog. 16. In Cicero’s time, the plot of ground, together with the tenement standing thereupon, and at that time in ruins (parietinæ), was in the hands of C. Memmius, a distinguished Roman, to whom Cicero wrote (Ad Fam. xiii. 1), conf. Ad Att. v. 11, begging him to restore it to the School. Whether he was successful is not known from Sen. Ep. 21, 10.

[1079] Diog. 25. does not say that Polystratus was a personal disciple of Epicurus, but it seems probable. Fragments of a treatise of his περὶ ἀλόγου καταφρονήσεως in the fourth volume of Vol. Hercul.

[1080] According to Valer. Max. i. 8, ext. 17, both these individuals were born on the same day, and passed their whole lives together with a common purse. Lysias, according to the older text of Diog. x. 25, was a cotemporary, at whose house Hermarchus died, as Fabric. Bibl. Gr. iii. 606 believes, and who is styled in Athen. v. 215, b, tyrant of Tarsus, Cobet, however, reads παραλύσει instead of παρὰ Λυσίᾳ.

[1081] Diog. 25. The Dionysius referred to can hardly be Dionysius ὁ μεταθέμενος (see p. 44, 1), or Diogenes would have said so. Besides the chronology forbids such an assumption.

[1082] Strabo, xiv. 2, 20, p. 658. He is probably the Protarchus whose sayings are quoted by Simpl. Phys. 78, a; Themist. Phys. 27, a.

[1083] According to Strabo, l.c., Diog. 26, Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. iii. 137, Math. viii. 348, x. 219, Erotian, Lex. Hippocr. Κλαγγώδη, Demetrius was one of the most distinguished Epicureans. Whether a treatise on mathematics, illegible fragments of which are found in Herculaneum (Vol. Herc. iv. Introd. in Polystr. iii. 2), is his, or belongs to another Demetrius mentioned by Strabo, xii. 3, 16, page 548, it is impossible to say.

[1084] Both the Ptolemies of Alexandria (Diog. 25); Diogenes of Tarsus (Diog. vi. 81; x. 26; 97; 118; 136; 138); Orion (Diog. 26); Timagoras (Cic. Acad. ii. 25, 80); and also Metrodorus of Stratonice, who went over from Epicurus to Carneades (Diog. 9)—a very rare thing for an Epicurean to do—may be named among his pupils.

[1085] According to Athen. xii. 547, a, Ælian, V. H. ix. 12, two Epicureans, Alcius and Philiscus, were banished from Rome, in the consulate of L. Postumius (173 or 155 B.C.; see Clinton’s Fasti), because of their evil influence on youth. Although the story is obviously taken from a hostile authority and in Suid. (Ἐπίκουρος, vol. i. b, 419 Bern.), it is told with such exaggerations as to inspire grave mistrust, it can hardly be altogether without some foundation. Plut. N. P. Suav. V. 19, 4, says, that in some cities severe laws were passed against the Epicureans, and just at that time there was a strong feeling in Rome against innovations, witness the well-known enquiry into the Bacchanalia instituted 186 B.C.

[1086] According to Cic. Tusc. iv. 3, 6, Amafinius seems to have come forward not long after the philosophic embassy of 156 B.C.; nor is this at variance with Lucr. v. 336, who claims primus cum primis to have set forth the Epicurean teaching in Latin. His works made a great impression at the time, according to Cic. l.c. (cujus libris editis commota multitudo contulit se ad eam potissimum disciplinam). According to Acad. i. 2, 5, he pursued natural science, carefully following the views of Epicurus. Cicero then complains of him and Rabirius, we know not which one is meant, nor whether he was an Epicurean, qui nulla arte adhibita de rebus ante oculos positis vulgari sermone disputant: nihil definiunt, nihil partiuntur, &c. Conf. Tusc. ii. 3, 7. Cassius, too (Cic. Ad Fam. xv. 12), calls him and Catius (see p. 414, 3) mali verborum interpretes.

[1087] Cic. Tusc. iv. 3, 7: Post Amafinium autem multi ejusdem æmuli rationis multa cum scripsissent, Italiam totam occupaverunt, quodque maxumum argumentum est non dici illa subtiliter, quod et tam facile ediscantur et ab indoctis probentur, id illi firmamentum esse discipliæ putant. Conf. in Fin. i. 7, 25, the question: Cur tam multi sint Epicurei?

[1088] Surnamed ὁ κηποτύραννος, the writer of more than 400 books. Diog. 25; 2; 13; vii. 181.

[1089] Diog. vii. 35, x. 25, and Procl. in Euclid. 55, says that Zeno was a native of Sidon, and a pupil of Apollodorus; nor can these statements be referred to an older Zeno, as some previous writers maintained, believing Apollodorus to be called in error a pupil of Epicurus by Diog. x. 25, instead of to the one mentioned by Cicero. For no trace of such a one exists; and Diogenes vii. 35 would then have passed over the teacher of Cicero without notice, although the latter cannot possibly have been unknown to him. According to Cic. Acad. i. 12, 46, Zeno attended the lectures of Carneades and admired them; and since Carneades died not later than 129 B.C., Zeno cannot have been born much later than 150 B.C. If, therefore, Zeno was really the successor of Apollodorus, the latter must be placed entirely in the second century. But this fact is not sufficiently established. Cicero, in company with Atticus, attended his lectures (Cic. l.c.; Fin. i. 5, 16; Tusc. iii. 17, 38. In Cic. N. D. i. 21, 58, Cotta says the same of himself), on his first visit to Athens, 78 or 79 B.C.; conf. N. D. i. 34, 93; but this cannot possibly be the same Zeno or Xeno (as Krische, Forsch. 26, maintains) whom Cic. Ad Att. v. 10, 11; xvi. 3 mentions as living in 50 and 43 B.C. Cic. N. D. i. 21, calls him princeps Epicureorum (and Philo of Larissa, coryphæus Epicureorum); Tusc. l.c., acriculus senex, istorum (Epicureans) acutissimus. Diog. x. 25, calls him πολύγραφος ἀνήρ. From Procl. in Euclid. 55; 59; 60, we hear of a treatise of Zeno, in which he attacked the validity of mathematical proofs. Philodemus’ treatise περὶ παῤῥησίας (Vol. Herc. v. a) seems, from the title, to have been an abstract from Zeno. Cotemporary with Zeno was that Aristio, or Athenio, who played a part in Athens during the Mithridatic war, and is sometimes called a Peripatetic, and sometimes an Epicurean (Plut. Sulla, 12; 14; 23). See Zeller’s Philosophie der Griechen, vol. ii. b, 759, 2. Perhaps to the time of his despotism the statement may be referred (Demetrius Magnes in Athen. xiii. 611, b) that the Stoic Theotimus, who wrote against Epicurus, was killed at the instance of Zeno.

[1090] Cicero (N. D. i. 33, 93; Fin. i. 5, 16; v. 1, 3; Legg. i. 20, 53) had also studied under him in Athens, and previously in Rome, where Phædrus must then have been residing (Ad Fam. xiii. 1). He was old when Cicero for the second time was brought into relations with him. According to Phlegon, in Phot. Bibl. Cod. 97, p. 84, a, 17, he was succeeded by Patro (Ol. 177, 3, or 70 B.C.) in the headship of the School, after holding it only for a very short time; but this is not a well-ascertained fact. Cicero l.c. praises the character of Phædrus. He calls him nobilis philosophus (Philip, v. 5, 13). It is supposed that Cicero’s description (N. D. i. 10, 25; 15, 41), and that the fragments first published by Drummond (Herculanensia: London, 1810), and then by Petersen (Phædri ... de Nat. De. Fragm.: Hamb. 1833), and illustrated by Krische (Forschungen), were from a treatise of Phædrus on the Gods, to which perhaps Cic. Ad Att. xiii. 39 refers. But Spengel (from the Herculanean rolls, Philodemus περὶ εὐσεβείας. Abh. d. Münch. Akad. Philos-philol. Kl. x. 1, 127) and Sauppe (De Philodemi libro ... de pietate. Gött. Lectionsverz. für Sommer, 1864) have shown that the Neapolitan (Vol. Herc. Coll. Alt. i. ii. 1862) editors are right in regarding these fragments as the remains of a treatise of Philodemus περὶ εὐσεβείας.

[1091] Philodemus (see Vol. Herc. i. 1; Gros, Philod. Rhet. cxii.; Preller, Allg. Encycl. Sect. III. Bd. xxiii. 345) was a native of Gadara. in Cœle-Syria (Strabo, xvi. 2, 29, p. 759). He lived at Rome in Cicero’s time, and is mentioned by Cicero as a learned and amiable man (Fin. ii. 35, 119; Or. in Pison. 28). Besides philosophic works, he also wrote poems (Cic. In Pis.; Hor. Sat. i. 2, 121). A number of the latter, in the shape of epigrams, are preserved. Of his philosophical works mentioned by Diog. x. 3; 24, no fewer than thirty-six books were discovered in Herculaneum, which have, for the most part, been published (Vol. Herc. iv. Introd. in Polystr. iii.) so far as they were legible. Spengel and Gros have separately edited Rhet. IV.; Sauppe, De Vitiis X.; and Petersen and Sauppe, the fragments περὶ εὐσεβείας.

[1092] Cic. Acad. ii. 33, 106; Fin. ii. 35, 110; Ad Fam. vi. 11. According to Virgil, Catal. 7, 9; 10, 1, Donat. Vita Virg. 79, Serv. Ad Ecl. vi. 13, Æn. vi. 264, he was the teacher of Virgil. The name is variously written as Syro, Siro, Sciro, Scyro. Somewhat earlier is the grammarian Pompilius Andronicus, from Syria, who, according to Sueton. Illust. Gram. c. 8, lived at Rome at the same time as Gnipho, the teacher of Cæsar (Ibid. c. 7), and gave up his profession for the Epicurean philosophy, and afterwards lived at Cumæ.

[1093] Cic. Ad Fam. xiii. 1; Ad Att. v. 11; vii. 2; Ad Quint. Fratr. i. 2, 4, where besides him an Epicurean Plato of Sardes is mentioned, and above, pp. 410, 1; 413, 1.

[1094] Besides Lucretius, the most important among them are T. Albutius, called by Cic. Brut. 35, 131, perfectus Epicureus (Cic. Brut. 26, 102; Tusc. v. 37, 108; N. D. i. 33, 93; Fin. i. 3, 8 [De Orat. iii. 43, 171]; In Pison. 38, 92; Offic. ii. 14, 50; Orator, 44, 149; In Cæcil. 19, 63; Provin. Cons. 7, 15; De Orat. ii. 70, 281), and Velleius, who, as Krische (Forsch. 20) proves, by a gloss on Nat. De. i. 29, 82 and Cic. De N. D. i. 28, 79 (conf. Divin. i. 36, 79), was a native of Lanuvium, and was considered the most distinguished Epicurean of his time (Cic. N. D. i. 6, 15; 21, 58; conf. De Orat. iii. 21, 78). Other Epicureans were: C. Catius, a native of Gaul, spoken of by Cicero (Ad Fam. xv. 16) as one long ago dead. By Quintilian, x. 1, 124, he is called levis quidem sed non injucundus tamen auctor; and the Comment. Cruqu. in Hor. Sat. ii. 4, 1, says that he wrote four books De Rerum Natura et De Summo Bono;—C. Cassius, the well-known leader of the conspiracy against Cæsar (Cic. Ad Fam. xv. 16, 19; Plut. Brut. 37); C. Vibius Pansa, who died as consul at Mutina in 43 B.C. (Cic. Ad Fam. vii. 12; xv. 19); Gallus (Ad Fam. vii. 26); L. Piso, the patron of Philodemus (Cic. in Pis. 28, see above, p. 413, 2; l.c. 9, 20; 16, 37; 18, 42; 25, 59; Post Red. 6, 14); Statilius (Plut. Brut. 12); a second Statilius appears to be meant (Cat. Min. 65); L. Manlius Torquatus, to whom Cic. Fin. i. 5, 13 delegates the representation of the Epicurean teaching. T. Pomponius Atticus, the well-known friend of Cicero, approached nearest to the Epicurean School, calling its adherents nostri familiares (Cic. Fin. v. 1, 3) and condiscipuli (Legg. i. 7, 21). He was a pupil of Zeno and Phædrus and a friend of Patro’s; but his relations to philosophy were too free to entitle him properly to be ranked in any one school (Cic. Fam. xiii. 1). The same observation applies also to his friend, L. Saufeius (Nepos, Att. 12; Cic. Ad Att. iv. 6). Still less can C. Sergius Orata (Cic. Fin. ii. 22, 70; Off. iii. 16, 67; De Orat. i. 39, 178), L. Thorius Balbus (Fin. l.c.), and Postumius (Ibid.) be called Epicureans. Nor can anything be stated with certainty respecting L. Papirius Pætus (Cic. Ad Fam. vii. 17 to 26), not even from the chief passage Ep. 25, or respecting C. Trebatius from Cic. Ad Fam. vii. 12. C. Memmius (from the way in which he is spoken of by Cic. Ad Fam. xiii. 1) cannot be regarded as a member of the Epicurean School, although Lucret. De Rer. Nat. i. 24; v. 9, expressed the hope of winning him.

[1095] Born, according to Hieron, (in Eus. Chron.), 95 B.C., he died in his 44th year, or 51 B.C. In Vita Virgilii, 659 ought therefore to be substituted for 699 A.U.C. It is clear, from Nepos, Att. 12, that he was dead before the assassination of Cæsar. Teuffel (in Pauly’s Realencycl. iv. 1195) justly disputes the statement of Hieronymus, that he committed suicide in a fit of madness.

[1096] According to Sext. Math. vii. 201, a cotemporary of Antiochus of Ascalon, whose language towards him is there quoted, and reckoned by Galen. Isag. c. 4, vol. xiv. 683 among the leaders of the logical School of Physicians. His medical treatises are often referred to by Galen. Plutarch in his Placita often names him.

[1097] Known for three things—his theory of atoms, his theory of the acquisition of knowledge, and his resolution of the soul into matter.

All bodies, he held, consist of atoms, which differ from the atoms of Democritus in that they owe their origin to the meeting and breaking up of greater masses, and are not in quality alike and unchangeable (ἀπαθεῖς). Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 32; Math. ix. 363; x. 318; viii. 220; iii. 5; Galen. l.c. 9, p. 698; Dionys.; Alex. (in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 23, 4); Cœl. Aurelian. De Pass. Acut. i. 14. See Fabric. on Pyrrh. iii. 32. The latter is probably in error in describing the primary atoms of Asclepiades as without quality, differing only in size, form, number, and arrangement. Although in this respect he resembled Heraclides, with whom he is generally classed, and applied, like him, the name ὄγκοι to atoms, still it is probable that his knowledge of Heraclides was traditionally derived from the Epicureans.

He also asserted, with Epicurus (Antiochus, in Sext. Math. vii. 201): τὰς μὲν αἰσθήσεις ὄντως καὶ ἀληθῶς ἀντιλήψεις εἶναι, λόγῳ δὲ μηδὲν ὅλως ἡμᾶς καταλαμβάνειν. At the same time he maintained that our senses cannot distinguish the component parts of things, but even Epicurus and Democritus admitted as much in respect of atoms.

He differs entirely from Epicurus in denying the existence of a soul apart from body, and in referring every kind of notion, including the soul itself, to the action of the senses (Sext. Math. vii. 380; Plut. Plac. iv. 2, 6; Cœl. Aurelian. l.c. in Fabric. on the passage of Sext.; Tertullian, De An. 15). What is elsewhere stated of Asclepiades, leaving alone his medical views, for instance, that with Heraclitus he believed in a perpetual flux of things, is not at variance with Epicurean principles.

[1098] Quint Inst. vi. 3, 78, names L. Varus as an Epicurean, a friend of Augustus, perhaps the individual who according to Donat. V. Virg. 79, Serv. on Ecl. vi. 13. attended the lectures of Syro in company with Virgil. Horace, notwithstanding Ep. i. 4, 15, was no Epicurean, but only a man who gathered everywhere what he could make use of (Sat. i. 5, 101). In Caligula’s time, a senator Pompedius was an Epicurean (Joseph. Antiquit. ix. 1, 5); under Nero, Aufidius Bassus, a friend of Seneca (Sen. Ep. 30, 1 and 3 and 5; 14), the elder Celsus (Orig. c. Cels. i. 8), and Diodorus, who committed suicide (Sen. Vi. Be. 19, 1); under Vespasian or his sons, Pollius (Stat. Silv. ii. 2, 113). In the first half of the second century, Cleomedes, Met. p. 87, complained of the honours paid to Epicurus. In the second half of the same century lived Antonius, mentioned by Galen. De Prop. An. Affect. v. 1, and Zenobius, who, according to Simpl. Phys. 113, b, was an opponent of Alexander of Aphrodisias. In the first half of the third century lived Diogenes Laërtius, who, if not a perfect Epicurean himself, was at least a friend of the Epicureans. Amongst other Epicureans, the names of Athenæus (whose epigram on Epicurus is quoted by Diog. x. 12). Autodorus (Diog. v. 92), and Hermodorus (Lucian, Icaromen. 16) may be mentioned; but Diog. x. 11 does not justify us calling Diocles of Magnesia an Epicurean.

[1099] Diog. x. 9, in the first half of the third century, writes: ἥ τε διδαχὴ πασῶν σχεδὸν ἐκλιπουσῶν τῶν ἄλλων ἐσαεὶ διαμένουσα καὶ νηρίθμους ἀρχὰς ἀπολύουσα ἄλλην ἐξ ἄλλης τῶν γνωρίμων. The testimony of Lactantius, Inst. iii. 17, to the wide extension of Epicureanism is not so trustworthy, although he treats it as an existing fact. It may be that he is only following older writers, as Cicero does. See above, p. 412, 1.

[1100] Cic. Fin. ii. 7, 20: Quis enim vestrum non edidicit Epicuri κυρίας δόξας? Diog. 12 (according to Diocles). Epicurus often exhorted his scholars (Ibid. 83; 85; 35) to commit to memory what they had heard. His last exhortation to his friends was (Diog. 16): τῶν δογμάτων μεμνῆσθαι.

[1101] He speaks of himself and Metrodorus in Cic. Fin. ii. 3, 7, as wise men. Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 18, 5, quotes, as coming from him: ὡς Κολώτης μὲν αὐτὸν φυσιολογοῦντα προσκυνήσειεν γονάτων ἁψάμενος· Νεοκλῆς δὲ ὁ ἀδελφὸς εὐθὺς ἐκ παίδων ἀποφαίνοιτο μηδένα σοφώτερον Ἐπικούρου γεγονέναι μηδ’ εἶναι· ἡ δὲ μήτηρ ἀτόμους ἔσχεν ἐν αὑτῇ τοσαύτας, οἷαι συνελθοῦσαι σοφὸν ἂν ἐγέννησαν. Conf. Id. Frat. Am. 16, p. 487; Adv. Col. 17, 5; Cleomed. Meteor. p. 89. Not only was Epicurus’ birthday observed by the Epicurean School during his lifetime, but the 20th of every month was celebrated as a festival in honour of him and Metrodorus. In his testament Epicurus especially ordered this twofold observance for the future. Diog. 18; Cic. Fin. ii. 31, 101; Plut. N. P. Suav. Viv. 4, 8; Plin. H. N. xxxv. 5. Athen. vii. 298 d: Ἐπικούρειός τις εἰκαδιστῆς. Epicurus’ picture is constantly referred to (Cic. Fin. v. 1, 3; Plin. l.c.). The extravagant importance attached to Epicurus in his School is proved by the high eulogies in Lucret. i 62; iii. 1 and 1040; v. 1; vi. 1. Metrodorus, in Plut. Adv. Col. 17, 4, praises τὰ Ἐπικούρου ὡς ἀληθῶς θεόφαντα ὄργια.

[1102] Cic. Tusc. ii. 3, 8.

[1103] Sen. Ep. 33, 4, compares the scientific independence of the Stoics with the Epicurean’s dependence on the founder: Non sumus sub rege: sibi quisque se vindicat. Apud istos quicquid dicit Hermarchus, quicquid Metrodorus, ad unum refertur. Omnia quæ quisquam in illo contubernio locutus est, unius ductu et auspiciis dicta sunt. On the other hand, Numenius (in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 5, 3), little as he can agree with their tenets, commends the Epicureans for faithfully adhering to their master’s teaching, a point in which only the Pythagoreans are their equals. Of the Epicureans, it may be said: μηδ’ αὐτοῖς εἰπεῖν πω ἐναντίον οὔτε ἀλλήλοις οὔτε Ἐπικούρῳ μηδὲν [μηδένα] εἰς μηδὲν, ὅτου καὶ μνησθῆναι ἄξιον, ἀλλ’ ἔστιν αὐτοῖς παρανόμημα, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀσέβημα, καὶ κατέγνωσται τὸ καινοτομηθέν. Thus the Epicurean School resembles a state animated by one spirit, in which there are no divisions of party.

[1104] It has been already observed, p. 405, 1; 406, 1, that Epicurus ignored his obligations to his teachers Pamphilus and Nausicydes, and only confessed his debt to Democritus. All other philosophers provoked not only his contempt, but likewise his abuse. Diog. 8, probably on the authority of Timocrates, communicates his remarks on Plato, Aristotle, and others. Cic. N. D. i. 33, 93: Cum Epicurus Aristotelem vexarit contumeliosissime, Phædoni Socratico turpissime maledixerit. Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 2, 2: Compared with Epicurus and Metrodorus, Colotes is polite; τὰ γὰρ ἐν ἀνθρώποις αἴσχιστα ῥήματα, βωμολοχίας, ληκυθισμοὺς, κ.τ.λ. συναγαγόντες Ἀριστοτέλους καὶ Σωκράτους καὶ Πυθαγόρου καὶ Πρωταγόρου καὶ Θεοφράστου καὶ Ἡρακλείδου καὶ Ἱππάρχου, καὶ τίνος γὰρ οὐχὶ τῶν ἐπιφανῶν, κατεσκέδασαν.

[1105] Cic. N. D. ii. 29, 73: Nam vobis, Vellei, minus notum est, quem ad modum quidque dicatur; vestra enim solum legitis, vestra amatis, ceteros causa incognita condemnatis. Ibid. i. 34, 93: Zeno not only despised cotemporary philosophers, but he even called Socrates a scurra Atticus, Macrob. Somn. i. 2 (Colotes ridiculing Plato’s Republic).

[1106] Sext. Math. xi. 169: Ἐπίκουρος ἔλεγε τὴν φιλοσοφίαν ἐνέργειαν εἶναι λόγοις καὶ διαλογισμοῖς τὸν εὐδαίμονα βίον περιποιοῦσαν. Conf. Epic. in Diog. 122: The demand to study philosophy in youth, as well as in age, is supported on the ground that it is never too early nor too late to be happy.

[1107] It was mentioned, p. 408, 3, that Epicurus’ own education was defective. Not content therewith, he upholds this defectiveness on principle. Nullam eruditionem, says the Epicurean in Cic. Fin. i. 21, 71, esse duxit, nisi quæ beatæ vitæ disciplinam adjuvaret. In poets, nulla solida utilitas omnisque puerilis est delectatio. Music, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy et a falsis initiis profecta vera esse non possunt, et si essent vera nihil afferrent, quo jucundius, i.e. quo melius viveremus.

[1108] Cic. Fin. ii. 4, 12: Vestri quidem vel optime disputant, nihil opus esse eum, philosophus qui futurus sit, scire literas. They fetch their philosophers, like Cincinnatus, from the plough. In this spirit, Epicurus (Diog. 6; Plut. N. P. Suav. V. 12, 1) wrote to Pythocles: παιδείαν δὲ πᾶσαν (the παιδεία ἐγκύκλιος, the learned culture), μακάριε, φεῦγε τὸ ἀκάτιον ἀράμενος; and to Apelles (Plut. l.c.; Athen. xiii. 588, a): μακαρίζω σε, ὦ οὗτος, ὅτι καθαρὸς πάσης αἰτίας (Plut. explains it: τῶν μαθημάτων ἀποσχόμενος) ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν ὥρμησας. Metrodorus asserted (Plut. l.c.) that it need not be a source of trouble to anyone, if he had never read a line of Homer, and did not know whether Hector were a Trojan or a Greek. The art of reading and writing, γραμματικὴ in the limited sense, was the only art recognised by Epicurus. Sext. Math. i. 49.

[1109] Sext. Math. i. 1; Cic. Fin. i. 6, 20.

[1110] Cic. Fin. i. 21 (see p. 421, 1), which probably only means, that mathematical ideas cannot be applied to phenomena. Hence Acad. ii. 33, 106 (conf. Fin. i. 6, 20): Polyænus ... Epicuro adsentiens totam geometriam falsam esse credidit. Conf. Procl. in Eucl. p. 85.

[1111] See p. 421, 1; Sext. Math. i. 1: Epicurus rejects mathematics ὡς τῶν μαθημάτων μηδὲν συνεργούντων πρὸς σοφίας τελείωσιν. According to Diog. 93, Epicurus calls astronomy τὰς ἀνδραποδώδεις τῶν ἀστρολόγων τεχνιτείας. Conf. Diog. 79.

[1112] Plut. l.c. 13, 1. Philodemus, in his treatise περὶ μουσικῆς, had discussed at length the value of music, as we gather from the fragments of the 4th Book, Vol. Herc. i.; in particular rejecting the notion that it has a moral effect, see col. i. 24, 28. He was even opposed to music at table (Col. 38, as Epicurus was in Plut., l.c.). The statement of Diog. 121, that only the wise man can give a right opinion on poetry and music, is not at variance with these passages.

[1113] Philodemus, De Rhet. Vol. Herc. iv. col. 3; 12. The same polemic is continued in the further fragments of this treatise. Ibid. V. Col. 6.

[1114] Cic. Fin. i. 7, 22: In logic iste vester plane, ut mihi quidem videtur, inermis ac nudus est. Tollit definitiones: nihil de dividendo ac partiendo docet. Non quomodo efficiatur concludaturque ratio, tradit, non qua via captiosa solvantur, ambigua distinguantur, ostendit. Ibid. 19, 63: In dialectica autem vestra nullam existimavit [Epic.] esse nec ad melius vivendum nec ad commodius disserendum viam. Acad. ii. 30, 97: Ab Epicuro, qui totam dialecticam et contemnit et inridet. Diog. 31: τὴν διαλεκτικὴν ὡς παρέλκουσαν ἀποδοκιμάζουσιν· ἀρκεῖν γὰρ τοὺς φυσικοὺς χωρεῖν κατὰ τοὺς τῶν πραγμάτων φθόγγους.

[1115] See p. 424.

[1116] Cic. Fin. i. 19, 63: In physicis plurimum posuit [Epic.]. Ibid. 6, 17: In physicis, quibus maxime gloriatur, primum totus est alienus.

[1117] Epic. in Diog. x. 82 and 85: μὴ ἄλλο τι τέλος ἐκ τῆς περὶ μετεώρων γνώσεως ... νομίζειν δεῖ εἶναι ἤπερ ἀταραξίαν καὶ πίστιν βέβαιον καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν. Ibid. 112: εἰ μηθὲν ἡμᾶς αἱ περὶ τῶν μετεώρων ὑποψίαι ἠνώχλουν καὶ αἱ περὶ θανάτου ... οὐκ ἂν προσεδεόμεθα φυσιολογίας; but this becomes necessary, since, without knowledge of nature, we cannot he perfectly free from fear. The same in Plut. N. P. Suav. Viv. 8, 7; conf. Diog. 79 and 143; Cic. Fin. iv. 5, 11; Lucret. i. 62; iii. 14; vi. 9.

[1118] In Cic. Fin. i. 19, 63, the Epicurean speaks of a fivefold, or, excluding Canonic, of a fourfold use of natural science: fortitudo contra mortis timorem; constantia contra metum religionis; sedatio animi omnium rerum occultarum ignoratione sublata; moderatio natura cupiditatum generibusque earum explicatis.

[1119] Diog. 29: διαιρεῖται τοίνυν [ἡ φιλοσοφία] εἰς τρία, τό τε κανονικὸν καὶ φυσικὸν καὶ ἠθικόν. Canonic was also called περὶ κριτηρίου καὶ ἀρχῆς καὶ στοιχειωτικόν; natural science, περὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς καὶ περὶ φύσεως; ethics, περὶ αἱρετῶν καὶ φευκτῶν καὶ περὶ βίων καὶ τέλους.

[1120] Diog. 30: τὸ μὲν οὖν κανονικὸν ἐφόδους ἐπὶ τὴν πραγματείαν ἔχει.

[1121] Diog. l.c.: εἰώθασι μέντοι τὸ κανονικὸν ὁμοῦ τῷ φυσικῷ συντάττειν. Cic. Fin. i. 19. See p. 423, 4. Hence Sext. Math. vii. 14: Some reckon Epicurus amongst those who only divide philosophy into natural and moral science; whilst, according to others, he adhered to a threefold division, at the same time rejecting the Stoic logic. Sen. Ep. 89, 11: Epicurei duas partes philosophiæ putaverunt esse, naturalem atque moralem: rationalem removerunt, deinde cum ipsis rebus cogerentur, ambigua secernere, falsa sub specie veri latentia coarguere, ipsi quoque locum, quem de judicio et regula appellant, alio nomine rationalem induxerunt: sed eum accessionem esse naturalis partis existimant.

[1122] Ritter, iii. 463; Schleiermacher, Gesch. d. Phil. p. 123.

[1123] Steinhart in the treatise often referred to.

[1124] Diog. 29; Sext. Math. vii. 22.

[1125] Cic. Fin. i. 7, 22. See p. 422, 4.

[1126] Cic. Fin. i. 7, 22; Sext. Math. vii. 203. If, according to Diog. 31, and Cic. Acad. ii. 46, 142, Epicurus named three criteria—πρόληψις, αἴσθησις, and πάθη—instead of the above two, it must be an inaccuracy of expression; πρόληψις, as we have seen, is derived from sensation.

[1127] Epicurus, in Diog. x. 146; Lucr. iv. 467–519; Cic. Fin. i. 19, 54. Colotes (in Plut. Adv. Col. 24, 3) replies to the Cyrenaic scepticism by saying: μὴ δύνασθαι ζῇν μηδὲ χρῆσθαι τοῖς πράγμασιν. In this case, as in the case of the Stoics, the dogmatism in favour of the senses is based on a practical postulate, the need of a firm basis of conviction for human life.

[1128] Epic. in Diog. x. 50, and 147; Sext. Math. vii. 203–210; viii. 9; 63; 185; Plut. Adv. Col. 4, 3; 5, 2; 25, 2; Plac. iv. 9, 2: Lucr. iv. 377–519; Cic. Acad. ii. 25, 79; 32, 101; Fin. i. 7, 22; N. D. i. 25, 70; Tertull. De An. 17. Further particulars below respecting sense-perception.

[1129] Diog. x. 31; Lucr. iv. 480.

[1130] Sext. Math. vii. 203 and 216. In Diog. x. 52, instead of ἐνεργείας, we should read with Cobet ἐναργείας. Besides this peculiar expression, Epicurus uses sometimes αἴσθησις, sometimes φαντασία (Sext. l.c.), for sensation. An impression on the senses, he calls φανταστικὴ ἐπιβολή. Diog. 50.

[1131] Diog. 32.

[1132] Diog. 33: τὴν δὲ πρόληψιν λέγουσιν οἱονεὶ κατάληψιν ἢ δόξαν ὀρθὴν ἢ ἔννοιαν ἢ καθολικὴν νόησιν ἐναποκειμένην, τουτέστι μνήμην τοῦ πολλάκις ἔξωθεν φανέντος. By the help of this passage, Cicero’s description, N. D. i. 16, 43, must be corrected.

[1133] Diog. l.c.: ἅμα γὰρ τῷ ῥηθῆναι ἄνθρωπος εὐθὺς κατὰ πρόληψιν καὶ ὁ τύπος αὐτοῦ νοεῖται προηγουμένων τῶν αἰσθήσεων. παντὶ οὖν ὀνόματι τὸ πρώτως ὑποτεταγμένον ἐναργές ἐστι· καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐζητήσαμεν τὸ ζητούμενον, εἰ μὴ πρότερον ἐγνώκειμεν αὐτὸ ... οὐδ’ ἂν ὠνομάσαμέν τι μὴ πρότερον αὐτοῦ κατὰ πρόληψιν τὸν τύπον μαθόντες. Hence the exhortation in Epicurus’ letter to Herodotus (in Diog. x. 37): πρῶτον μὲν οὖν τὰ ὑποτεταγμένα τοῖς φθόγγοις δεῖ εἰληφέναι ὅπως ἂν τὰ δοξαζόμενα ἢ ζητούμενα ἢ ἀπορούμενα ἔχωμεν εἰς ὃ ἀνάγοντες ἐπικρίνειν, κ.τ.λ. Every impression must be referred to definite perceptions; apart from perceptions, no reality belongs to our impressions; or, as it is expressed Sext. Pyrrh. ii. 107, Math. viii. 13, 258: The Epicureans deny the existence of a λεκτὸν, and between a thing and its name there exists a third intermediate something—a conception. See also Sext. vii. 267.

[1134] Diog. 33. Sext. Math. i. 57 (xi. 21): οὔτε ζητεῖν οὔτε ἀπορεῖν ἔστι κατὰ τὸν σόφον Ἐπίκουρον ἄνευ προλήψεως. Ibid. viii. 337, p. 521; Plut. De An. 6: The difficulty, that all learning presupposes knowledge, the Stoics met by φυσικαὶ ἔννοιαι, the Epicureans by προλήψεις, which accordingly are the natural test of truth.

[1135] See p. 426, 1. Diog. l.c.: ἐναργεῖς οὖν εἰσιν αἱ προλήψεις καὶ τὸ δοξαστὸν ἀπὸ προτέρου τινὸς ἐναργοῦς ἤρτηται, ἐφ’ ὃ ἀναφέροντες λέγομεν.

[1136] See previous note and Epic. in Diog. 38: ἀνάγκη γὰρ τὸ πρῶτον ἐννόημα καθ’ ἕκαστον φθόγγον βλέπεσθαι καὶ μηθὲν ἀποδείξεως προσδεῖσθαι, εἴπερ ἕξομεν τὸ ζητούμενον ἢ ἀπορούμενον καὶ δοξαζόμενον ἐφ’ ὃ ἀνάξομεν.

[1137] Diog. 33 (conf. 38, 104): περὶ τῶν ἀδήλων ἀπὸ τῶν φαινομένων χρὴ σημειοῦσθαι.

[1138] See p. 422, 4. Steinhart, p. 466, goes too far in saying that Epicurus defied all law and rule in thought.

[1139] Diog. 32: καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἐπίνοιαι πᾶσαι ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθήσεων γεγόνασι, κατά τε περίπτωσιν (probably: the coincidence of several sensations which must be distinguished from their σύνθεσις or free combination) καὶ ἀναλογίαν καὶ ὁμοιότητα καὶ σύνθεσιν, συμβαλλομένου τι καὶ τοῦ λογισμοῦ. Conf. p. 422, 4; 429, 1, and the corresponding doctrine of the Stoics, p. 80, with the teaching of Epicurus, on the genesis of thoughts from sensations.

[1140] Diog. 33: καὶ τὸ δοξαστὸν ἀπὸ προτέρου τινὸς ἐναργοῦς ἤρτηται ... τὴν δὲ δόξαν καὶ ὑπόληψιν λέγουσιν. ἀληθῆ τέ φασι καὶ ψευδῆ· ἂν μὲν γὰρ ἐπιμαρτυρῆται ἢ μὴ ἀντιμαρτυρῆται ἀληθῆ εἶναι· ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἐπιμαρτυρῆται ἢ ἀντιμαρτυρῆται ψευδῆ τυγχάνειν. Sext. Math. vii. 211: τῶν δοξῶν κατὰ τὸν Ἐπίκουρον αἱ μὲν ἀληθεῖς εἰσιν αἱ δὲ ψευδεῖς· ἀληθεῖς μὲν αἵ τε ἀντιμαρτυρούμεναι καὶ οὐκ ἀντιμαρτυρούμεναι πρὸς τῆς ἐναργείας, ψευδεῖς δὲ αἵ τε ἀντιμαρτυρούμεναι καὶ οὐκ ἐπιμαρτυρούμεναι πρὸς τῆς ἐναργείας. Ritter, iii. 486, observes that these statements are contradictory. According to Sextus, an opinion is only then true when it can be proved and not refuted; according to Diogenes, when it can be proved or not refuted. The latter is, however, clearly meant by Sextus, and is affirmed by Epicurus in Diog. 50 and 51.

[1141] Epicur. in Diog. 50; Ibid. 33; Sext. vii. 212. The object of a future sensation is called by Diog. 38, τὸ προσμένον. Diog. x. 34, himself gives a perverted explanation of this term, which probably misled Steinhart, p. 466.

[1142] Sext. l.c. 213.

[1143] The two tests of truth, proof and absence of refutation, do not, therefore, as Sextus expressly says, refer to the same cases. Our assumptions in respect of external appearances must be proved, before they can be allowed to be true; our impressions of the secret causes of these appearances must not be refuted. The former test applies to opinions regarding τὸ προσμένον; the latter, to opinions regarding τὸ ἄδηλον. Diog. 38.

[1144] Compare the passages in Sext. vii. 206, quoted p. 427, 1.

[1145] Cic. Acad. ii. 14, 45: Nam qui voluit subvenire erroribus Epicurus iis, qui videntur conturbare veri cognitionem, dixitque sapientis esse opinionem a perspicuitate sejungere, nihil profecit, ipsius enim opinionis errorem nullo modo sustulit.

[1146] Plut. Adv. Col. 7, 2 (Stob. Ecl. i. 366; Lucr. ii. 795): ὁ Ἐπίκουρος οὐκ εἶναι λέγων τὰ χρώματα συμφυῆ τοῖς σώμασιν, ἀλλὰ γεννᾶσθαι κατὰ ποιάς τινας τάξεις καὶ θέσεις πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν. For says Epicurus, οὐκ οἶδα ὅπως δεῖ τὰ ἐν σκότει ταῦτα ὄντα φῆσαι χρώματα ἔχειν. Often some see colour where others do not; οὐ μᾶλλον οὖν ἔχειν ἢ μὴ ἔχειν χρῶμα ῥηθήσεται τῶν σωμάτων ἕκαστον.

[1147] Simpl. Categ. 109, β (Schol. in Arist. 92, a, 10): Since Democritus and Epicurus attribute all qualities, to atoms except those of form and mode of combination, ἐπιγίνεσθαι λέγουσι τὰς ἄλλας ποιότητας, τάς τε ἁπλᾶς, οἷον θερμότητας καὶ λειότητας, καὶ τὰς κατὰ χρώματα καὶ τοὺς χυμούς. Lucret. l.c.

[1148] Compare the passages already quoted, on the truth of the impressions of the senses, and the words of Epicurus, in Diog. 68: ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὰ σχήματα καὶ τὰ χρώματα καὶ τὰ μεγέθη καὶ τὰ βάρεα καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα κατηγορεῖται κατὰ τοῦ σώματος ὡς ἂν εἰς αὐτὸ βεβηκότα καὶ πᾶσιν ἐνόντα ἢ τοῖς ὁρατοῖς καὶ κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν αὐτὴν γνωστοῖς, οὐθ’ ὡς καθ’ ἑαυτάς εἰσι φύσεις δοξαστέον (οὐ γὰρ δυνατὸν ἐπινοῆσαι τοῦτο), οὔθ’ ὅλως ὡς οὐκ εἰσὶν, οὔθ’ ὡς ἕτερά τινα προσυπάρχοντα τούτῳ ἀσώματα οὔθ’ ὡς μορία τούτου, ἀλλ’ ὡς τὸ ὅλον σῶμα καθόλου μὲν ἐκ τούτων πάντων τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν ἔχον ἀΐδιον, κ.τ.λ.

[1149] Epic. in Diog. 143: οὐκ ἦν τὸν φοβούμενον περὶ τῶν κυριωτάτων λύειν μὴ κατειδότα τίς ἡ τοῦ σύμπαντος φύσις ἀλλ’ ὑποπτευόμενόν τι τῶν κατὰ τοὺς μύθους. ὥστε οὐκ ἦν ἄνευ φυσιολογίας ἀκεραίας τὰς ἡδονὰς ἀπολαμβάνειν. For further particulars, p. 422.

[1150] οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἰδιολογίας καὶ κενῆς δόξης ὁ βίος ἡμῶν ἔχει χρείαν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἀθορύβως ἡμᾶς ζῇν. Epic. in Diog. 87.

[1151] Diog. 27, mentions 37 books of his περὶ φύσεως, besides smaller works.

[1152] Epic. in Diog. 78: καὶ μὴν καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν κυριωτάτων αἰτίαν ἐξακριβῶσαι φυσιολογίας ἔργον εἶναι δεῖ νομίζειν καὶ τὸ μακάριον ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶν μετεώρων γνώσει ἐνταῦθα πεπτωκέναι· καὶ ἐν τῷ, τίνες φύσεις αἱ θεωρούμεναι κατὰ τὰ μετέωρα ταυτὶ, καὶ ὅσα συγγενῆ πρὸς τὴν εἰς ταῦτα ἀκρίβειαν· ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὸ πλεοναχῶς ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις εἶναι [evidently μὴ εἶναι must be read], καὶ τὸ εὐδεχομένως καὶ ἄλλως πως ἔχειν, ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶς μὴ εἶναι ἐν ἀφθάρτῳ καὶ μακαρίᾳ φύσει τῶν διάκρισιν ὑποβαλλόντων ἢ τάραχον μηθέν· καὶ τοῦτο καταλαβεῖν τῇ διανοίᾳ ἔστιν ἁπλῶς οὕτως εἶναι. τὸ δ’ ἐν τῇ ἱστορίᾳ πεπτωκὸς τῆς δύσεως καὶ ἀνατολῆς καὶ τροπῆς καὶ ἐκλείψεως καὶ ὅσα συγγενῆ τούτοις μηθὲν ἔτι πρὸς τὸ μακάριον τῆς γνώσεως συντείνειν (how very different from Aristotle! See Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen, ii. b, 113, 3; 114, 3; 359, 2), ἀλλ’ ὁμοίως τοὺς φόβους ἔχειν τοὺς ταῦτα κατιδόντας τίνες δὲ αἱ φύσεις ἀγνοοῦντας καὶ τίνες αἱ κυριώταται αἰτίαι, καὶ εἰ (as if) μὴ προσῄδεσαν ταῦτα, τάχα δὲ καὶ πλείους, ὅταν τὸ θάμβος ἐκ τῆς τούτων προκατανοήσεως μὴ δύνηται τὴν λύσιν λαμβάνειν κατὰ τὴν περὶ τῶν κυριωτάτων οἰκονομίαν. (Conf. Lucr. vi. 50; v. 82.) διὸ δὴ καὶ πλείους αἰτίας εὑρίσκομεν τροπῶν, κ.τ.λ. καὶ οὐ δεῖ νομίζειν τὴν ὑπὲρ τούτων χρείαν ἀκρίβειαν μὴ ἀπειληφέναι ὅση πρὸς τὸ ἀτάραχον καὶ μακάριον ἡμῶν συντείνει, κ.τ.λ. Ibid. 104: καὶ κατ’ ἄλλους δὲ τρόπους πλείονας ἐνδέχεται κεραυνοὺς ἀποτελεῖσθαι. μόνον ὁ μῦθος ἀπέστω.

[1153] Ibid. 87: πάντα μὲν οὖν γίνεται ἀσείστως κατὰ πάντων, κατὰ πλεοναχὸν τρόπον ἐκκαθαιρομένων συμφώνως τοῖς φαινομένοις, ὅταν τις τὸ πιθανολογούμενον ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν δεόντως καταλίπῃ. ὅταν δέ τις τὸ μὲν ἀπολίπῃ, τὸ δὲ ἐκβάλῃ ὁμοίως σύμφωνον ὂν τῷ φαινομένῳ δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἐκ παντὸς ἐκπίπτει φυσιολογήματος ἐπὶ δὲ τὸν μῦθον καταῤῥεῖ. Ibid. 98: οἱ δὲ τὸ ἓν λαμβάνοντες (those who allow only one explanation for every phenomenon) τοῖς τε φαινομένοις μάχονται καὶ τοῦ τί δυνατὸν ἀνθρώπῳ θεωρῆσαι διαπεπτώκασιν. In investigating nature, they proceed on suppositions chosen at random (ἀξιώματα κενὰ καὶ νομοθεσίαι, Epic. l.c. 86). Conf. 94; 104; 113. Lucret. vi. 703.

[1154] Epic. in Diog. 88; 92–95. Many other similar instances might be quoted. In support of the view that the sun was extinguished at setting, Epicurus, according to Cleomed. Meteora, p. 89, is said to have appealed to the story (respecting which Posidonius in Strabo, iii. 1, 5, p. 138) that, as it sets, the hissing of the ocean may be heard on the sea-shore.

[1155] The principle is thus expanded by Lucret. i. 1021:—

Nam certe neque consilio primordia rerum
Ordine se suo quæque sagaci mente locarunt,
Nec quos quæque darent motuspepigere profecto;
Sed quia multa modis multis mutata per omne
Ex infinito vexantur percita plagis,
Omne genus motus et cœtus experiundo,
Tandem deveniunt in tales disposituras,
Qualibus hæc rebus consistit summa creata.

v. 156:

Dicere porro hominum causa voluisse [scil. Deos] parare
Præclaram mundi naturam, &c.
Desipere est. Quid enim immortalibus atque beatis
Gratia nostra queat largirier emolumenti,
Ut nostra quidquam causa gerere adgrediantur?
Quidve novi potuit tanto post ante quietos
Inlicere, ut cuperent vitam mutare priorem?...
Exemplum porro gignundis rebus et ipsa
Notities hominum, Dis unde est insita primum; ...
Si non ipsa dedit specimen natura creandi?

Conf. iv. 820; v. 78; 195; 419. In these views, he is only following Epicurus. Heavenly phenomena, says the latter, in Diog. 76, μήτε λειτουργοῦντός τινος νομίζειν δεῖ γίνεσθαι καὶ διατάττοντος ἢ διατάξαντος καὶ ἅμα τὴν πᾶσαν μακαριότητα ἔχοντος μετ’ ἀφθαρσίας· οὐ γὰρ συμφωνοῦσι πραγματεῖαι καὶ φροντίδες καὶ ὀργαὶ καὶ χάριτες τῇ μακαριότητι, ἀλλ’ ἀσθενείᾳ καὶ φόβῳ καὶ προσδεήσει τῶν πλησίον ταῦτα γίνεται. Ibid. 97: ἡ θεία φύσις πρὸς ταῦτα μηδαμῆ προσαγέσθω, ἀλλ’ ἀλειτούργητος διατηρείσθω καὶ ἐν τῇ πάσῃ μακαριότητι. Ibid. 113. With these passages Cic. N. D. i. 20, 52, and Plut. Plac. i. 7, 7 (likewise ii. 3, 2; Stob. i. 442), are quite in agreement.

[1156] Lucr. i. 440:—

Præterea per se quodcumque erit aut faciet quid
Aut aliis fungi [πάσχειν] debebit agentibus ipsum,
Aut erit, ut possint in eo res esse gerique.
At facere et fungi sine corpore nulla potest res,
Nec præbere locum porro nisi inane vacansque.
Ergo præter inane et corpora tertia per se
Nulla potest rerum in numero natura relinqui.

Epic. in Diog. 67: καθ’ ἑαυτὸ δὲ οὐκ ἔστι νοῆσαι τὸ ἀσώματον πλὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ κενοῦ. τὸ δὲ κενὸν οὔτε ποιῆσαι οὔτε παθεῖν δύναται, ἀλλὰ κίνησιν μόνον δι’ ἑαυτοῦ τοῖς σώμασι παρέχεται. ὥσθ’ οἱ λέγοντες ἀσώματον εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν ματαιάζουσιν. οὐθὲν γὰρ ἂν ἐδύνατο ποιεῖν οὔτε πάσχειν εἰ ἦν τοιαύτη.

[1157] Diog. 68; 40. Lucr. i. 449, who expresses συμβεβηκότα by conjuncta, and συμπτώματα by eventa. Among the latter Lucretius, 459, reckons time, because in itself it is nothing, and only comes to our knowledge through motion and rest. Likewise Epicurus, in Diog. 72 (conf. Stob. i. 252), shows that time is composed of days and nights, and their portions, of states of feeling or unconsciousness, of motion or rest, and hence that it is only a product (σύμπτωμα) of these phenomena; and these being again συμπτώματα, time is defined by the Epicurean Demetrius (Sext. Math. x. 219; Pyrrh. iii. 137): σύμπτωμα συμπτωμάτων παρεπόμενον ἡμέραις τε καὶ νυξὶ καὶ ὥραις καὶ πάθεσι καὶ ἀπαθείαις καὶ κινήσεσι καὶ μοναῖς. The distinction between abstract and sensuous or undivided time (Steinhart, l.c. 466) does not appear to exist in Diogenes. His χρόνοι διὰ λόγου θεωρητοὶ (Diog. 47) are imperceptibly small divisions of time, tempora multa, ratio quæ comperit esse, which, according to Lucret. iv. 792, are contained in every given time.

[1158] Lucret. i. 358.

[1159] Lucret. l.c. and i. 329; Diog. 40 and 67; Sext. Math. vii. 213; viii. 329. Most of the remarks in Lucret. i. 346 and 532 point to the same fundamental idea: Without vacant interstices, nourishment cannot be diffused over the whole bodies of plants or animals, nor can noise, cold, fire and water penetrate through solid bodies, or any body be broken up into parts. The same in Themist. 40, b; Simpl. De Cœlo, Schol. in Arist. 484, a, 26.

[1160] Lucr. i. 440; Diog. 39; Plut. Adv. Col 11, 5.

[1161] Body is defined by Epicurus (Sext. Math. i. 21; x. 240; 257; xi. 226) as τὸ τριχῆ διαστατὸν μετὰ ἀντιτυπίας, or as σύνοδος κατὰ ἀθροισμὸν μεγέθους καὶ σχήματος καὶ ἀντιτυπίας καὶ βάρους. Emptiness is (according to Sext. x. 2) φύσις ἀναφὴς or ἔρημος παντὸς σώματος. When occupied by a body, it is called τόπος; when bodies pass through it, it is χώρα; so that all three expressions, as Stob. Ecl. i. 388 rightly observes, are only different names for the same thing. To the same effect is the statement in Plut. Plac. i. 20.

[1162] Hence, in Diog. 69, ἄθροισμα and συμπεφορήμενον are used of bodies; in Diog. 71, all bodies are called συμπτώματα; and according to Epicurus (Sext. Math. x. 42), all changes in bodies are due to local displacement of the atoms. Plut. Amator. 24, 3, p. 769, observes that Epicurus deals with ἁφὴ and συμπλοκὴ, but never with ἑνότης.

[1163] Epic. in Diog. 40: τῶν σωμάτων τὰ μέν ἐστι συγκρίσεις τὰ δ’ ἐξ ὧν αἱ συγκρίσεις πεποίηνται· ταῦτα δέ ἐστιν ἄτομα καὶ ἀμετάβλητα εἴπερ μὴ μέλλει πάντα εἰς τὸ μὴ ὂν φθαρήσεσθαι, ἀλλ’ ἰσχύοντα ὑπομένειν ἐν ταῖς διαλύσεσι τῶν συγκρίσεων ... ὥστε τὰς ἀρχὰς ἀτόμους ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι σωμάτων φύσεις. Ibid. 56; Lucr. i. 147; ii. 551; 751; 790. Further arguments for the belief in atoms in Lucret. i. 498: Since a body and the space in which it is are entirely different, both must originally have existed without any intermingling. If things exist composed of the full and the empty, the full by itself must exist, and likewise the empty. Bodies in which there is no empty space cannot be divided. They may be eternal, and must be so, unless things have been produced out of nothing. Without empty space, soft bodies could not exist, nor hard bodies without something full. If there were no indivisible parts, everything must have been long since destroyed. The regularity of phenomena presupposes unchangeable primary elements. All that is composite must ultimately consist of simple indivisible parts. If there were no indivisible parts, every body would consist of innumerable parts, as many in the smaller as in the greater body (conf. Epic. in Diog. 56). If nature did not reduce things to their smallest parts, it could not make new things. These arguments, very unequal in value, were borrowed by Lucretius from Epicurus. Plut. in Eus. Pr. Ev. 1, 8, 9, quotes, as an Epicurean principle, that unchangeable Being must be at the bottom of everything.

[1164] Epicurus and Lucretius, l.c. Lucr. i. 529; Sext. Math. ix. 219; x. 318; Stob. Ecl. i. 306; Plut. Pl. Phil. i. 3, 29.

[1165] Epic. in Diog. 41; Lucret. i. 528; Simpl. De Cœlo, Schol. in Arist. 484, a, 23.

[1166] Diog. 44 and 55; Lucret. i. 266, where it is proved, by many analogies, that there may be invisible bodies; Stob. l.c.; Plut. l.c.; Simpl. Phys. 216, a.

[1167] Diog. 44; 54; Lucr. ii. 736 and 841; Plut. l.c. See page 433, 2.

[1168] Lucret. v. 235.

[1169] Diog.; Plut. Plac. i. 3, 29. The statement there made, that Democritus only allowed to atoms size and shape, and that Epicurus added weight, is not correct.

[1170] Diog. 42; Lucr. ii. 333 and 478; Plut. Plac. i. 3, 30 (where, however, it would be against the sense to substitute ἢ for μὴ as Steinhart l.c. p. 473 note 94 does); Alex. Aphr. in Philop. Gen. et Corr. 3, b; Cic. N. D. i. 24, 66. It does not, however, appear that Lucret. ii. 333, made the variety of figures as great as the number of atoms. (Ritter, iv. 101.)

[1171] Lucret. i. 500.

[1172] Diog. x. 55; Lucr. ii. 381.

[1173] See the passages quoted, p. 442, 6, and 445, 5. The text of Stobæus, Ecl. i. 346, must be corrected by the aid of these passages. Plut. Plac. i. 12, 5.

[1174] Epic. in Diog. 41: ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἄπειρόν ἐστι· τὸ γὰρ πεπερασμένον ἄκρον ἔχει· τὸ δ’ ἄκρον παρ’ ἕτερόν τι θεωρεῖται. ὥστε οὐκ ἔχον ἄκρον πέρας οὐκ ἔχει, πέρας δ’ οὐκ ἔχον ἄπειρον ἂν εἴη καὶ οὐ πεπερασμένον. The same argument is used by Lucret. i. 951; 1008–1020. He continues 984, 1021: If space were limited, all bodies would collect towards its lower part by reason of their weight, and their motion would cease. Unless the quantity of matter were unlimited, the amount lost by bodies in their mutual contact could not be supplied. Conf. also Plut. Adv. Col. 13, 3; in Eus. Pr. Ev. i. 8, 9; Plac. i. 3, 28; Alex. in Simpl. Phys. 107, b, who mentions the above-quoted argument of Epicurus as the chief argument of the Epicureans.