Chapter XXIII: The New Academy (12)

[1175] We have but little information; but it has been already shown p. 433, 2, and follows too as a matter of course, that he referred all the properties of bodies to the shape and arrangement of the atoms. Whenever he found in the same body different qualities combined, he assumed that it was composed of different kinds of atoms. For instance, he asserted of wine: οὐκ εἶναι θερμὸν αὐτοτελῶς τὸν οἶνον, ἀλλ’ ἔχειν τινὰς ἀτόμους ἐν αὑτῷ θερμασίας ἀποτελεστικὰς, ἑτέρας δ’ αὖ ψυχρότητος. According to the difference of constitution, it has on some a cooling, on others a heating effect. Plut. Qu. Conviv. iii. 5, 1, 4; Adv. Col. 6. This agrees with the remarks made on Democritus in vol. i. 597.

[1176] Diog. 43; 47; Cic. N. D. i. 20, 54. What idea Epicurus formed to himself of motion we are not told. We learn, however, from Themist. Phys. 52, b, that he replied to Aristotle’s proof of motion, that no constant quantities can be composed of indivisible particles (Phys. vi. 1), by saying: Whatever moves in a given line moves in the whole line, but not in the individual indivisible portions of which the line consists. With reference to the same question, the Epicureans, according to Simpl. Phys. 219, b, asserted that everything moves equally quickly through indivisible spaces.

[1177] Cic. Fin. i. 6, 18; Lucret. i. 1074.

[1178] Lucr. ii. 1052 (the text being faulty); Simpl. De Cœlo, Schol. in Arist. 510, b, 30; 486, a, 7. The latter writer inaccurately groups Epicurus together with others (Democritus and Strato). The same point, according to Simpl. Phys. 113, b, was a subject of contention between Alexander of Aphrodisias and the Epicurean Zenobius, at the close of the second century after Christ.

[1179] As Aristotle had already done.

[1180] Diog. 60; conf. Plut. Def. Orac. 28, p. 425.

[1181] Epic. in Diog. 43; 61; Lucr. ii. 225; Plut. C. Not. 43, i. p. 1082. This objection was borrowed from Aristotle by Epicurus.

[1182] Lucr. ii. 216; 261; Cic. Fin. i. 6, 18; N. D. i. 25, 69; De Fato, 10, 22; Plut. An. Procr. 6, 9, p. 1015; Solert. Anim. 7, 2, p. 964; Plac. i. 12, 5; 23, 4; Stobæus, Ecl. i. 346, 394.

[1183] Diog. 44; conf. 62; 90; Plut. Plac. i. 12, 5; Fac. Lun. 4, 5, p. 921; Stob. i. 346; Lucret. v. 432.

[1184] Diog. 73; Lucr. i. 1021. See above, p. 437, 1; Plut. Def. Or. 19, p. 420.

[1185] Cic. Fin. i. 6, 17. See p. 444, 3.

[1186] Diog. 45; 73; Lucret. ii. 1048; Plut. Plac. ii. 1, 3. It need hardly be remarked that by worlds world-bodies are not meant. In Diog. 88, Epicurus defines the world as a part of the heaven, surrounding the earth and stars, having a definite shape, and, towards other parts of the heaven, bounded.

[1187] Diog. 45; 74; 88; Plut. Plac. ii. 2, 2; 7, 3; Stob. i. 490; Cic. N. D. ii. 18, 48; Acad. ii. 40, 125.

[1188] Plut. in Eus. Pr. Ev. i. 8, 9: Epicurus says, ὅτι οὐδὲν ξένον ἀποτελεῖται ἐν τῷ παντὶ παρὰ τὸν ἤδη γεγενημένον χρόνον ἄπειρον.

[1189] Diog. 73; 89; Lucret. ii. 1105; v. 91 and 235, where the transitory character of the world is elaborately proved; Cic. Fin. i. 6, 21. Stob. i. 418; Epicurus makes the world decay in the greatest variety of ways. Plut. Plac. ii. 4, 2.

[1190] Diog. x. 89.

[1191] v. 324, arguing that historical memory would otherwise go much further back, and arts and sciences be of much greater antiquity.

[1192] On this point see Lucret. ii. 1112. The principle that similar elements naturally congregate is there explained in this way.

[1193] Lucr. v. 416–508; Plut. Plac. i. 4. The latter view has been referred, in vol. i. 604, to the Atomists. It would now appear that it must be deduced from Epicureanism, and its agreement with the views attributed to Leucippus in other places explained by the well-known connection between Epicurus and Democritus. The views of Epicurus on the formation of the world do not entirely agree with those of Democritus. It was probably with an eye to Democritus (compare the extracts in vol. i. 608 from Orig. Philosoph. p. 17) that Epicurus, in Diog. 90, denied that the world could be increased from without, or that sun and moon could be possibly absorbed in our world. Lucret. ii. 1105, however, supposes an increase of the world from without to be possible.

[1194] On these mœnia mundi, which, according to Lucretius, coincide with the ether or fire-belt, see Epic. in Diog. 88; Id. περὶ φύσεως, xi. (Vol. Herc. ii.) col. 2; Plut. Plac. ii. 7, 3; Lucr. i. 73; ii. 1144; v. 454.

[1195] On this point see page 434.

[1196] See p. 437, 1.

[1197] In Diog. 77; 81; Lucret. v. 78 and 114, where the contrast is more fully brought out. By ζῷα οὐράνια, in Plut. Plac. v. 20, 2, we must by no means think of the stars.

[1198] Examples have already been met with, p. 436. A complete review of the Epicurean astronomy is not worth our while. It may be studied in the following passages: For the substance of the stars, consult Plut. Plac. ii. 13, 9; for their rising and setting, Diog. 92; Lucr. v. 648; Cleomed. Met. p. 87; for their revolution and deviation, Diog. 92; 112–114; Lucr. v. 509; 612; for the appearance of the moon, Diog. 94, and Lucr. v. 574, 703; for eclipses of sun and moon, Diog. 96; Lucr. v. 749; for changes in the length of day, Diog. 98; Lucr. v. 678.

[1199] Diog. 91; Cic. Acad. ii. 26, 82; Fin. i. 6, 20; Sen. Qu. Nat. i. 3, 10; Cleomed. Met. ii. 1; Plut. Plac. ii. 21, 4; 22, 4; Lucr. v. 564. The body of the sun was considered by Epicurus (Plut. Plac. ii. 20, 9; Stob. i. 530) to consist of earth-like and spongy matter, saturated with fire. According to Lucret. v. 471, sun and moon stand midway between ether and earth in point of density.

[1200] It is still more difficult to imagine the world as stationary, which is tacitly assumed. It would then be bounded by endless space, and soon come into collision with other masses.

[1201] Lucr. v. 534. Conf. Epic. in Diog. 74, and περὶ φύσεως, xi. col. 1. In the latter passage, Epicurus appeals to the fact that the earth is equidistant from the bounds of the world.

[1202] Further particulars: on clouds, Diog. 99: Lucr. vi. 451; Plut. Plac. iii. 4, 3; on rain, Diog. 100; Lucret. vi. 495; on thunder, Diog. 100; 103; Lucret. vi. 96; on lightning, Diog. 101; Lucr. vi. 160; on sirocco, Diog. 104; Lucr. vi. 423; Plac. iii. 3, 2; on earthquakes, Diog. 105; Lucr. vi. 535; Plac. iii. 15, 11; Sen. Nat. Qu. vi. 20, 5; on winds, Diog. 106; on hail, Diog. 106; Plac. iii. 4, 3; on snow, thaw, ice, frost, Diog. 107–109; on the rainbow, Diog. 109; on the halo of the moon, Diog. 110; on comets, Diog. 111; on shooting-stars, Diog. 114. Explanations are given by Lucretius of volcanoes (vi. 639), of the overflow of the Nile (vi. 712), of Lake Avernus (vi. 738–839), of the magnet (vi. 906–1087), of the reputed chilling of the springs in summer (vi. 840).

[1203] Lucret. ii. 1157; v. 780. Otherwise, we learn that the Epicureans were as far as the Stoics from attributing to plants a soul. Plut. Plac. v. 26, 3.

[1204] Lucr. ii. 1155; v. 787, giving further particulars as to the origin and maintenance of living beings, and the subsequent abatement of the productive powers of earth.

[1205] Epic. in Diog. 74.

[1206] Anaximander, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Diogenes of Apollonia, and Democritus, all taught the procreation of living beings from earth.

[1207] Lucr. v. 834–921.

[1208] v. 922–1008. Conf. Plato, Polit. 274, B; Arist. Polit. ii. 8, 1269, a, 4; Horace, Serm. i. 3, 99, appears to have had an eye to Lucretius.

[1209] Lucr. v. 1009–1025.

[1210] Epicurus, in Diog. 75, thus sums up his views on the origin of language: τὰ ὀνόματα ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὴ θέσει γενέσθαι, ἀλλ’ αὐτὰς τὰς φύσεις τῶν ἀνθρώπων καθ’ ἕκαστα ἔθνη ἴδια πασχούσας πάθη καὶ ἴδια λαμβανούσας φαντάσματα ἰδίως τὸν ἀέρα ἐκπέμπειν ... ὕστερον δὲ κοινῶς καθ’ ἕκαστα τὰ ἔθνη τὰ ἴδια τεθῆναι πρὸς τὸ τὰς δηλώσεις ἧττον ἀμφιβόλους γενέσθαι ἀλλήλοις καὶ συντομωτέρως δηλουμένας. He who invents any new thing puts, at the same time, new words into circulation. Lucret. v. 1026–1088, explains more fully that language is of natural origin. On the voice, Ibid. iv. 522; Plut. Plac. iv. 19, 2.

[1211] Epic. in Diog. 75: ἀλλὰ μὴν ὑποληπτέον καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων φύσιν πολλὰ καὶ παντοῖα ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτὴν περιεστώτων πραγμάτων διδαχθῆναί τε καὶ ἀναγκασθῆναι· τὸν δὲ λογισμὸν τὰ ὑπὸ ταύτης παρεγγυηθέντα καὶ ὕστερον ἐπακριβοῦν καὶ προσεξευρίσκειν, ἐν μέν τισι θᾶττον ἐν δέ τισι βραδύτερον.

Lucr. v. 1450:—all arts

Usus et impigræ simul experientia mentis
Paulatim docuit.

Ibid. 1103:—

Inque dies magis hi victum vitamque priorem
Commutare novis monstrabant rebu’ benigni
Ingenio qui præstabant et corde vigebant.

In harmony with these premises, Lucretius then tries to explain various inventions. The first fire was obtained by lightning, or the friction of branches in a storm. The sun taught cooking (v. 1089). Forests on fire, melting brass, first taught men how to work in metal (v. 1239–1294). Horses and elephants were used for help in war, after attempts had been previously made with oxen and wild beasts (v. 1295). Men first dressed themselves in skins; afterwards they wore twisted, and then woven materials (v. 1009; 1348; 1416). The first ideas of planting and agriculture were from the natural spread of plants (v. 1359). The first music was in imitation of birds; the first musical instrument was the pipe, through which the wind was heard to whistle; from this natural music, artificial music only gradually grew (v. 1377). The measure and arrangement of time was taught by the stars (v. 1434); and, comparatively late, came the arts of poetry and writing (v. 1438).

[1212] Lucr. v. 1106.

[1213] Lucr. iii. 161; Diog. 67. See p. 439, 1.

[1214] Lucr. iii. 177; Diog. 63.

[1215] Diog. 63: ἡ ψυχὴ σῶμά ἐστι λεπτομερὲς παρ’ ὅλον τὸ ἄθροισμα (the body), παρεσπαρμένον· προσεμφερέστατον δὲ πνεύματι θερμοῦ τινα κρᾶσιν ἔχοντι. 66: ἐξ ἀτόμων αὐτὴν συγκεῖσθαι λειοτάτων καὶ στρογγυλοτάτων πολλῷ τινι διαφερουσῶν τῶν τοῦ πυρός.

[1216] Lucr. iii. 231; 269; Plut. Plac. iv. 3, 5 (Stob. i. 798), conf. Alex. Aphr. De An. 127, b.

[1217] Lucr. iii. 288.

[1218] According to Plut. Plac. v. 3, 5, he considered the seed an ἀπόσπασμα ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος; and, since he believed in a feminine σπέρμα, he must have regarded the soul of the child as formed by the intermingling of the soul-atoms of both parents. Ibid. v. 16, 1.

[1219] Diog. 63; Lucret. iii. 216; 276; 323; 370.

[1220] Metrodor. περὶ αἰσθητῶν (Vol. Herc. vi.), col. 7.

[1221] Lucr. iii. 98, contradicts the assertion that the soul is the harmony of the body; Epicurus having already replied (in Philop. De An. E. 1) to one of the objections urged against it by Plato.

[1222] Diog. 66; Lucr. iii. 94; 136; 396; 612; Plut. Plac. iv. 4, 3. Lucretius calls the rational part animus or mens, and the irrational part anima. The statement, Pl. Phil. iv. 23, 2, that Epicurus made feeling reside in the organs of sense, because the ἡγεμονικὸν was feelingless, can hardly be correct.

[1223] Diog. and Lucr. In sleep, a portion of the soul is supposed to leave the body (Lucr. iv. 913, conf. Tertull. De An. 43), whilst another part is forcibly confined within the body. Probably this is all that is meant by Diog. 66.

[1224] Epic. in Diog. 64. Lucr. iii. 417–827, gives an elaborate proof of the mortality of the soul. Other passages, Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 27, 1 and 3; 30, 5; Sext. Math. ix. 72, hardly need to be referred to. Observe the contrast between Epicureanism and Stoicism. In Stoicism, the soul keeps the body together; in Epicureanism, the body the soul. In Stoicism, the soul survives the body; in Epicureanism, this is impossible. In Stoicism, the mind is a power over the world, and hence over the body; in Epicureanism, it is on a level with the body, and dependent on it.

[1225] Epic. in Diog. 124–127, for instance: τὸ φρικωδέστατον οὖν τῶν κακῶν ὁ θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς· ἐπειδήπερ ὅταν μὲν ἡμεῖς ὦμεν ὁ θάνατος οὐ πάρεστιν· ὅταν δὲ ὁ θάνατος παρῇ τόθ’ ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἐσμεν. Id. in Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 229 (Alex. Aphr. Anal. Pri. 117, Top. 9. Gell. N. A. ii. 8, 1; Stob. Serm. 118, 30): ὁ θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμας· τὸ γὰρ διαλυθὲν ἀναισθητεῖ, τὸ δὲ ἀναισθητοῦν οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς. Lucr. iii. 828–975.

[1226] Lucr. iii. 830.

[1227] Diog. 81; 142; Lucr. iii. 37.

[1228] Lucr. ii. 991:—

Denique cœlesti sumus omnes semine oriundi, &c.

999:—

Cedit item retro de terra quod fuit ante
In terras: et quod missum est ex ætheris oris
Id rursum cœli rellatum templa receptant.

[1229] Democritus, from whom Epicurus has borrowed the rest of this theory, makes them mould the air.

[1230] Epic. in Diog. 46–50; 52; and in the fragments of the second book περὶ φύσεως; Lucr. iv. 26–266; 722; vi. 921 Cic. Ad Famil. xv. 16; Plut. Qu. Conviv. viii. 10, 2, 2; Plac. iv. 3, 1; 19, 2; Sext. Math. vii. 206; Gell. N. A. v. 16; Macrob. Sat. vii. 14; the remarks of Lucr. iv. 267; 568; Plut. Plac. iv. 14, 2, on reflected images and the echo belong likewise to the doctrine of idola.

[1231] For instance, the impressions in the minds of dreamers and madmen. Diog. 32; Lucr. iv. 730.

[1232] Plut. Def. Orac. 19, p. 420: εἰ δὲ χρὴ γελᾷν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ τὰ εἴδωλα γελαστέον τὰ κωφὰ καὶ τυφλὰ καὶ ἄψυχα, ἃ ποιμαίνουσιν [sc. οἱ Ἐπικούρειοι] ἀπλέτους ἐτῶν περιόδους ἐμφαινόμενα καὶ περινοστοῦντα πάντη τὰ μὲν ἔτι ζώντων τὰ δὲ πάλαι κατακαέντων ἢ κατασαπέντων ἀποῤῥυέντα.

[1233] Lucr. l.c.

[1234] Sext. l.c.; Lucr. iv. 351.

[1235] Lucr. iv. 766–819; and on the incessant streaming forth of images, v. 141; Diog. 48.

[1236] Epic. in Diog. x. 52: τὸ δὲ διημαρτημένον οὐκ ἂν ὑπῆρχεν, εἰ μὴ ἐλαμβάνομεν καὶ ἄλλην τινὰ κίνησιν ἐν ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς συνημμένην μὲν, διάληψιν [al. διάλειψιν] δʹ ἔχουσαν κατὰ δὲ ταύτην τὴν συνημμένην τῇ φανταστικῇ ἐπιβολῇ [impression on the senses], διάληψιν δ’ ἔχουσαν ἐὰν μὲν μὴ ἐπιμαρτυρηθῇ ἢ ἀντιμαρτυρηθῇ τὸ ψεῦδος γίνεται, ἐὰν δὲ ἐπιμαρτυρηθῇ ἢ μὴ ἀντιμαρτυρηθῇ τὸ ἀληθές.

[1237] As to terminology, Epicurus, according to Plut. Plac. iv. 8, 2, Diog. 32, called the faculty of sensation αἴσθησις, and sensation itself, ἐπαίσθημα.

[1238] Lucr. iv. 874; conf. Galen, De Hipp. et Plat. v. 2, vol. v. 367, K.

[1239] Diog. 133: τὸ δὲ παρ’ ἡμᾶς ἀδέσποτον· ᾧ καὶ τὸ μεμπτὸν καὶ τὸ ἐναντίον παρακολουθεῖν πέφυκεν. ἐπεὶ κρεῖττον ἦν τῷ περὶ θεῶν μύθῳ κατακολουθεῖν ἢ τῇ τῶν φυσικῶν εἱμαρμένῃ δουλεύειν.

[1240] Cic. N. D. i. 25, 70: [Epicurus] pertimuit, ne si concessum esset hujusmodi aliquid: aut vivet cras aut non vivet Epicurus, alterutrum fieret necessarium; totum hoc; aut etiam aut non negavit esse necessarium. Acad. ii. 30, 97; De Fat. 10, 21.

[1241] Steinhart, p. 466.

[1242] Cic. De Fato, 16, 37, at least says, referring to the above question: Nisi forte voluimus Epicureorum opinionem sequi, qui tales propositiones nec veras nec falsas esse dicunt, aut cum id pudet illud tamen dicunt, quod est impudentius, veras esse ex contrariis disjunctiones, sed quæ in his enuntiata essent eorum neutrum esse verum. Cicero indeed adds: O admirabilem licentiam et miserabilem inscientiam dicendi! but he has no reason for this exclamation; for the proposition: Either A or B must follow is not identical with the proposition: It may be stated either of A or of B that it will follow. Epicurus could, therefore, justly allow the former and deny the latter. In so doing he is really following Aristotle.

[1243] Diog. x. 123: οἵους δ’ αὐτοὺς [τοὺς θεοὺς] οἱ πολλοὶ νομίζουσιν οὐκ εἰσίν· οὐ γὰρ φυλάττουσιν αὐτοὺς οἵους νομίζουσιν. ἀσεβὴς δὲ οὐχ ὁ τοὺς τῶν πολλῶν θεοὺς ἀναιρῶν ἀλλ’ ὁ τὰς τῶν πολλῶν δόξας θεοῖς προσάπτων. Conf. Cic. N. D. i. 16, 42.

[1244] iii. 14; vi. 49; and, specially, the celebrated passage i. 62:—

Humana ante oculos fœde cum vita jaceret
In terris oppressa gravi sub relligione,
Quæ caput a cœli regionibus ostendebat
Horribili super aspectu mortalibus instans, &c.

as far as to 101:—

Tantum relligio potuit suadere malorum.

Conf. Epic. in Diog. 81, and above p. 423, 3; 437, 1.

[1245] Heraclit. Alleg. Hom. c. 4: [Ἐπίκουρος] ἅπασαν ὁμοῦ ποιητικὴν ὥσπερ ὀλέθριον μύθων δέλεαρ ἀφοσιούμενος. Ibid. c. 75.

[1246] Plut. Def. Orac. 19, p. 420: Ἐπικουρείων δὲ χλευασμοὺς καὶ γέλωτας οὔτι φοβητέον οἷς τολμῶσι χρῆσθαι καὶ κατὰ τῆς προνοίας μῦθον αὐτὴν ἀποκαλοῦντες. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 21, 2: διαβάλλοντες τὴν πρόνοιαν ὥσπερ παισὶν Ἔμπουσαν ἢ Ποινὴν ἀλιτηριώδη καὶ τραγικὴν ἐπιγεγραμμένην. In Cic. N. D. i. 8, 18, the Epicurean calls πρόνοια anus fatidica, to which it was often reduced, no doubt, by the Stoics.

[1247] See p. 460, 1.

[1248] Lucr. v. 196; ii. 1090; Plut. Plac. i. 7, 10. Conf. the disputation of the Stoic and Epicurean in Lucian, Jup. Trag. c. 35, and especially c. 46.

[1249] Lucr. v. 165; conf. p. 437, 1; Plut. Plac. i. 7, 8.

[1250] Diog. 76; 97; 113; see p. 437, 1; Cic. N. D. i. 20, 52; Plut. Plac. i. 7, 7.

[1251] Cic. l.c. 54.

[1252] Plut. Def. Orac. 19; Plac. i. 83.

[1253] Conf. the captious argument of Hermarchus, in Procl. in Tim. 66, E: If prayer is necessary for everything, it is necessary for prayer, and so on, ad infin.

[1254] Diog. 135; Lucr. v. 379; Plut. Plac. v. 1, 2; Cic. N. D. i. 20, 55; Divin. ii. 17, 40; Tertull. De An. 46.

[1255] Lucr. v. 1159–1238; conf. iv. 33; vi. 49; Sext. Math. ix. 25; vi. 19; Diog. 98; 115.

[1256] This view is especially prominent in Lucretius. See p. 462, 2. Conf. Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 21, 10; Cic. N. D. i. 20, 54.

[1257] He drew up separate treatises περὶ θεῶν and περὶ ὁσιότητος. Diog. 27; Cic. N. D. i. 41, 115; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 21, 11.

[1258] Posidonius, in Cic. N. D. i. 44, 123; Conf. 30, 85; iii. 1, 3; Plut. l.c.

[1259] Epic. in Diog. 123: θεοὶ μὲν γάρ εἰσι· ἐναργὴς μὲν γάρ ἐστιν αὐτῶν ἡ γνῶσις. The Epicurean in Cic. N. D. i. 16, 43: Solus enim [Epicurus] vidit, primum esse Deos, quod in omnium animis eorum notionem impressisset ipsa natura. Quæ est enim gens aut quod genus hominum quod non habeat sine doctrina anticipationem quandam Deorum? quam appellat πρόληψιν Epicurus, &c. These statements must, however, be received with some caution, since Cicero appears to give up his own views as to innate ideas. Inasmuch, however, as he expressly refers to Epicurus’ treatise περὶ κανόνος, we may assume that belief in Gods with Epicurus rests on a general πρόληψις.

[1260] In support of this view, see Cic. N. D. i. 18, 46. It is there said of the form of the Gods: A natura habemus omnes omnium gentium speciem nullam aliam nisi humanam Deorum. Quæ enim alia forma occurrit umquam aut vigilanti cuiquam aut dormienti? φυσικὴ πρόληψις is here referred to sensations derived from εἴδωλα. Ibid. 19, 49; and Lucr. vi. 76:

de corpore quæ sancto simulacra feruntur
In mentis hominum divinæ nuntia formæ.

[1261] Diog. 121. Cic. N. D. i. 17, 45: Si nihil aliud quæreremus, nisi ut Deos pie coleremus et ut superstitione liberaremur, satis erat dictum: nam et præstans Deorum natura hominum pietate coleretur, cum et æterna esset et beatissima ... et metus omnis a vi atque ira Deorum pulsus esset. Ibid. 20, 56: We do not fear the Gods, et pie sancteque colimus naturam excellentem atque præstantem. Ibid. 41, 115. Sen. Benef. iv. 19, 3: Epicurus denied all connection of God with the world, but, at the same time, would have him honoured as a father, propter majestatem ejus eximiam singularemque naturam.

[1262] Cic. N. D. i. 18, 46; Divin. ii. 17, 40; Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 218; Plut. Pl. Phil. i. 7, 18 (Stob. i. 66); Phædr. (Philodem.) Fragm. col. 7; Metrodorus, περὶ αἰσθητῶν (Vol. Herc. vi.), col. 10; col. 16, 21.

[1263] Cic. N. D. i. 34, 95.

[1264] Epic. in Diog. 123: πρῶτον μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον νομίζων ... μηδὲν μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος ἀνοίκειον αὐτῷ πρόσαπτε, κ.τ.λ. Ibid. 139. Cic. N. D. i. 17, 45; 19, 51; Lucr. ii. 646; v. 165.

[1265] Cic. N. D. ii. 23, 59; i. 18, 49; 25, 71; 26, 74; Divin. ii. 17, 40; Lucr. v. 148; Metrodor. περὶ αἰσθητῶν, col. 7; Plut. l.c. Epicurus has, as Cicero remarks, monogrammos Deos; his Gods have only quasi corpus and quasi sanguinem. They are perlucidi and perflabiles, or, according to Lucretius, tenues, so that they cannot be touched, and are indestructible.

[1266] Cic. Divin. ii. 17, 40; Lucr. ii. 646; iii. 18; v. 146; Sen. Benef. iv. 19, 2.

[1267] Epic. in Diog. 77; 97; 139; Cic. N. D. i. 19, 51 (amongst other things: nos autem beatam vitam in animi securitate et in omnium vacatione munerum ponimus, both of which features must therefore be attributed to the Gods); Legg. i. 7, 21; Lucr. ii. 646; iii. 1092; iv. 83; vi. 57; Sen. Benef. iv. 4, 1; 19, 2. Conf. p. 436; 464, 1; 466, 1.

[1268] In the fragments of his treatise περὶ τῆς τῶν θεῶν εὐστοχουμένης διαγωγῆς, κατὰ Ζήνωνα, col. 12.

[1269] The κλίσια discussed by Hermarchus and Pythocles, col. 13, 20, had reference to these, and not to ordinary feasts.

[1270] Col. 14: The reason being assigned that λέγονται μὴ πολὺ διαφερούσαις κατὰ τὰς ἀρθρώσεις χρῆσθαι φωναῖς, καὶ μόνον οἴδαμεν γεγονότας θεοὺς Ἑλληνίδι γλώττῃ χρωμένους. The first statement seems to refer to the words of the divine language quoted by Homer; the second statement, to stories of appearances of the Gods. For the whole tone of the system militates against our thinking of men who have afterwards become Gods. The sceptical question, Whether the Gods possess speech? raised by Carneades in Sext. Math. ix. 178, appears to refer to this μυθολογία Ἐπικούρου.

[1271] Cic. N. D. i. 20, 54; Sen. Benef. iv. 19, 1.

[1272] Philodem. De Mus. iv. (V. Herc. i.) col. 4, says that the Gods do not need this worship, but it is natural for us to show it: μάλιστα μὲν ὁσίαις προλήψεσιν, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τοῖς κατὰ τὸ πάτριον παραδεδομένοις ἑκάστῳ τῶν κατὰ μέρος.

[1273] Cic. l.c. i. 19, 50, the sentence, et si quæ interimant, belonging, however, to Cicero only. For Epicurus cannot have described his ease-taking Gods as sustainers of the universe.

[1274] Cic. N. D. i. 19, 49: (Epicurus) docet eam esse vim et naturam Deorum ut primum non sensu sed mente cernatur: nec soliditate quadam nec ad numerum, ut ea, quæ ille propter firmitatem στερέμνια appellat, sed imaginibus similitudine et transitione perceptis: cum infinita simillimarum imaginum species ex innumerabilibus individuis exsistat et ad Deos (probably instead of Deos, which gives no sense, we should read nos. See the commentators in the editions of Moser and Kreuzer) affluat, cum maximis voluptatibus in eas imagines mentem intentam infixamque nostram intelligentiam capere quæ sit et beata natura et æterna. The meaning of these words appears to be, that ideas of the Gods are not formed in the same way as the ideas of other solid bodies, by a number of similar pictures from the same object striking our senses (nec soliditate nec ad numerum, Diog. x. 95), but by single pictures emanating from innumerable divine individuals, all so much alike that they leave behind them the impressions of perfect happiness and immortality. The passage of Diog. x. 139, ought probably to be corrected by that in Cicero. It runs: ἐν ἄλλοις δέ φησι, τοὺς θεοὺς λόγῳ θεωρητοὺς εἶναι· οὓς μὲν κατ’ ἀριθμὸν ὑφεστῶτας, οὓς δὲ κατὰ ὁμοειδίαν ἐκ τῆς συνεχοῦς ἐπιῤῥύσεως τῶν ὁμοίων εἰδώλων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀποτετελεσμένους ἀνθρωποειδῶς. The similarity of most of the expressions leaves no doubt that Diogenes followed the same authority as Cicero (probably the same as Plut. Plac. i. 7, 18 followed), but in the words οὓς μὲν κ.τ.λ., it asserts the very opposite of this and the Epicurean teaching. There must, therefore, be some error here, either due to Diogenes or a copyist. This error does not apparently belong to the words κατ’ ἀριθμὸν, which Cicero renders ad numerum, so that Steinhart’s suggestion, p. 477, καθ’ ἁρμὸν or καθ’ ἁρμοὺς, is clearly wrong. It is more probably to be found in the words οὓς μὲν—οὓς δὲ. We might suggest for οὓς μὲν, οὐ μέντοι.

[1275] In Phædrus (Philodem. περὶ εὐσεβείας), Fragm. col. 7 (10) it is said in answer to the Stoics: ἐπιδεικνύσθωσαν τοῖς πολλοῖς ἕνα μόνον [θεὸν] ἅπαντα λέγοντες οὐδὲ πάντας ὅσους ἡ κοινὴ φήμη παρέδωκεν, ἡμῶν οὐ μόνον ὅσους φασὶν οἱ Πανέλληνες ἀλλὰ καὶ πλείονας εἶναι λεγόντων ἔπειθ’ ὅτι τοιούτους οὐδὲ μεμήκασιν ἀπολείπειν, οἵους σέβονται πάντες καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁμολογοῦμεν. ἀνθρωποειδεῖς γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι οὐ νομίζουσιν ἀλλὰ ἀέρα καὶ πνεύματα καὶ αἰθέρα, ὥστ’ ἔγωγε καὶ τεθαῤῥηκότως εἴπαιμι τούτους Διαγόρου μᾶλλον πλημμελεῖν. It is then shown how little the natural substances of the Stoics resemble Gods (col. 9): τὰ θεῖα τοιαῦτα καταλείπουσιν ἃ καὶ γεννητὰ καὶ φθαρτὰ φαίνεται, τοῖς δὲ πᾶσιν ἡμεῖς ἀκολούθως ἀϊδίους κἀφθάρτους εἶναι δογματίζομεν. Here we have a phenomenon witnessed in modern times, Deists and Pantheists mutually accusing one another of atheism, the former missing personality, the latter missing activity in the deity of their opponents.

[1276] See p. 469, 1.

[1277] Lucr. ii. 598, explains the Mother of the Gods as meaning the earth. ii. 655, he allows the expressions, Neptune, Ceres, Bacchus, for the sea, corn, and wine. iii. 976, he interprets the pains of the nether-world as the qualms now brought on by superstition and folly.

[1278] Epic. in Diog. 128: τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος λέγομεν εἶναι τοῦ μακαρίως ζῇν ... πρῶτον ἀγαθὸν τοῦτο καὶ σύμφυτον ... πᾶσα οὖν ἡδονὴ ... ἀγαθόν.... καθάπερ καὶ ἀλγηδὼν πᾶσα κακόν. Ibid. 141. Cic. Fin. i. 9, 29; Tusc. v. 26, 73: Cum præsertim omne malum dolore definiat, bonum voluptate.

[1279] Diog. 129: ταύτην γὰρ ἀγαθὸν πρῶτον καὶ συγγενικὸν ἔγνωμεν καὶ ἀπὸ ταύτης καταρχόμεθα πάσης αἱρέσεως καὶ φευγῆς καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτην καταντῶμεν ὡς κανόνι τῷ πάθει τὸ ἀγαθὸν κρίνοντες. Plut. Adv. Col. 27, 1.

[1280] Diog. 137; Cic. Fin. i. 7, 23; 9, 30; ii. 10, 31; Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 194; Math. xi. 96.

[1281] Stob. Ecl. ii. 58: τοῦτο δ’ [the τέλος] οἱ κατ’ Ἐπίκουρον φιλοσοφοῦντες οὐ προσδέχονται λέγειν ἐνεργούμενον, διὰ τὸ παθητικὸν ὑποτίθεσθαι τὸ τέλος, οὐ πρακτικόν· ἡδονὴ γάρ· ὅθεν καὶ τὴν ἔννοιαν ἀποδιδόασι τοῦ τέλους, τὸ οἰκείως διατεθεῖσθαι ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ πρὸς αὐτὸν χωρὶς τῆς ἐπ’ ἄλλο τε ἁπάσης ἐπιβολῆς. Alex. Aphr. De An. 154, a: τοῖς δὲ περὶ Ἐπίκουρον ἡδονὴ τὸ πρῶτον οἰκεῖον ἔδοξεν εἶναι ἁπλῶς· προϊόντων δὲ διαρθροῦσθαι ταύτην τὴν ἡδονήν φασι.

[1282] Diog. 129; Cic. Fin. i. 14, 48; Tusc. v. 33, 95; Sen. De Otio, 7, 3.

[1283] Epic. in Diog. 139 (Gell. N. A. ii. 9, 2): ὅρος τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν ἡδονῶν ἡ παντὸς τοῦ ἀλγοῦντος ὑπεξαίρεσις. Id. in Diog. 128: τούτων γὰρ [τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν] ἀπλανὴς θεωρία πᾶσαν αἵρεσιν καὶ φυγὴν ἐπαναγαγεῖν οἶδεν ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ σώματος ὑγίειαν καὶ τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀταραξίαν. ἐπεὶ τοῦτο τοῦ μακαρίως ζῇν ἐστι τέλος. τούτου γὰρ χάριν ἅπαντα πράττομεν ὅπως μήτε ἀλγῶμεν μήτε ταρβῶμεν· ὅταν δὲ ἅπαξ τοῦτο περὶ ἡμᾶς γένηται λύεται πᾶς ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς χειμὼν οὐκ ἔχοντος τοῦ ζῴου βαδίζειν ὡς πρὸς ἐνδέον τι ... τότε γὰρ ἡδονῆς χρείαν ἔχομεν, ὅταν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ παρεῖναι τὴν ἡδονὴν ἀλγῶμεν· ὅταν δὲ μὴ ἀλγῶμεν οὐκέτι τῆς ἡδονῆς δεόμεθα. Ibid. 131; 144; conf. Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 3, 10; Stob. Serm. 17, 35; Lucr. ii. 14; Cic. Fin. i. 11, 37.

[1284] Epicurus and Metrodorus, in Plut. l.c. 7, 1.

[1285] Diog. 136, quotes the words of Epicurus: ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἀταραξία καὶ ἀπονία καταστηματικαί εἰσιν ἡδοναὶ, ἡ δὲ χαρὰ καὶ εὐφροσύνη κατὰ κίνησιν ἐνεργείᾳ βλέπονται. Ritter, iii. 469, suggests instead of ἐνεργείᾳ ἐναργείᾳ, but ἐνεργείᾳ gives a very fair meaning: they appear actually in motion. Sen. Ep. 66, 45: Apud Epicurum duo bona sunt, ex quibus summum illud beatumque componitur, ut corpus sine dolore sit, animus sine perturbatione.

[1286] Hence Sen. Brevit. Vit. 14, 2: Cum Epicuro quiescere. Benef. iv. 4, 1: Quæ maxima Epicuro felicitas videtur, nihil agit.

[1287] Diog. 131. Similar views are expressed by Metrodorus, in Clement, Strom. v. 614, B, in praise of philosophers who escape all evils by rising to the contemplation of the eternal καθαροὶ καὶ ἀσήμαντοι τούτου, ὃ νῦν σῶμα περιφέροντες ὀνομάζομεν. Id. in Plut. Adv. Col. 17, 4: ποιήσωμέν τι καλὸν ἐπὶ καλοῖς, μόνον οὐ καταδύντες ταῖς ὁμοιοπαθείαις καὶ ἀπαλλαγέντες ἐκ τοῦ χαμαὶ βίου εἰς τὰ Ἐπικούρου ὡς ἀληθῶς θεόφαντα ὄργια.

[1288] Epic. in Diog. 122: μήτε νέος τις ὢν μελλέτω φιλοσοφεῖν μήτε γέρων ὑπάρχων κοπιάτω φιλοσοφῶν. οὔτε γὰρ ἄωρος οὐδείς ἐστιν οὔτε πάρωρος πρὸς τὸ κατὰ ψυχὴν ὑγιαῖνον. He who says it is too early or too late to study philosophy means πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν ἢ μήπω παρεῖναι τὴν ὥραν ἢ μηκέτι εἶναι. Id. in Sen. Ep. 8, 7: Philosophiæ servias oportet, ut tibi contingat vera libertas.

[1289] Epic. in Diog. 127: τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν αἱ μέν εἰσι φυσικαὶ αἱ δὲ κεναί· καὶ τῶν φυσικῶν αἱ μὲν ἀναγκαῖαι αἱ δὲ φυσικαὶ μόνον. τῶν δὲ ἀναγκαίων αἱ μὲν πρὸς εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσὶν ἀναγκαῖαι, αἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ σώματος ἀοχλησίαν, αἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ ζῇν. Ibid. 149, further particulars are given as to the classes. Ibid. 144; Lucr. ii. 20; Cic. Fin. i. 13, 45; Tusc. v. 33, 94; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 3, 10; Eustrat. Eth. N. 48, b; Sen. Vit. Be. 13, 1.

[1290] Sen. Benef. iii. 4, 1: Epicuro ... qui adsidue queritur, quod adversus præterita simus ingrati. Epic. in Sen. Ep. 15, 10: Stulta vita ingrata est et trepida, tota in futurum fertur; and Lucr. iii. 929.

[1291] Diog. 11; 130; 144; 146; Stob. Floril. 17; 23; 30; 34; Sen. Ep. 2, 5; 16, 7; 25, 4.

[1292] Diog. 144: βραχεῖα σοφῷ τύχη παρεμπίπτει, τὰ δὲ μέγιστα καὶ κυριώτατα ὁ λογισμὸς διῴκηκε. The like in Stob. Ecl. ii. 354; Cic. Fin. i. 19, 63; Sen. De Const. 15, 4; Epicurus and Metrodorus in Cic. Tusc. v. 9, 26, and Plut. Aud. Po. 14, p. 37.

[1293] Diog. 135: κρεῖττον εἶναι νομίζων εὐλογίστως ἀτυχεῖν ἢ ἀλογίστως εὐτυχεῖν.

[1294] Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 20, 4.

[1295] Diog. 118; Plut. l.c. 3, 9; Sen. Ep. 66, 18; 67, 15; Cic. Tusc. v. 26, 73.

[1296] Diog. 22; Cic. Fin. ii. 30, 96; Tusc. ii. 7, 17; M. Aurel. ix. 41; Sen. Ep. 66, 47; 92, 25; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 18, 1, the latter perverting Epicurus’ words to a terrible extent.

[1297] Diog. 137: ἔτι πρὸς τοὺς Κυρηναϊκοὺς διαφέρεται. οἱ μὲν γὰρ χείρους τὰς σωματικὰς ἀλγηδόνας λέγουσι τῶν ψυχικῶν ... ὁ δὲ τὰς ψυχικάς. τὴν γοῦν σάρκα διὰ τὸ παρὸν μόνον χειμάζειν, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν καὶ διὰ τὸ παρελθὸν καὶ τὸ παρὸν καὶ τὸ μέλλον. οὕτως οὖν καὶ μείζονας ἡδονὰς εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς. Further particulars in Plut. l.c. 3, 10: Cic. Tusc. v. 33, 96. The Epicureans spoke of bodily pleasure by ἥδεσθαι, mental by χαίρειν. Plut. l.c. 5, 1.

[1298] Diog. 145. Epicurus appears to have first used σὰρξ to express the body in contrast to the soul: σῶμα, in his system, includes the soul. See Diog. 137; 140; 144; Metrodor. in Plut. Colot. 31, 2. (Plut. in N. P. Suav. Vivi, 16, 9; Plut. has γαστρὶ instead of σαρκί.)

[1299] Diog. x. 6, from Epicurus περὶ τέλους: οὐ γὰρ ἔγωγε ἔχω τί νοήσω τἀγαθὸν ἀφαιρῶν μὲν τὰς διὰ χυλῶν ἡδονὰς, ἀφαιρῶν δὲ καὶ τὰς δι’ ἀφροδισίων καὶ τὰς δι’ ἀκροαμάτων καὶ τὰς διὰ μορφᾶς (-ῆς). The like, in a more expanded form, in Cic. Tusc. iii. 18, 41.

[1300] Plut. l.c. 16, 9: ὡς καὶ ἐχάρην καὶ ἐθρασυνάμην ὅτε ἔμαθον παρ’ Ἐπικούρου ὀρθῶς γαστρὶ (see previous note) χαρίζεσθαι; and: περὶ γαστέρα γὰρ, ὦ φυσιολόγε Τιμόκρατες, τὸ ἀγαθόν. Conf. ibid. 3, 1.

[1301] See p. 478, 1, and Epic. in Plut. N. P. Suav. V. 4, 10: τὸ γὰρ εὐσταθὲς σαρκὸς κατάστημα καὶ τὸ περὶ ταύτης πιστὸν ἔλπισμα τὴν ἀκροτάτην χαρὰν καὶ βεβαιοτάτην ἔχει τοῖς ἐπιλογίζεσθαι δυναμένοις. Ibid. 5, 1: τὸ μὲν ἡδόμενον τῆς σαρκὸς τῷ χαίροντι τῆς ψυχῆς ὑπερείδοντες, αὖθις δ’ ἐκ τοῦ χαίροντος εἰς τὸ ἡδόμενον τῇ ἐλπίδι τελευτῶντας.

[1302] Conf., besides the extracts on p. 478, 1 and 2, Cic. Fin. i. 17, 55: Animi autem voluptates et dolores nasci fatemur e corporis voluptatibus et doloribus; it is only a misapprehension on the part of several Epicureans to deny this fact. Mental pleasures and pains may therefore be the stronger ones for the reasons assigned above.

[1303] In his last letter (Diog. 22), after describing his painful illness, Epicurus continues: ἀντιπαρετάττετο δὲ πᾶσι τούτοις τὸ κατὰ ψυχὴν χαῖρον ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν γεγονότων ἡμῖν διαλογισμῶν μνήμῃ.

[1304] Diog. 142; Cic. Fin. ii. 7, 21.

[1305] Diog. 140; 133; Cic. Fin. i. 15, 49; Plut. Aud. Po. 14, p. 36; M. Aurel. vii. 33, 64.

[1306] Diog. 140: οὐκ ἔστιν ἡδέως ζῇν ἄνευ τοῦ φρονίμως καὶ καλῶς καὶ δικαίως, οὐδὲ φρονίμως καὶ δικαίως ἄνευ τοῦ ἡδέως. The same p. 132, 138. Cic. Tusc. v. 9, 26; Fin. i. 16, 50; 19, 62; Sen. Ep. 85, 18.

[1307] Sen. Vit. Be. 13, 1 (conf. 12, 4): In ea quidem ipse sententia sum (invitis nec nostris popularibus—the Stoics—dicam), sancta Epicurum et recta præcipere, et si propius accesseris tristia: voluptas enim illa ad parvum et exile revocatur, et quam nos virtuti legem dicimus eam ille dicit voluptati ... itaque non dico, quod plerique nostrorum, sectam Epicuri flagitiorum magistram esse, sed illud dico: male audit, infamis est, et immerito. Ep. 33, 2: Apud me vero Epicurus est et fortis, licet manuleatus sit. Seneca not infrequently quotes sayings of Epicurus, and calls (Ep. 6, 6) Metrodorus, Hermarchus, and Polyænus, magnos viros. Conf. Cic. Fin. ii. 25, 81.

[1308] Epic. in Plut. Adv. Col. 17, 3: ἐγὼ δ’ ἐφ’ ἡδονὰς συνεχεῖς παρακαλῶ, καὶ οὐκ ἐπ’ ἀρετὰς, κενὰς καὶ ματαίας καὶ ταραχώδεις ἐχούσας τῶν κάρπων τὰς ἐλπίδας.

[1309] Diog. 138: διὰ δὲ τὴν ἡδονὴν καὶ τὰς ἀρετὰς δεῖν αἱρεῖσθαι οὐ δι’ αὑτάς· ὥσπερ τὴν ἰατρικὴν διὰ τὴν ὑγίειαν, καθά φησι καὶ Διογένης. Cic. Fin. i. 13, 42 (conf. ad Att. vii. 2): Istæ enim vestræ eximiæ pulchræque virtutes nisi voluptatem efficerent, quis eas aut laudabiles aut expetendas arbitraretur? ut enim medicorum scientiam non ipsius artis sed bonæ valetudinis causa probamus, &c. ...; sic sapientia, quæ ars vivendi putanda est, non expeteretur si nihil efficeret; nunc expetitur quod est tanquam artifex conquirendæ et comparandæ voluptatis. Alex. Aphr. De An. 156, b: [ἡ ἀρετὴ] περὶ τὴν ἐκλογήν ἐστι τῶν ἡδέων κατ’ Ἐπίκουρον.

[1310] Sen. Ep. 85, 18: Epicurus quoque judicat, cum virtutem habeat beatum esse, sed ipsam virtutem non satis esse ad beatam vitam, quia beatum efficiat voluptas quæ ex virtute est, non ipsa virtus.

[1311] Diog. 132; Cic. Fin. i. 13, 43; 19, 62.

[1312] Cic. Fin. i. 13, 47.

[1313] Cic. l.c. 13, 49. Diog. 120: τὴν δὲ ἀνδρείαν φύσει μὴ γίνεσθαι, λογισμῷ δὲ τοῦ συμφέροντος.

[1314] Cic. Fin. i. 16, 50; Diog. 144; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 6, 1; Sen. Ep. 97, 13 and 15. Lucr. v. 1152: The criminal can never rest, and often in delirium or sleep betrays himself. Epicurus, however, refused to answer the question, Whether the wise man would do what is forbidden, if he could be certain of not being discovered? Plut. col. 34, 1.

[1315] Philodemus, De Rhet. Vol. Herc. v. a, col. 25: The laws ought to be kept τῷ μὴ τὰ διωρισμένα μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ τὴν ὁμοείδειαν αὐτοῖς ἔχοντα διαφυλάττειν, κἀκεῖνα μὴ μόνον συνειδότων, ἀλλὰ κἂν λανθάνωμεν ἀπαξάπαντας, καὶ μεθ’ ἡδονῆς, οὐ δι’ ἀνάγκην, καὶ βεβαίως, ἀλλ’ οὐ σαλευομένως.

[1316] Diog. 117; 118; 119.

[1317] Plut. Adv. Col. 19, 2.

[1318] Diog. 118; Sen. Ep. 81, 11. The Stoic assertion of the equality of virtues and vices was, however, denied by the Epicureans. Diog. 120.

[1319] Diog. 135; conf. Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 7, 3; Lucr. iii. 323.

[1320] Cic. Fin. i. 19, 61; v. 27 80: Semper beatum esse sapientem. Tusc. v. 9, 26; Stob. Serm. 17, 30. See p. 477.

[1321] Diog. 117.

[1322] Diog. 117: τὸν ἅπαξ γενόμενον σοφὸν μηκέτι τὴν ἐναντίαν λαμβάνειν διάθεσιν μήδ’ ἐπαλλάττειν ἑκόντα. The latter words appear to admit the possibility of an involuntary loss of wisdom, perhaps through madness.

[1323] Diog. 126; 145; Cic. Fin. i. 19, 63.

[1324] See also page 476, 2.

[1325] We gather this from the fragments of Philodemus’ treatise περὶ κακιῶν καὶ τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἀγαθῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν οἷς εἰσὶ καὶ περὶ ἅ. The 10th book of this treatise gives a portrait of the ὑπερήφανος, and kindred faults, after the manner of Theophrastus; the 9th, a mild criticism of Xenophon’s and Aristotle’s οἰκονομικός. It is objected to the latter that the master of the house is there made (col. ii. 30) to rise earlier than his servants, and to go to bed later than they do, such conduct being ταλαίπωρον καὶ ἀνοίκειον φιλοσόφου.

[1326] Diog. 144; 146; 130; Stob. Floril. 17, 23; Sen. Ep. 16, 7; Lucr. ii. 20; iii. 59; v. 1115; Philod. De Vit. ix. col. 12: φιλοσόφῳ δ’ ἐστὶ πλούτου μικρόν· ὃ παρεδώκαμεν ἀκολούθως [for thus and not by εὐκαίρως must the defective -ως be represented] τοῖς καθηγεμόσιν ἐν τοῖς περὶ πλούτου λόγοις. Conf. p. 476, 3; 477.

[1327] Diog. 130.

[1328] Stob. Floril. 17, 24 and 37; Sen. Ep. 21, 7; 14, 17; 2, 5: Honesta, inquit, res est læta paupertas. Ep. 17, 11: Multis parasse divitias non finis miseriarum fuit, sed mutatio.

[1329] Stob. Flor. 17, 30. Conf. Sen. Ep. 9, 20: Si cui sua non videntur amplissima, licet totius mundi dominus sit tamen miser est.

[1330] Diog. 11; Stob. Floril. 17, 34; Cic. Tusc. v. 31, 89; Sen. Ep. 25, 4. Epicurus lived very abstemiously. The charge of luxury brought against him was fully disposed of by Gassendi, De Vit. et Mor. Epic. 153. Timocrates, on the strength of one of his letters, asserts that he spent a mina every day on his table. If this statement be not a pure invention, it must refer to the whole circle of his friends. It could otherwise only have happened at such a time as the siege of Athens by Demetrius Poliorcetes, when a modius of wheat cost 300 drachmæ, and when Epicurus counted out to his friends the beans on which they lived. Plut. Demetr. 33. The further statement of Timocrates—(Diog. 6: αὐτὸν δὶς τῆς ἡμέρας ἐμεῖν ἀπὸ τρυφῆς)—is certainly an unfounded calumny. The moderation of Epicurus is admitted by Sen. Vit. B. 12, 4; 13, 1; and Epicurus flatters himself, in Sen. Ep. 18, 9: Non toto asse pasci, Metrodorum, qui nondum tantum profecerit, toto; and, in Diog. 11, because he was satisfied with bread and water. Ibid. he writes: πέμψον μοι τυροῦ Κυθνίου, ἵν’ ὅταν βούλωμαι πολυτελεύσασθαι, δύνωμαι. Still less have we any reason to connect the diseases of which Epicurus and some of his scholars died (as Plut. N. P. Suav. V. 5, 3 does, herein following Timocrates in Diog. 7) with their presumed luxuriousness.

[1331] Stob. Floril. 17, 30. See p. 477, 2.

[1332] Epicurus and Metrodorus, in Stob. Floril. 16, 28; 20, Conf. Plut. Tran. An. 16, p. 474: ὁ τῆς αὔριον ἥκιστα δεόμενος, ὥς φησιν Ἐπίκουρος, ἥδιστα πρόσεισι πρὸς τὴν αὔριον.

[1333] Serious charges on this head, against which Gassendi defends him, are preferred against Epicurus by Timocrates, in Diog. 6; but neither the testimony of Timocrates, nor the fact that a woman of loose morality (see above p. 406) was in his society, can be considered conclusive. Chrysippus in Stob. Floril. 63, 31, calls Epicurus ἀναίσθητος. Epicurus is, however, far below our standard of morality. Thus, in the quotation on p. 479, 1, he reckons ἡδοναὶ δι’ ἀφροδισίων among the necessary ingredients of the good. By Eustrat. in Eth. N. 48, such pleasures are included among φυσικαὶ (see p. 476, 3), not among ἡδοναὶ ἀναγκαῖαι. They are treated in the same light by Lucr. v. 1050; and Plut. Qu. Conviv. iii. 6, 1, 1, not only discusses the most suitable time for the enjoyment of love, but quotes as the words of Epicurus: εἰ γέρων ὁ σοφὸς ὢν καὶ μὴ δυνάμενος πλησιάζειν ἔτι ταῖς τῶν καλῶν ἁφαῖς χαίρει καὶ ψηλαφήσεσιν (N. P. Suav. V. 12, 3). These enjoyments, according to Epicurus, are only then allowed when they do not entail any bad consequences (Diog. 118), or produce passionate states of feeling. Hence he not only forbids unlawful commerce (Diog. 118), but declares οὐκ ἐρασθήσεσθαι τὸν σοφόν. Diog. 118; Stob. Floril. 63, 31. Eros is defined (Alex. Aphr. Top. 75) = σύντονος ὄρεξις ἀφροδισίων. Conf. Plut. Amat. 19, 16, p. 765. It is consequently a passionate and disturbing state, which the wise man must avoid. The Stoics, on the contrary, allowed Eros to their wise man. The same view is taken of Eros by Lucretius, who cannot find words strong enough to express the restlessness and confusion entailed by love, the state of dependence in which it places man, and the loss to his fortune and good name. His advice is to allay passion as quickly as possible by means of Venus volgivaga, and to gratify it in a calm way.

[1334] Diog. 120; 140; Cic. Tusc. ii. 12, 28; Lucr. iii. 59; 993.

[1335] Sen. De Const. 16, 1.

[1336] Diog. 118: οὐδὲ ταφῆς φροντιεῖν.

[1337] Lucr. iii. 74.

[1338] See pp. 479, 455. A further argument may, however, be here quoted. In Plut. N. P. Suav. Viv. 16, 3, he says: ὅτι νόσῳ νοσῶν ἀσκίτῃ τινὰς ἑστιάσεις φίλων συνῆγε, καὶ οὐκ ἐφθόνει τῆς προσαγωγῆς τοῦ ὑγροῦ τῷ ὕδρωπι, καὶ τῶν ἐσχάτων Νεοκλέους λόγων μεμνημένος ἐτήκετο τῇ μετὰ δακρύων ἡδονῇ. It is true that a certain mawkishness and self-conceit may be detected in this language.

[1339] Diog. 119; Philodem. De Vit. ix. 12; 27, 40.

[1340] Diog. 120: κτήσεως προνοήσεσθαι καὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος. 121: χρηματίσεσθαί τε ἀπὸ μόνης σοφίας ἀπορήσαντα. The limitation implied in the text would, however, seem to require μόνης. Philodem. in the same sense l.c. 23, 23, says that Epicurus received presents from his scholars, Conf. Plut. Adv. Col. 18, 3, also 15, 31.

[1341] Diog. 121: εἰκόνας τε ἀναθήσειν εἰ ἔχοι· ἀδιαφόρως ἕξειν ἂν μὴ σχοίη (Cobet, not intelligibly: ἀδιαφόρως ἂν σχοίης).

[1342] Epic. in Diog. 130: καὶ τὴν αὐτάρκειαν δὲ ἀγαθὸν μέγα νομίζομεν οὐχ ἵνα πάντως τοῖς ὀλίγοις χρώμεθα, ἀλλ’ ὅπως ἐὰν μὴ ἔχωμεν τὰ πολλὰ τοῖς ὀλίγοις χρώμεθα πεπεισμένοι γνησίως ὅτι ἥδιστα πολυτελείας ἀπολαύουσιν οἱ ἥκιστα αὐτῆς δεόμενοι.

[1343] The Epicurean in Cic. Fin. i. 15, 49: Si tolerabiles sint [dolores] feramus, sin minus, æquo animo e vita, cum ea non placeat, tanquam e theatro exeamus. Epic. in Sen. Ep. 12, 10: Malum est in necessitate vivere, sed in necessitate vivere necessitas nulla est. On the other hand, Ep. 24, 22: Objurgat Epicurus non minus eos qui mortem concupiscunt, quam eos, qui timent, et ait: ridiculum est currere ad mortem tædio vitæ, cum genere vitæ ut currendum esset ad mortem effeceris. Diog. 119, the older editions read: καὶ πηρωθεὶς τὰς ὄψεις μεθέξειν αὐτὸν τοῦ βίου. Cobet: μετάξειν αὑτὸν τοῦ βίου. Instead of πηρωθεὶς πηρωθέντα is read, or, as we might prefer, instead of μετάξειν μετάξει. Suicide was only allowed by Epicurus in extreme cases. In Seneca’s time, when an Epicurean, Diodorus, committed suicide, his fellow-scholars were unwilling to allow that suicide was permitted by the precepts of Epicurus (Sen. Vit. B. 19, 1).

[1344] Epict. Diss. ii. 20, 6: Ἐπίκουρος ὅταν ἀναιρεῖν θέλῃ τὴν φυσικὴν κοινωνίαν ἀνθρώποις πρὸς ἀλλήλους, κ.τ.λ.

[1345] Diog. 150; 154. From this point of view, Lucr. v. 1106, gives a long description of the rise of a state.

[1346] Stob. Floril. 43, 139.

[1347] Diog. 150; Lucr. v. 1149; Sen. Ep. 97, 13, and 15; Plut. Adv. Col. 35. See p. 482, 4.

[1348] Diog. 150–153.

[1349] Diog. 140.

[1350] Plut. Adv. Col. 31; 33, 4; N. P. Suav. Vivi, 16, 9; Epictet. Diss. i. 23, 6; Lucr. v. 1125; Cic. pro Sext. 10, 23. Philodem. περὶ ῥητορικῆς (Vol. Herc. iv.) col. 14: οὐδὲ χρησίμην ἡγούμεθα τὴν πολιτικὴν δύναμιν, οὔτ’ αὐτοῖς τοῖς κεκτημένοις, οὔτε ταῖς πόλεσιν, αὐτὴν καθ’ αὑτήν· ἀλλὰ πολλάκις αἰτίαν καὶ συμφορῶν ἀνηκέστων, when combined with uprightness, it benefits the community, and is sometimes useful; at other times, harmful to statesmen themselves.

[1351] Plut. De Latenter Vivendo, c. 4. In this respect, T. Pomponius Atticus is the true type of an Epicurean, on whose conduct during the civil war and withdrawal from public life, see Nepos, Att. 6.

[1352] Metrodorus, in Stob. Floril. 45, 26: ἐν πόλει μήτε ὡς λέων ἀναστρέφου μήτε ὡς κώνωψ· τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐκπατεῖται τὸ δὲ καιροφυλακεῖται.

[1353] Seneca well expresses the difference on this point between Epicureans and Stoics in the passage quoted, p. 320, 3.

[1354] Plut. Tranq. An. c. 2, p. 465.

[1355] Epic. in Sen. Ep. 29, 10: Nunquam volui populo placere; nam quæ ego scio non probat populus, quæ probat populos ego nescio. Similar expressions from Stoics have been previously quoted.

[1356] Diog. 121: καὶ μόναρχον ἐν καιρῷ θεραπεύσειν [τὸν σοφόν]. Lucr. v. 1125:—

Ut satius multo jam sit parere quietum,
Quam regere imperio res velle et regna tenere.

[1357] Epict. Diss. i. 23, 3 (against Epicurus): διατὶ ἀποσυμβουλεύεις τῷ σοφῷ τεκνοτροφεῖν; τί φοβῇ μὴ διὰ ταῦτα εἰς λύπας ἐμπέσῃ; ii. 20, 20: Ἐπίκουρος τὰ μὲν ἀνδρὸς πάντ’ ἀπεκόψατο καὶ τὰ οἰκοδεσπότου καὶ φίλου. The last words prove with what caution these statements must be taken.

[1358] Diog. 119. The passage is, however, involved in much obscurity, owing to a difference of reading. The earlier text was: καὶ μὴν καὶ γαμήσειν καὶ τεκνοποιήσειν τὸν σοφὸν, ὡς Ἐπίκουρος ἐν ταῖς διαπορίαις καὶ ἐν ταῖς περὶ φύσεως. κατὰ περίστασιν δέ ποτε βίου οὐ γαμήσειν. Cobet reads instead: καὶ μηδὲ γαμήσειν μηδὲ τεκνοποιήσειν τὸν σοφόν ... κατὰ περίστασιν δέ ποτε βίου γαμήσειν. What the MS. authority for this reading is, we are not told. In sense it agrees with Hieron. Adv. Jovin. i. 191, quoting from Seneca, De Matrimonio: Epicurus ... raro dicit sapienti ineunda conjugia, quia multa incommoda admixta sunt nuptiis. Like riches, honours, health, ita et uxores sitas in bonorum malorumque confinio, grave autem esse viro sapienti venire in dubium, utrum bonam an malam ducturus sit.

[1359] Plut. Adv. Col. 27, 6; De Am. Prol. 2, p. 495; Epictet. Diss. i. 23, 3.

[1360] Diog. 10: ἥ τε πρὸς τοὺς γονέας εὐχαριστία καὶ ἡ πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς εὐποιΐα. Diogenes himself appeals to Epicurus’ testament, ibid. 18.

[1361] Diog. 120: καὶ τὴν φιλίαν διὰ τὰς χρείας [γίνεσθαι] ... συνίστασθαι δὲ αὐτὴν κατὰ κοινωνίαν ἐν ταῖς ἡδοναῖς. Epic. Ibid. 148 (also in Cic. Fin. i. 20, 68): καὶ τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς ὡρισμένοις ἀσφάλεαν φιλίας μάλιστα κρήσει δεῖ νομίζειν συντελουμένην. (Cobet, however, reads: φιλίας μάλιστα κατιδεῖν εἶναι συντελυμένην, in which case φιλίᾳ should be substituted for φιλίας or else κτήσει for κατιδεῖν.) Sen. Ep. 9, 8: The wise man needs a friend, non ad hoc quod Epicurus dicebat in hac ipsa epistola (a letter in which Stilpo’s cynical self-contentment is blamed), ut habeat, qui sibi ægro adsideat, succurrat in vincula conjecto vel inopi; sed ut habeat aliquem, cui ipse ægro adsideat, quem ipse circumventum hostili custodia liberet. Cic. Fin. i. 20, 66: Cum solitudo et vita sine amicis insidiarum et metus plena sit, ratio ipsa monet amicitias comparare, quibus partis confirmatur animus et a spe pariendarum voluptatum sejungi non potest, etc. On the same grounds, Philodem. De Vit. ix. (V. Herc. iii.) col. 24, argues that it is much better to cultivate friendship than to withdraw from it.

[1362] Cic. Fin. i. 20, 69.

[1363] Ibid. 70.

[1364] Ibid. 67.

[1365] The same need finds expression in the advice given by Epicurus (Sen. Ep. 11, 8; 25, 5): Let every one choose some distinguished man as his pattern, that so he may live, as it were, perpetually under his eye. Man requires a stranger to give him moral support.

[1366] As illustrations in modern times, the reunions of the French freethinkers, or the societies of Rousseau, Mendelssohn, Jacobi, may be mentioned. It deserves notice that in these societies, as amongst the Epicureans, an important part was played by women. This is quite natural, when philosophy is confined to cultivated intercourse and conversation.

[1367] Diog. 148: ὧν ἡ σοφία παρασκευάζεται εἰς τὴν τοῦ ὅλου βίου μακαριότητα πολὺ μέγιστόν ἐστιν ἡ τῆς φιλίας κτῆσις. Cic. Fin. ii. 25, 80: Epicurus exalts friendship to heaven. In Diog. 120, Cobet reads instead of the usual φίλον τε οὐδένα κτήσεσθαι [τὸν σοφὸν], which is altogether untrustworthy, φίλων τε οὐδὲν κτήσεσθαι.

[1368] Sen. Ep. 19, 10, with the addition: Nam sine amico visceratio leonis ac lupi vita est.

[1369] Plut. Adv. Col. 8, 7; Diog. 121. We have no reason to suppose, with Ritter, iii. 474, that this was not the expression of a real sentiment. That it is inconsistent we can well allow.

[1370] The Epicureans in Cic. Fin. i. 20, 65: At vero Epicurus una in domo, et ea quidem angusta, quam magnos quantaque amoris conspiratione consentientes tenuit amicorum greges! quod fit etiam nunc ab Epicureis. Ibid. ii. 25, 80.

[1371] Instances have already been quoted, p. 418, 2, of the extravagant honours required by Epicurus; nor did he fail to eulogise his friends, as the fragments of his letters to Leontion, Themista, and Pythocles (Diog. 5) prove. When Metrodorus had tried to obtain the release of a captive friend, Epicurus applauded him (Plut. N. P. Sua. Vivi, 15, 5, Adv. Col. 33, 2): ὡς εὖ τε καὶ νεανικῶς ἐξ ἄστεως ἅλαδε κατέβη Μίθρῳ τῷ Σύρῳ βοηθήσων. Ibid. 15, 8, he expresses his thanks for a present: δαΐως τε καὶ μεγαλοπρεπῶς ἐπεμελήθητε ἡμῶν τὰ περὶ τὴν τοῦ σίτου κομιδὴν, καὶ οὐρανομήκη σημεῖα ἐνδέδειχθε τῆς πρὸς ἐμὲ εὐνοίας. He wrote of Pythocles before he was 18: οὐκ εἶναι φύσιν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Ἑλλάδι ἀμείνω, καὶ τερατικῶς αὐτὸν εὖ ἀπαγγέλλειν, καὶ πάσχειν αὖ τὸ τῶν γυναικῶν, εὐχόμενος ἀνεμέσητα εἶναι πάντα καὶ ἀνεπίφθονα τῆς ὑπερβολῆς τοῦ νεανισκοῦ (Plut. Adv. Col. 29, 2); and he also said (Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας, Fr. 6, V. Herc. v. 2, 11): ὡς διὰ Πυθοκλέα τύχην θεώσει παρὰ τὸ τεθεμισμένον. Compare the remarks on p. 488, 3.

[1372] Diog. 11: τόν τε Ἐπίκουρον μὴ ἀξιοῦν εἰς τὸ κοινὸν κατατίθεσθαι τὰς οὐσίας καθάπερ τὸν Πυθαγόραν κοινὰ τὰ τῶν φίλων λέγοντα, ἀπιστούντων γὰρ εἶναι τὸ τοιοῦτον· εἰ δ’ ἀπίστων οὐδὲ φίλων.

[1373] Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας (V. Herc. v. 2), Fr. 15; 72; 73, mentions Epicurus and Metrodorus as patterns of genial frankness towards friends. Probably the words in Sen. Ep. 28, 9—initium salutis est notitia peccati—are taken from a moral exhortation addressed to a friend.

[1374] Not only does Diogenes 9, praise his unequalled benevolence, his kindness to his slaves, and his general geniality, but Cicero calls him (Tusc. ii. 19, 44) vir optimus, and (Fin. ii. 25, 30) bonum virum et comem et humanum.

[1375] Diog. 118: οὔτε κολάσειν οἰκέτας ἐλεήσειν μέντοι, καὶ συγγνώμην τινὶ ἕξειν τῶν σπουδαίων. 121. ἐπιχαρίσεσθαί τινι ἐπὶ τῷ διορθώματι.

[1376] Plut. N. P. Suav. Vi. 15, 4 (similarly C. Princ. Philos. 3, 2, p. 778): αὐτοὶ δὲ δήπου λέγουσιν ὡς τὸ εὖ ποιεῖν ἥδιόν ἐστι τοῦ πάσχειν. Conf. Alex. Aphr. Top. 123. A similar maxim is attributed by Ælian, V. H. xiii. 13, to Ptolemy Lagi. Conf. Acts xx. 35.

[1377] Cic. Fin. ii. 25, 81: Et ipse bonus vir fuit et multi Epicurei fuerunt et hodie sunt, et in amicitiis fideles et in omni vita constantes et graves nec voluptate sed officio consilia moderantes. Atticus is a well-known example of genuine human kindness and ready self-sacrifice, and Horace may be also quoted as an illustration of the same character. See Steinhart’s remarks, l.c. p. 470.

[1378] See p. 445.

[1379] Conf. p. 126, 2, with 439, 1.