Controversial Blements 
 
 In Xucretius 
 B^ (3eoroe p. Echman 
 
a^^ ^,.,^ ^^<^ — i^/y^-"'^ 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/controversialeleOOeckmrich 
 
^ntxoi?tx0iat ^^tmrnte in Bucre^iue 
 
 A THESIS 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 Doctorate in pbiloeopbi? 
 
 BY- 
 
 GEORGE P. ECKMAN 
 
 APPROVED BY THE EACULTY OE THE GRADUATE SCHOOL 
 OE THE XEW YORK CXIVERSITY, rSgy 
 
 Nkw York 
 1899 
 
El ^T]6ev r]\kas al twv (j.€T€(dp(ov viro\|/Cai t|v«x\ovv 
 Kttl al irepl Gavdrov, |xir'] iroTe irpos rifids rj ti, €Ti t€ to 
 }iT) Karavoeiv tovs opovs twv d\'YT]86va)v Kal twv eiriOv- 
 (i,iwv, ovK dv irpocre8e6|ie8a 4>v(rio\o-Yias. 
 
 'EiriKOvpov Kvpiai A6|ai, XI. Dioi^encs La erf ins. X. 142. 
 
 Printed for the author by 
 
 Charles B. Jackson, 
 
 New York. 
 
CONTEXTS. 
 
 -3611 
 
 Table of Contents. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Ap Contemporary Interest in Epicureanism. 
 
 Character of the period. Causes of the apparent neglect of 
 Lucretius by his contemporaries. Influence of Epicureanism 
 upon cultivated Romans. Reasons for Cicero's comparative 
 silence regarding Lucretius. Recognition of the poet by 
 later generations. 
 
 (§) A Preliminary Question. 
 
 To what extent did Lucretius pursue original investigations .' 
 The poets devotion to Epicurus. Evidences of servile imita- 
 tion. Marks of independent treatment of physical pheno- 
 mena. No extreme position tenable. Divisions of the present 
 discussion. 
 
 L Philosophers With Whom Lucretius Contends Amicably. 
 
 Respects for early physicists. The main contention. 
 
 7. Einpedocles. Object of Lucretius' admiration. Internal 
 evidence that Lucretius studied the works of Empedocles. 
 Halliers proofs. Similarity of literary style. Rhetorical 
 imitations. Doctrinal agreement. Resemblances in explana- 
 tions of physical phenomena. Unquestioned indebtedness of 
 Lucretius. Hostility to Empedocles as representative physi- 
 cist designating one or more substances primordial matter. 
 Various points of conflict. Void and motion. Incompetent 
 primordia. Fallibility of the senses. Mortality of the soul. 
 Teleology. 
 
 2. Anaxagoras. Evidence of high esteem of Epicurus for 
 Anaxagoras. Common ground occupied by Anaxagoras and 
 Atomists. General lines of divergence. Sympathy of Lucre- 
 tius with Anaxagoras. Instances in proof. The doctrine of 
 the homoeorneria the real issue between Lucretius and Anaxa- 
 goras. The theory expoundetl. Objections of Lucretius. 
 Void ignored. Infinite divisibility of body. Defective pri- 
 mordia. Secondary qualities in primitive matter. Minima. 
 A pair of dilemmas. 
 
2 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LITRETIIS. 
 
 J. Democi-itus. The obligation of Epicurus to the philoso- 
 pher of Abdera. Ingratitude of the former. The more 
 commendable spirit of Lucretius. Eulogistic lines. Traces 
 of the pressure of Democritus upon Lucretius'. Harmony of 
 general principles. The doctrine of emanations. The suin- 
 vium bonum. The sexual passion. Earthquakes. ImitJttions 
 of Democritus. The extent of Lucretius' acquaintance with 
 his writings. Chief doctrinal disagreement. Atomic declina- 
 tion. Free-will. Arguments of Epicurus and Lucretius. 
 Minor occasions of controversy. Infinity of number and 
 shapes of atoms. Constitution of the soul. Origin of verbal 
 designations. The rising of the Nile. The gods. 
 
 II. Philosophers Toward Whom Lucretius Is Hostile. 
 
 The censoriousness of Epicurus emulated by Lucretius. 
 
 1. Heraclilus. Alone denounced by name. Taunt of ob- 
 scurity. Avowed reason for the animosity of Lucretius to- 
 ward Heraclitus the latter's assertion that fire is the original 
 essence from which everything has been derived. Order of 
 Lucretius' arguments. Is the poet's treatment of Heraclitus 
 just? Character of his elemental fire. Hypothesis of conden- 
 sation and rarefaction. Void eliminated. Change by extinc- 
 tion. Doctrine of the senses. Transmutation of primitive 
 matter. Heraclitus and the Stoics. 
 
 2. The Stoics. Antagonism of Lucretius an inherited pas- 
 sion. Mutual calumnies of the Stoics and Epicureans. 
 Irrepressible conflict on the subject of nature. Specific 
 points of eontroversy. Properties and accidents. Corporeal- 
 ity and reality. Elemental fire. The structure and course 
 
 • of the universe. Infinity of space and matter. Theory of 
 centripetal force. Immortality and divinity of the world. 
 Cosmic systems. The world as a living organism. Destrulc- 
 tibility of the world. Theological positions. The character 
 and functions of deity. Stoic ideas of creation and provi- 
 dence incompatible with the supreme repose and happiness 
 of the gods. Likewise disproved by the imperfections of 
 creation. The desire to deliver men from the fear of divine 
 interference the basic reason for Lucretius' argument against 
 Providence, Only valid ground for scientific study. Final 
 cause denied. True philosophy of the gods. Myth of 
 Kybele. Epicureans and Stoics in relation to popular re- 
 ligion. Stern denunciation of prevalent superstition. Ap- 
 parent inconsistency of Lucretius. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY, 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 OF THE CHIEF WORKS CONSULTED IN THIS DISCUSSION. 
 
 Diogenes Laertius — De Vitis /'^//oj'fl/>^fl/7/w,Tauchnitz.Leipsic, 1895. 
 Cicero, IMarcls Tlllius — De Xatura Deonim. De Finibus, etc., 
 
 Teubner, Leipsig, 1894. 
 Ritter' et Preller — Historia Philosophiae Graecae, 7th Edition, 
 
 Gothae, 1888. 
 Mlnro, H. a. J. — 7\ Lucreti Can De Return Naiura, Text, Notes, 
 
 etc., 4th Ed., Cambridge, 1893. 
 Zeller, E. — Pre-Socratic Philosophy; Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, 
 
 London, 1892. 
 
 Usexer, Hermann — Epicurea, Leipsig, 1887. 
 
 Teuffel, W. S. — History of Roman Literature, London, 1873. 
 
 Fairbanks, Arthur — The First Philosophers of Greece, New 
 York, 1898. 
 
 Sellar, \V. Y. — Roman Poets of the Republic, 3d Edition. Ox- 
 ford. 1889. 
 
 Hallier, Aemilius — Lucreti Carmina e Fragmentis Empedoclis Adum- 
 brata, Jena, 1857. 
 
 MoMMSEN, Theodor — Historv of Rome. New York, 1875. 
 
 Masson, John — The Atomic Theory of Lucretius, London, 1884. 
 
CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETH'S. 
 
 CORRIGENDA. 
 
 P. 8, note 2, read //«rz>7//> instead o{ plurimus; consul ere not consider e. 
 
 P. 9, line 4, read Catius Insuber. 
 
 P. 26, line 26, read Katroi instead of Kalrot. 
 
 P. 29, line 13, read 'EiiireSoKXei; dva-yKatov for avaYKaiov. 
 
 P. 30, line 3, read queunt instead of quent. 
 
 P. 31, line 9, read crreCpots instead of o-Teipois. 
 
 line 22, read -yvuvol instead of ^jjivvol. 
 
 line 23, read ircviiTevovTa instead of ir€VT]T€vovTa. 
 P. 32, line 22, read ^■x\<r\ instead of <|)tioI. 
 P. 38, line 27, read t6 6)jiokO(iep6s instead of t6 onoioptepeia. 
 P. 46, line I'], read deprauare instead q>{ depniare. 
 P. 68, line 10, read pcpXois instead of pcpXiois. 
 P. 75, line 7, read irpwrov instead of irpwTwv. 
 
 P. 81, line I, read nuriquam instead o{ nemquatu ; remove p)eriod after 
 Chtysippam. 
 
 line 2, read vocabat instead of vocebal. \ 
 P. 82, note 2, read Praefatio instead o{ Prefatio. 
 P. 90, line 18, read tovtwv instead of tovwv, 
 P, 103, line II, read irpdXritl/is instead of irpdXiiilJis. 
 
CDNTRDYERSIAL ELEMENTS 
 
 IN 
 
 LUCRETIUS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 Contemporary Interest in Epicureanism. 
 
 It cannot be denied that the poem of Lucretius failed to awaken any 
 marked interest until long after its publication. The almost unbroken 
 silence of his contemporaries regarding him is significant of the com- 
 parative indifference with which his production was received. The 
 reasons for this neglect are various and not far to seek. In the first 
 place the moment was inopportune for the appearance of such a work. 
 "It was composed in that hapless time when the rule of the oligarchy 
 had been overthrown and that of Caesar had not yet been established, 
 in the sultry years during which the outbreak of the civil war was 
 awaited with long and painful suspense." ^ The poet betrays his sol- 
 icitude for the welfare of his country at this crisis in the introduction 
 of his work, in which he invokes the aid of Venus in persuading Mars 
 to command peace — 
 
 Efficc ut inter ea f era moenera militiai 
 
 Per maria ac terras omnis sopita quiescani '^ — 
 
 and acknowledges that his attention is diverted from literary labors by 
 
 the exigencies of the state : 
 
 N^am neque nos agere hoc patriai tempore iniquo 
 Possumus aequo animo nee Memmi clara propago 
 Talibiis in rebus comrnuni desse saluti. '' 
 
 Munro believes these lines were written toward the close of 695, 
 when Caesar as consul had formed his coalition with Pompey and 
 when there was almost a reign of terror.* The reflection of a state of 
 
 1 Monimseii, Hist. Rome, IV, p. 698 (Eng. Tr. ). 
 
 ' I. 29. 30. 
 
 M. 41-43- 
 
 ^Muiim. Luiictiiis. II. p. 30. 
 
6 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 tumult and peril is equally obvious in the opening verses of the second 
 book, where the security of the contemplative life is contrasted with 
 the turbulence of a political and military career.' Particularly signifi- 
 cant are the lines : 
 
 Si non forte tuas legiones per loca campi 
 Fervere cum videas belli simulacra cientis, 
 Subsidiis magnis et ecum vi constabilitas, 
 Ornatasque armis statuas pariierque animatas, 
 His tibi turn rebus timefactae religiones 
 Effugiunt animo pavide ; mortisque timores 
 Turn vacuum pectus lincunt curaque solutum, 
 Fervere cum videas classem lateque vagari} 
 
 It can readily be appreciated that a period of such fermentation 
 and alarm would afford opportunity for philosophic study to those 
 alone who were able to retire from political excitements to private 
 leisure and quiet. Moreover the very characteristics of the Epicurean 
 philosophy would recommend it chiefly to persons of this description. 
 Participation in public life was distinctly discouraged by the school 
 of Epicurus, who regarded the realm of politics as a world of tumult 
 and trouble, wherein happiness — the chief end of life — was almost, if 
 not quite, impossible. They counselled entering the arena of public 
 affairs only as an occasional and disagreeable necessity, or as a pos- 
 sible means of allaying the discontent of those to whom the quiet of 
 a private life was not wholly satisfactory.'' Such instruction, though 
 phrased in the noble hexameters of a Lucretius, was scarcely calculated 
 to enjoy immediate popularity in the stirring epoch of a fast hurrying 
 revolution.^ 
 
 1 Sellar, Rommi Pods of the Republic, p. 290. 
 
 2 II, 40-47. " Caesar after his consulship remained with his army for three 
 months l)efore Rome, and was bitterly attacked by Memmius. Does Lucretius here 
 alhide to Caesar? " Munro, II, p. 122. 
 
 •^ Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 491, 3, 6. 
 
 * " In consequence of his mode of thought and writing lieing so averse to his own 
 time and directed to a better future, the poet received little attention in his own 
 age." Teuflfel, Hist. Rom. Lit. I, 201 (Eng. Tr.). "It (Epicureanism) arose in a 
 state of society and under circumstances widely different from the social ar.d 
 political condition of the last phase ol the Roman Republic." Sellar. Roman Poets 
 of the Republic, p. 357. 
 
IXTRODUCTIOX. 7 
 
 A somewhat ingenious, but unsuccessful, attempt has been made to 
 account for the indifference with which Lucretius was treated on the 
 ground of his assault Upon the doctrine of the future life. It has 
 been suggested that as the enmity of the Christian writers was early 
 called down upon his head for this cause, he was likewise whelmed 
 ' ' under a conspiracy of silence on the part of his Roman contempo- 
 raries and successors " for the same reason. ^ But so general was the 
 skepticism of his age on this question, that it is scarcely credible that 
 the publication of his views could have seriously scandalized the cul- 
 tured classes who read his lines. The same judgment will hold true 
 with reference to the entire attitude of Lucretius toward the tra- 
 ditional religion. It is a sufficient answer to the theory that his in- 
 fidelity created antipathy toward him to record the fact that Julius 
 Caesar, than whom no more pronounced free-thinker lived in his day, 
 was, despite his skepticism, pontifex maxi'mus of the Roman common- 
 wealth, and did not hesitate to declare in the presence of the Senate 
 that the immortality of the soul was a vain delusion.^ That he rep- 
 resented in these heretical opinions the position of many of the fore- 
 most persons of the period is the testimony of contemporary literature. 
 
 Shall we not find the better reason for the apparent neglect of 
 Lucretius in the era immediately following the issue of his poem in 
 the fact that there was no public at this juncture for the study 
 of Greek philosophy clothed in the Latin language .? Cicero, who de- 
 voted himself with the zeal of a patriot to the creation of a philosoph- 
 ical literature in his native tongue, complained of the scant courtesy 
 paid to his efforts. Xon eram nescius. Brute, cum, quae summis in- 
 geniis exquisitaque doctrina philosophi Graecn sermone tractavisseni, ea 
 Latinis Uteris mandaremus, fore ut hie noster labor in varias reprehen- 
 siones incur reret. Nam qiiibusdam, et Us quidem non admodum indoctis, 
 totum hoc displicet, philosophari. Quidam autem non tam id reprehendunt, 
 si remissius agatur, sed tantum studium tamque muUam operant ponendam 
 in eo non arbitrabantur. Erunt etiam, et ii quidem eruditi Graecis Utter is, 
 contemnentes Latinas, qui se dicant in Graecis legendis operant maUe 
 consumer e. Postremo aliquosfuturos suspicor, qui me ad aUas Utter as vocent, 
 
 * This is the view advanced by R. T. Tyn-il of the University of Dublin. See 
 his LiiUn Poc'try, p. 74, (Houjrhton, Mifflin & Co., N. Y., 1895). 
 ^ Merivale. History of the Romans. If. p. 354. 
 
8 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 genus hoc scribendi, etsi sit elegans, personae iamen et digtiiiatis esse 
 negent.^ Yet this work, as he explains in his De Divinatione,'^ 
 was undertaken with the commendable purpose of benefitting 
 his countrymen. He anticipated with delight the advantages 
 which would accrue to them when his researches were com- 
 plete. Magnificum illud etiam Romanisque hominibus gloriosum, ut 
 Graecis de philosophia litteris no?i egeant. ^ And later he reaped his re- 
 ward in an awakened interest in the subjects of his studious inquiries. 
 But he was compelled in the beginning to cultivate a sentiment in 
 behalf of those investigations. Lucretius addressed himself to an un- 
 sympathetic public, and was likewise required to wait for applause 
 until a' more appreciative generation rose up to do him honor. 
 
 Yet it must not be supposed that Epicureanism exercised a feeble 
 influence over the thought of cultivated Romans in this period of 
 their history. The very theme which engaged the genius of Lucretius 
 had also employed the energies of predecessors and contemporaries. 
 Among attempts of this character were the De Rerum Natura of 
 Egnatius, which appeared somewhat earlier than the work of Lucretius ; 
 the Empedoclea of Sallustius mentioned by Cicero in the much dis- 
 cussed passage relating to Lucretius; and a metrical production en- 
 titled De Rerum Natura by Varro.* Commentaries on the principles 
 of Epicureanism had also been extant for some time. Chief among 
 the authors of such compositions was Amafinius who preceded 
 Lucretius by nearly a century. Our knowledge of him is mainly 
 derived from Cicero, who says : C Amafijiius exstitit dicens cuius libris 
 editis commota multitudo contulit se ad eain potissimum disciplinam} 
 Rabirius is also mentioned by the same author as belonging to that 
 class of writers, Qui nulla arte adhibita de rebus ante oculos positis vol- 
 
 * Dc Finilnts, I, i. 
 
 ^ Quaercnti mihi vmltumquc d diu cogitanti, quanotii re possem prodesse qtiam plu- 
 rimus, ne quando intervdtterem considere reipubiicae, nulla niaior occurrebat^ quam si 
 optimaruni artiwn vias traderevi vicis civibus; quod conpluribus iam libris me arbitror 
 conseciiturn. . . . Quod enim munus rei publicac adferrc mains nieliusve pos- 
 s tonus , quam si docemus at que erudimus iuveiitutem^ his praesertim in or i bus at que 
 iemporibus, qtdbus ita prolapsa est, etc. II, I, 2. 
 
 ^ De Divinatione, II, 2. 
 
 ^ Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 278. 
 
 ^ Acad. I, 2, 5. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 gari sermone disputant.^ Rabirius indulged in a popular treatment 
 of philosophy and covered much the same ground as Amafinius. 
 Another contributor to the literature of Epicureanism whom Cicero 
 records in no complimentary way is Catius — Catius insuber, Epicur- 
 eus, quinuper est vioriuus, quae ille Gargettius et iam ante Democritus ctSuXa, 
 hie spectra nominat. ^ 
 
 The interest in this school of philosophy among Romans of the 
 time of Lucretius is further apparent in the prominence which cer- 
 tain Epicurean teachers attained. Conspicuous among them is Zeno 
 the Sidonian, whose lectures Cicero in company with Atticus had at- 
 tended on the occasion of his first visit to Athens, 79 to 78 B.C., 
 whom he calls the prince of Epicureans in his De Natura Deorum,'^ 
 and wliose instruction is doubtless liberally embodied in Cicero's 
 discussions of the system of Epicureanism.* Contemporary with 
 Zeno was Phaedrus/ who had achieved distinction in Athens and 
 Rome, in both of which places Cicero studied under his direction. 
 Somewhat later Philodemus^ of Gadara appeared in Rome, and is 
 mentioned by Cicero as a learned and amiable man. The consider- 
 able body of writings bearing his name found in the Volumina Her- 
 culanensia'^ indicates his position among the philosophic instructors 
 of his day. Scyro * a follower of Phaedrus, said to have been the 
 teacher of Vergil ; Patro * the successor of Phaedrus, who taught in 
 Athens; and Pompilius Andronicus,^" the grammarian who gave up his 
 j)rofession for the tenets of Epicurus, were eminent also at this period. 
 
 Partly as a result of the activity of these teachers of philosophy, and 
 partly on account of the prevailing anxiety to arrive at some satis- 
 factory scheme of life, the number of disciples of Epicurus steadily 
 increased at this time, and included not a few illustrious names. 
 
 »7>/j6. Disp., IV, 6. 
 
 ■'Ad Fam.. XV, 16, 2. 
 
 ^I. 21. Cf. Diogenes Laertius. X, 25. 
 
 * Rilter et Preller, Hist. Phil. Graec, 447. a. 
 -^Ad Fam., XIII, i. 
 
 ^De Fin., II, 35, 119. 
 
 • Ritter et Preller, Hist. Phil. Graec, 447, a. 
 ^Ad. Fam., VI. ii. 
 
 ^Ad. Fam., XIII, i. Ad Attic, V, 11. 
 
 ^•^Zeller. Stoics. Fpicnreans and Sceptics, p. 414, i. 
 
lO CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 These are known to us chiefly through the writings of Cicero/ who 
 mentions T. Albutius, Velleius, C. Cassius, the well-known conspirator 
 against Caesar, who may himself be classed among those who had 
 lost confidence in the gods/ C. Vibius Pansa, Galbus, L. Piso, the 
 patron of Philodemus, and L. Manlius Torquatus. Other notable 
 personages are apparently regarded as Epicureans by Cicero, but 
 grave doubts have been expressed concerning their real attitude 
 toward the school. It is barely possible that Atticus may justly be 
 denominated an Epicurean, for he calls the followers of Epicurus 
 nostri familiar es^ and condiscipuli.* But his eclectic spirit would 
 seem to forbid his classification with any single system, and Zeller^ 
 feels that neither he nor Asclepiades of Bithynia, a contemporary of 
 Lucretius, who resided at Rome and was associated with Epicureans, 
 can be regarded as genuine disciples of Epicurus. 
 
 The discussions of the Epicurean philosophy in De Natura Deorwn, 
 De Finibus and other works of Cicero evince the profound interest he 
 had in the school, though his general attitude was one of unfriendli- 
 ness. What reason, then, we may ask, can be given for his almost 
 uninterrupted silence concerning Lucretius } The only reference we 
 have to the poet in all Cicero's voluminous compositions occurs in a 
 letter to his brother Quintus,* four months after the death of Lucretius, 
 in which he says, Lucretii poemata, ut scribis ita sunt: viultis lunmiibus 
 ingenii, viultae etiam artis; sed cum veneris virum te putabo, si Sallustii 
 Empedoclea legeris, hominem non putabo. These words certainly imply 
 that both Marcus and Quintus had read the poem, and many scholars 
 accept the statement of Jerome in his additions to the Eusebian 
 chronicle — quos Cicero emendavit — as applying to Marcus.' But if he 
 was closely enough identified with the work of Lucretius to edit his 
 manuscript, why in those writings wherein ample opportunity was af- 
 forded, did not Cicero mention his labors in the field of philosophy .? 
 
 ^ Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 414, 3. 
 ■^Merivale, Hist. Rom., II, pp. 352, 3. 
 ^De Fin., V, i, 3. 
 ^Legg., I, 7» 21. 
 
 '^Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 415. 
 ^Ad Quint ton, II, II. 
 
 ^ Munro (II, pp. 2-5) who discusses this question with his usual lucidity, inclines 
 to the opinion that Jerome, following Suetonius, has indicated M. T. Cicero as the 
 
INTRODUCTION. I I 
 
 This is a particularly pertinent inquiry in view of the fact that he does 
 speak of Amafinius, Rabirius and Catius, as we have already observed, 
 and that he devoted so much attention to the discussion of Epicur- 
 ean principles. Munro answers this question by declaring that it was 
 not Cicero's custom to quote from contemporaries, numerous as his 
 citations are from the older poets and himself; that had he written 
 on poetry as he did of philosophy and oratory, Lucretius would have 
 undoubtedly occupied a prominent place in the work, and that more 
 than once in his philosophical discussions Cicero unquestionably re- 
 fers to Lucretius.^ Munro is not alone in contending that the liter- 
 ary relations between Lucretius and Cicero were more or less intimate. 
 Other critics have traced to Cicero's Aratea important lines in 
 Lucretius, while many passages in Cicero closely resemble utterances 
 of the poet. Martha quotes several remarkable parallels between De 
 Finibus and various lines in Lucretius.^ But it is argued on the other 
 hand no less vigorously that didactic resemblances prove nothing, ex- 
 cept that Lucretius and Cicero wrought from like sources their several 
 Latinizations of Greek philosophy. 
 
 And herein there is suggested a possible explanation of Cicero's ap- 
 parent indifference to the poet, whether he did him the favor of edit- 
 ing his verse or not. Cicero had made an earnest study of Greek 
 philosophy long before the poem of Lucretius had been introduced 
 to his notice. He had resorted to original authorities for informa- 
 tion concerning Epicureanism. Zeno the Sidonian and Philodemus 
 of Gadara, as already noted, had supplied him with much material. 
 Everywhere in his philosophical works there is evidence that he re- 
 garded himself a sort of pioneer in this peculiar field of investigation. 
 
 editor of Lucretius, and that this was the real fact. Sellar, Roman Poets of the 
 Republic, pp. 284-6, though suspending judgment does not deny the probability 
 that M. T. Cicero performed this favor for Lucretius. Teuffel, Hist. Rom. Lit., 
 I, 201, 2, while expressing doubt concerning the evidence of Cicero's connection 
 with the poem, declares that at any rate his " part was not very important, and it 
 might almost seem that he was afraid of publishing a work of this kind." Prof. E. 
 G. Sihler, N. Y. University, presents an argument of great force against the prob- 
 ability of Cicero's editorship. See Art. Lucretius and Cicero. Transactions Amer- 
 ican Philological Association^ Vol. XXVIII, 1897. 
 
 1 Munro, II. pp. 4, 5. 
 
 ^ M. Constant Martha, La: L^oeme de Lucrece, quoted in Lee's Lucretius, p. xiv, I. 
 
12 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 and therefore deserving of the pre-eminence therein. He d()u])tlcss 
 placed no importance upon any Latin writings beside his own which 
 treated of this class of Greek culture. Indeed the references which 
 he has made to persons engaged in an undertaking similar to his own 
 are in no instance flattering. And Lucretius would only be esteemed 
 by him a competitor in the same department of inquiry, who wrote 
 in Latin verse instead of Latin prose. 
 
 Keeping these facts in mind the comparative silence of Cicero re- 
 garding Lucretius does not seem wholly incompatible with the theory 
 of his editorship. He was himself an expositor of Epicurus — and 
 that too of the hostile kind. He had " popularized the Epicurean 
 doctrines in the bad sense of the word," and had thrown "a 
 ludicrous color over many things which disappear when they are more 
 seriously regarded. " ^ Yet his opposition to the tenets of Epicurus 
 would not preclude him from friendly association with many who 
 professed them, and if asked to lend his name to the publication of 
 Lucretius' verses, there could be no reason for withholding it. But 
 if his antagonism to Epicureanism would lead him to speak against 
 the doctrines of the poem, his admiration for the literary excellences 
 of the work, as exhibited in his willingness to stand sponsor for its 
 issue, would deter him from adverse criticism. Silence in such a 
 case is the best evidence of friendship. 
 
 Mommsen ^ remarks that "Lucretius, although his poetical vigor 
 as well as his art was admired by his cultivated contemporaries, yet 
 remained — of late growth as he was — a master without scholars." 
 But with increasing knowledge in what is best in Epicurus and a 
 finer taste to appreciate the moral and literary virtues of Lucretius, 
 subsequent generations gave ample recognition to the poet. Horace 
 and Vergil were greatly influenced by him, particularly the latter, who 
 is supposed to refer to Lucretius in the famous lines : 
 
 Felix qui potuii rerum cognoscere causas\ 
 Atque metus omnes et inexorabile fatum. 
 Subiecit pedihus strepitumque Achernntis avari.'^ 
 
 1 Lanjje, History of Materialism. I. p. 127 (Eng. Tr.). 
 =* Hist. Rome, IV, p. 699. 
 ^ Georgica, II. 490 2. 
 
INTRODUCTION. I 3 
 
 Ovid pronounced words of high eulogy upon him : 
 
 Carmina sublimis tunc sunt peritura Lucre tt 
 Exitio terras cum dabit una dies. ^ 
 The persistency of the Epicurean school of philosophy despite perse- 
 cution and opposition down to the fourth century A. D. demon- 
 strates its marvelous vitality and the almost deathless influence of 
 the personality of Epicurus, whose single mind projected its grasp 
 upon human thought throughout the whole existence of the sect. 
 And not the least important agent in affecting this result, because of 
 his almost idolatrous devotion to his master and the persuasive charm 
 of his lines, was the poet Lucretius. 
 
 A Preliminary Question. 
 
 Before entering specifically upon an examination of the contro- 
 versial elements in Lucretius, it will be important to inquire to what 
 extent, if at all, the poet may be regarded an independent worker in 
 the field he has chosen. One is impressed from the very beginning 
 of his study of Lucretius with his profound moral earnestness. He 
 is impelled by an absorbing passion to emancipate the human spirit 
 from the terrors induced by the fear of death and the tyranny of super- 
 stition The constantly recurring application of his doctrines to the 
 soul of the convert he hopes to make leads him into frequent rep- 
 etitions of his constant aim, and should dissuade the student of 
 Lucretius from attaching too much significance to his iterations else- 
 where. In the scheme of the poem Epicurus is the savior of man- 
 kind, and Lucretius is his prophet. His entire energy seems to be 
 devoted to the effort to render intelligible the process of Epicurean- 
 ism in delivering men from irrational terrors. It is pertinent, there- 
 fore, to inquire whether it is probable that a man of such missionary 
 zeal, who is consumed with a desire to propagate the theories of his 
 master, would go out of his way to study other systems of philosophy. 
 Is it not natural to infer from our knowledge of his characteristics 
 that his acquaintance with rival schools of thought would be mainly, 
 if not exclusively, derived from a perusal of Epicurus, and that he 
 would deal with them from the traditional Epicurean point of view } 
 
 ' Amor.. I. 15. 2' 
 
14 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 In short are there any evidences that Lucretius engaged in independ- 
 ent research, when he undertook his exposition of philosophic 
 doctrines ? 
 
 Scholars have arrayed themselves in extreme positions on this 
 question. Woltyer ^ of Groningen represents one leading view, and 
 maintains that Lucretius gave himself utterly to the Latinization of 
 Epicurus. In support of this theory there are undeniably strong 
 declarations in the poem. The exordia of Books III, V, VI, furnish 
 ample marks of the almost slavish devotion of Lucretius to his master, 
 and the whole poem breathes the same spirit. He professes only to 
 imitate the peerless Epicurus : 
 
 E tenebris iantis tam clarum extollere lumen 
 Qui primus potuisti inlustrans commoda vitae, 
 Te sequor, o Graiae gentis decus, inque tiiis nunc 
 Ficta pedum pono pressis vestigia signis, 
 Non ita certandi cupidus quam propter amorem 
 Quod te imitari aveo."^ 
 He sees in him the highest human intelligence : 
 
 Qui genus humanum ingenio super avit et omnis 
 Restincxit, stellas exortus ut aetherius sol. ^ 
 His glory can never fade : 
 
 Cuius et extincti propter divina reperta 
 Divolgata veius iam ad caelum gloria fertur.^ 
 No honor can be too great for such a man : 
 
 Nam si, ut ipsa petit maiestas cognita rerum, 
 Dicendum est, deus ille/uit, deus, inclyte Memmi.^ 
 Hence Lucretius will follow him explicitly : 
 
 Cuius ego ingressus vestigia dum rationes 
 Persequor ac doceo dictis, quo quaeque creata 
 Foedere sint^ 
 
 ^Lucretii philosophia cum fontibus comparata, Groningae, 1897. 
 
 -' in, 1-5. 
 -^ III, 1043, 4. 
 
 * VI. 7. 8. 
 
 ^ V, 7, 8. 
 •'V, 55-7. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 1 5 
 
 It is apparent from the whole tenor of his production that Lucretius 
 makes no claim to originality, his frequently avowed purpose being 
 to disclose the method of Epicurus for the redemption of the race. 
 
 Moreover such a procedure is in perfect accord with the conven- 
 tional usages of the Epicurean school, among the disciples of which 
 there was mere dogmatic iteration of the original propositions of Ep- 
 icurus. The Kvpiai 8<S|ai, quoted by Diogenes Laertius,^ were preserved 
 expressly to be stored away in the memory of his adherents. So con- 
 vinced was he of the value of his doctrines that he required not only 
 these fundamental aphorisms, but whole summaries of his philosophy 
 to be learned by rote.^ His last words were : t«v Soy^iAruv \u\ivr\<rBa\,.^ 
 Such was the extravagant honor conferred upon Epicurus by his dis- 
 ciples that not only was his birthday observed by them during his 
 lifetime, but the twentieth of each month was kept in celebration of 
 him and Metrodorus.* Following the exhortation of a master to 
 whom he was so deeply attached, Lucretius would be disposed to 
 cling tenaciously to the expressed tenets of Epicurus, and would not 
 be inclined to venture beyond them. 
 
 This tendency to adhere inflexibly to the teachings of their founder, 
 was manifest in the remarkable sterility of production among later 
 Epicureans, from the death of the master to the age of Cicero. This 
 barrenness is particularly noticeable when contrasted with the fruit- 
 fulness of the Stoic school during the same period, as witness the 
 names Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Boethus, Panaetius, Posidonius and 
 others.^ One reason for this unproductiveness lies in the fact that 
 Epicurus, while he dogmatically laid down his atomistic physics, had 
 at the same time a positive aversion to precise, specific, detailed study 
 of natural phenomena, as it is best seen by a close examination of 
 the letter to Pythocles, in which he summarily disposes of the 
 questions relating to rd \uTiu>pa.^ A survey of this presentation of the 
 Epicurean doctrines on the facts of nature reveals a feeling that 
 
 Wiog. Laer., X, 139-154. 
 
 •^Ib., 12, 35, 83. 85. 116. 
 
 V/i., 16. 
 
 ♦ Zeller, Epicureans^ Stoics and Sceptics, p. 418. 2. 
 
 ^Ritter et Preller, Hist. Phil. Graec. 422-26, 
 
 **Diog. Lat-r.. X. 84. sqq. 
 
1 6 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 exact scientific knowledge is both impracticable and unnecessary. In 
 a g-iven case a variety of reasons may be offered in explanation, and 
 the student is at liberty to take his preference.^ Without an earnest 
 purpose to study the facts of nature until they disclose the one and 
 only interpretation for each phenomenon, there can be no real 
 progress in science. The instances are not wanting in which a little 
 deeper penetration into these facts of the universe on the part of 
 Lucretius would have announced to the world in his day discoveries 
 which were reserved to a much later period of time. 
 
 So convinced are some critics that Lucretius made no advance 
 upon Epicurus, but contented himself with a servile Latinization of 
 his Greek master's productions, that they even assert he obtained his 
 account of the plague at Athens from Epicurus and not from Thu- 
 cydides. But from this extreme statement there seems to be reason 
 for dissent. Would Epicurus, who was himself an Athenian resident, 
 living but a hundred years after Thucydides, misunderstand the 
 historian as Lucretius gives evidence of doing ? A comparison of 
 Thucydides II, 47-54 with Lucretius VI, 1 138-1286, will show sev- 
 eral instances in which the poet has either wilfully or ignorantly mis- 
 represented his model. For example observe the difference between 
 this declaration of Thucydides — twv 7c dKpwTHpiwv dvT(\ti>|/is avrov 
 liria-f][i.aiv€' KaWo-KirirTC -Yap Is alSota Kal €s aKpas x<^P°-^ '^°-^ ir68as, Kal iroXXol 
 o-Tcpko-Koixevoi TovTwv 8i€()>v-Yov, elo-l 8* ot KOLi T«v 6(|>6aXp,wv~ — and the verses 
 of Lucretius on the same matter : 
 
 tamen in nervos huic morbus el artus 
 Ibat et in partis genitalis corporis ipsas. 
 Et graviter partim metuentes limina leti 
 Vivebant ferro privali parte virili, 
 Et nianibus sine nonnulli pedibusque manebant 
 In vita tamen et perdebant lumina partim : 
 Usque adeo mortis mortus his incesserat acer. ^ 
 In view of the intense desire of Lucretius to turn to account every 
 opportunity to point a moral, is it not possible that he purposely 
 
 ^ Compare the statements of Epicurus recorded by Diogenes Laertius, X, 91-115, 
 witli Lucretius VI. Cf. E. G. Sihler, Transactions Am. Phil. Ass., 1898. 
 Wc- Bfllfl Pi'lopomh'siaco. II. 40. 7. 8. Cf. Munro. II. jip. 301-401. 
 •^ VI. 1206 12. 
 
INTRODUCTION. IJ 
 
 perverted this passage from Thucydides in order to reinforce his position? 
 The misery of the plague-stricken victims was such that suicide would 
 seem to be reasonable and desirable ; b\it fear of death — that ever- 
 present terror of men's lives — withheld them from this and induced 
 them to deprive themselves of certain diseased members that life 
 might be prolonged. 
 
 There is another extreme view regarding the question under dis- 
 cussion, which is represented by those scholars who maintain that 
 Lucretius was a man of great independent research. These men 
 light uncritically upon any point of doctrinal identity, particularly in 
 Book VI, and forthwith are eager to ascribe original investigation to 
 Lucretius.' There can be no doubt also that "he was endowed not 
 only with the poet's susceptibility to the movement and beauty of the 
 outside world, but also with the observing faculty and curiosity of a 
 naturalist ; " "^ but it must be ever kept in mind that distinctive Ep- 
 icureanism does not consist of the study of the minutiae of physical 
 facts for the purpose of presenting a well articulated system of natural 
 philosophy, but is practically the metaphysical employment of ob- 
 served phenomena to demonstrate the folly of fearing the gods or 
 death. It is necessary always to differentiate the -yvifjo-ios <()v<rioXo'yCa of 
 Epicurus, which is substantially given in Books I to earlier parts of V, 
 from the specific elucidation of physical phenomena in Book VI, which 
 agrees, so far as these are concerned, with the letter to Pythocles.^ Un- 
 questionably in the field of physical research Lucretius does evince 
 some traces of independent investigation. But there is little if any 
 evidence that in what may be called the true Epicureanism he is sim- 
 ilarly self-reliant. 
 
 As to the general question of originality of treatment, it is clear 
 that a middle ground between the extreme positions herein illustrated 
 must be adopted. Some personal study of Empedocles, as will be 
 
 ^ Vide Paulus Rusch : De Posidonio Lucreti Carl Auctore in Carmine De Rerutn 
 Natura VL, Greifswald, 1882 [a doctor's dissertation], who tries to trace points 
 in Book VI even to Posidonius. Rusch is evidently aware of his oddity, for on 
 p. 51 he says : Vaide temerarius fortasse visits sum, quod temptavi carminis poetae 
 Romani, quern strenuum Epicureum fuisse viri docti persuasum habebant vel etiam 
 Stoicum auctorem monstrare. 
 
 - Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 2Q2. 
 
 '^Dios^. Lner.. X. 84. sqq. 
 
I 8 CONTROVERSIAL ELKMF.XTS IX LUCRETIl'S. 
 
 seen hereafter, must be accredited to Lucretius. And doubtless 
 other philosophers, such as Democritus, Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, and 
 even Plato, were investigated by the poet for himself.' Still it must 
 al\va)'s remain true that the chief service which Lucretius rendered to 
 philosophy was the presentation in an attractive form of the teachinj^s 
 of Epicurus, who, to judge from his literary remains, was utterly in- 
 capable of producing an exposition of his creed so admirable in every 
 way as that contained in the De Rerum Xatura.'^ Lucretius perhaps 
 added nothing of importance to the Epicurean system, but he im- 
 parted a wondrous vitality and buoyancy to its heavy, mechanical 
 doctrines. 
 
 An emphatic variation is observable in the position which Lucretius 
 assumes towards the leaders of the several schools of philosophy 
 which he criticises. The bulk of his discussion touching these 
 schemes of thought is found in Book I, though marks of controversy 
 are discoverable throughout the entire poem. In these polemical 
 passages Lucretius occasionally exhibits a spirit alike friendly and ap- 
 preciative towards the champions of faiths hostile to his own, though 
 more frequently he inveighs bitterly against those whose doctrines 
 oppose the tenets of Epicurus. In this disposition to treat fairly his 
 antagonists, the disciple excelled the teacher ; for Epicurus had ap- 
 parently become so blinded by personal vanity, and so intoxicated by 
 the idolatry of his followers, as to be no longer able to discern any 
 feature of excellence outside his own narrow circle of speculation. 
 Lucretius, on the other hand, shows a commendable desire to give 
 honor to whom honor is due. It will perhaps facilitate our discus- 
 sion of the controversial elements in Lucretius if we consider first 
 those points of contact between the poet and the subjects of his 
 criticism which reveal a sentiment of friendliness, and secondly 
 those which betray an unmistakable attitude of hostility. 
 
 * Munro. II, p. 9. 
 
 2 Mas son. Atomic Theory of Lucretius, p. 4. 
 
PRE-SOCRATIC PHYSICISTS. 
 
 Philosophers with whom Lucretius Contends Amicably. 
 
 In placing his discussion of the Pre-Socratic Physicists in the very 
 fore- front of his poem Lucretius has shown a distinctive trait of his 
 school, which is also amply illustrated in the Volumina Herculanensia ; 
 for Epicurean teachers were evidently in the habit of commencing an 
 exposition of their own doctrines by making a criticism upon other 
 systems of natural philosophy.^ But mere conformity to a tradi- 
 tional method is not a sufficient explanation of the poet's introduc- 
 tion of controversy at such an early stage in the development of his 
 theme. There was an immediate occasion to justify the procedure. 
 Lucretius has sometimes been accused of being too belligerent, of 
 forcing a conflict when the reasons for warfare were somewhat 
 obscure.^ Perhaps he does sometimes bristle with steel when no 
 enemy is visible, but surely this complaint cannot be lodged against 
 him with propriety in this instance. For the long polemical section 
 beginning at I, 635, appears to arise out of the very necessities of 
 Lucretius' argument. It must be remembered that his chief aim is 
 to cleanse human life and deliver the soul of man from the terrors of 
 superstition, which he believes are engendered by ignorance of the 
 constitution of nature, of the origin of the material universe and of 
 the causes of natural phenomena. These mental disturbances are 
 only to be conquered by letting in the light of reason upon the pro- 
 cesses of nature. 
 
 Hunc igitur terrorem animi tenebrasque necessest 
 Xon radii solis neque lucida tela diei 
 Discutiant, sed naturae species ratioque — ' 
 
 is the burden of the refrain he loves to repeat But in order to 
 establish knowledge, it is first necessary to make inquiry into the 
 
 ' Stickney, De Natura Deorum, p. 23. 
 
 '^ Sellar, Roman Poets of t lie Republic, p. 298. 
 
 146-8 ; II. 59-61 ; III, 91-3 ; VI, 39-41. 
 
20 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 primary principles of being. Now from the earliest times the effort 
 of all framers of ontological systems has been to discover the original 
 substance or substances from which all existing things have come 
 into being. And a great variety of results have been reached by the 
 investigations of primitive philosophers. Lucretius discards the 
 findings of all these researchers except Democritus, and cordially fol- 
 lowing Epicurus in this regard, adopts the atomistic theory, which is 
 attributed to Leucippus and Democritus jointly, and declares that 
 the original substances are atoms and the void — arofia Kal k€v6v — 
 materies et inane. He then proceeds to lay down and demonstrate 
 his propositions relative to the constitution of matter. He enunci- 
 ates the two great laws of nature : 
 
 Nullam rem e nilo gigni divinitus unquam, ^ 
 
 In sua corpora rursum 
 Dissoluat natura neque ad nilum inter emat res. '^ 
 
 He expounds the nature of the atoms, and asserts their eternity, 
 solidity, indivisibility, and then pauses to enter upon a controversy 
 with those philosophers whose theories are utterly irreconcilable with 
 his own. This appears to be unavoidable with a man of his earnest- 
 ness. He evidently feels that until these false teachings have been 
 neutralized he cannot proceed with his constructive argument. 
 
 However he does not treat all of these notable predecessors with 
 unmitigated severity. Indeed in some instances his considerateness 
 amounts to praise : 
 
 Quaviquam viulta bene ac divinitus invenientes 
 Ex adyto tamquam cordis responsa dedere 
 Sanctius et multo certa ratione viagis quam 
 Pythia quae tripode a Phoebi lauroque profatur, 
 Principiis tamen in rerum fecere ruinas 
 Et graviter magni magno cecidere ibi casu. ^ 
 
 But he is emphatic in denunciation of their theories. He breaks 
 with all the early Ionic and Eleatic philosophers, Thales, Anaximenes, 
 
 ' 1, 150. 
 'I, 215, 16. 
 :n, 736-41. 
 
PRE-SOCRATIC PHYSICISTS. 21 
 
 Pheiecydes, Xenophanes, Parmenides and the rest, who call any one 
 or more substances original matter. The names of these thinkers are 
 not mentioned by Lucretius, but he distinctly condemns their 
 physical doctrines. 
 
 Quapropter qui materiem rerum esse putarunt 
 Ignem aique ex igni summam consistere posse, 
 Et qui principium gignundis aera rebus 
 Constituere, aut umorem quicumque putarunt 
 Fingere res ipsum per se, terramve creare 
 Omnia et in rerum naturas vertier omnis, 
 Magno opere a vera longe derrasse videntur. 
 Adde etiam qui conduplicant primordia rerum 
 A era iungentes igni terramque liquori, 
 Et qui quattuor ex rebus posse omnia rentur 
 Ex igni terra atque anima procrescere et imbri. ^ 
 
 I. Empedocles. 
 
 The occasion of Lucretius' attack upon Empedocles, if it can 
 properly be denominated such, is the position which he occupies 
 among those physicists who have named one or more substances as 
 primordial matter. Were it not for this we may well conjecture that 
 Lucretius would have paid an honest tribute of respect and obligation 
 to this illustrious sage and passed on to other subjects of criticism. 
 But he regards Empedocles as the most dominant figure among those 
 philosophers who make a combination of certain substances their 
 original matter.^ And in this he is unquestionably correct. Aris- 
 totle bears witness to the fact that Empedocles first declared that 
 there were four elements, to which Plato subsequently gave the des- 
 ignation <rToix€ia.^ 
 
 '£S6k€i 8c avT(p rdSc* Sroixc^a (icv ctvai T^rrapa, irvp, vScap, "yfiv, dcpa* 
 4>iXiav T€ ^ (riryKpCvcrai, Kal vciKos J 8iaKp(v€Tai. «^T^<rl 8 ' ovtw, 
 
 Zcvs dp-yr^s, "Hpn T6 <|Kp4orPios, t|8 * ' A'i8a»v€vS) 
 Nt^o-tis 9 ', i\ 8aKpvois ^iriiriKpoi ^)t|ia ppdrciov. 
 
 * I, 705-15- 
 
 2 Quorum Acragatttinus cum primis Empedocles est. I. 716. 
 
 'Ritter et Preller, Hist, Phil. Graec, 131, a. 
 
2 2 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 A(a |i6v, TO irvp \iy<av "Hpnv $€, tt)v yf\v' 'A'CSwvca 8c, tov dc'pa* Ni]<rTiv Si, 
 TO vSwp' ^ 
 
 Holding such principles Empedocles would inevitably fall under 
 the censure of Lucretius. Yet his position is exceptional. He is 
 the only philosopher among those from whom the poet differs, with 
 whose name laudation is coupled. But warm and enthusiastic is the 
 eulogium of Lucretius upon him. He is the chief glory of the won- 
 derful three-cornered Sicilian isle, — 
 
 Quae cum magna modis multis miranda videtur 
 Gentihus humanis regio visendaque fertur. 
 Rebus opima bonis, multa viunita virum vi, 
 Nil tanien hoc habuisse viro praeclarius in se 
 Nee sanctum magis et mirum carumque videtur. 
 Carmina quin etiam divini pectoris eius 
 Vociferantur et exponunt praeclara reperta, 
 Ut vix humana videatur stirpe creatus. ^ 
 
 But more significant than any verbal praise which Lucretius be- 
 stows upon Empedocles is the internal evidence which his poem dis- 
 closes of his affectionate study of the philosopher, and his copious 
 use of the style of utterance and philosophical conceptions of Em- 
 pedocles, notwithstanding the general disagreement between their 
 doctrines. Lucretius was greatly indebted to Empedocles in various 
 ways. He doubtless regarded the irepV <j>v»o-6«s of the latter as in some 
 sense his poetic model. ^ The genius of Empedocles was celebrated 
 by Aristotle, and may well have influenced the character of Lucretius' 
 composition. *Ev 8c tcJ ircpl irotTjTav ^ryrKv, oti Kdi 'O^iipiKos 6 'EjiireSoKXfis, 
 KOLi 8€iv^ irepl ttiv <{>pdoriv "y^-yove, |JLCTa4>opiK6s tc «v, koLi tois dXXois tois ircpl 
 iroiT^TiKTiv liriTcv-yiJiao-i xp^^H-^vos.* In view of the fact that critics have 
 been able to designate verses in both authors which bear a distinct 
 Homeric ^ flavor, we may infer, perhaps, that the influence of 
 Empedocles upon Lucretius was even more subtle than the latter 
 
 ^Diog. Laer., VIII, 76. 
 
 2 1, 726-33. 
 
 ^ Munro, II, p. 90. Cf. Il>., p. 32. 
 
 *Diog. Laer., VIII, 57. 
 
 = Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 302, 
 
EMPEDOCLES. 23 
 
 was himself aware. But the traces of a more direct influence are 
 abundant. The first fundamental principle, which Lucretius estab- 
 lishes at the outset of his argument, is that nothing can be created 
 from nothing by divine agency ; and the second is like unto it, that 
 nothing already in existence can ever be annihilated. But the very 
 content and form of these propositions reflect the doctrine of 
 Empedocles. 
 
 Nullam rtm e nilo gigni divinitus unquam, 
 
 was evidently suggested by the lines of the older poem ircpl <|)v<r6«s : 
 
 Ik tov •ydp jiTj covTOs dji-^xaviv Itrrt -ycvco-Oai 
 TO T khv l|6\Xv<r0ai dWjw<rTov Kal airpTiKTOv.^ 
 
 What has the appearance of generation and decay in the view of Em- 
 pedocles is in reality but combination and separation. And with 
 this view Lucretius agrees perfectly, the arguments which he ad- 
 dresses in defense of his theory being both interesting and pertinent.'"' 
 We are indebted to Aemilius Hallier ^ for an exhaustive presenta- 
 tion of the evidences of Lucretius' familiarity with Empedocles. 
 This painstaking writer has collated a considerable body of passages 
 from the two poets which amply justify the opinion that the De 
 Reruni Natura owes much to the irepl <|>v(r€(i>$, both in literary style and 
 in philosophic material. There exists, for example, a similarity of 
 grammatical and rhetorical forms in these productions which is 
 worthy of remark. Both poets are also given to an almost excessive 
 use of iteration, Lucretius in particular being prone to this habit. 
 Again, both freely employ tmesis, another indication, perhaps, of 
 the influence of the Homeric verse upon Empedocles who studied it. 
 Then, too, there are palpable imitations of the elder poet in the 
 phraseology of Lucretius. Compare the following lines : 
 
 avrdp l^u iroXivopcos IXcvo-Ofiai 4s iropov vp.va)v.^ 
 
 Sed nunc ut repetam coeptum pertexere dictis. ^ 
 
 ^ Emped., 48. 49, Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 300. 
 
 n, 159-328. 
 
 '^ Lucreti Carmina e Fragrnentis Empedoclis Adumbrata, Jena, 1857, (A doctor's 
 dissertation). 
 
 * Emped., 169, Hallier. p. 13. 
 '"> Lun-ef.. I, 418. 
 
24 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 •yt-yvovT* avOpwiroC t€ Kal aXXwv cOvca Oriptav.^ 
 
 Et genus humanum, parit omnia saecla ferarum^ 
 
 Again, there are instances of the employment of identical similes 
 by both poets : 
 
 . . . Y% tSpttra OdXeuro'av.' 
 
 expressus salsus de corpore sudor. ^ 
 
 Munro ^ has pointed out that the lines — 
 
 Nee tamen hanc possis oculorum subdere visu 
 Nee iacere indu manus, via qua munita fidei 
 Proxima fert humanum in pectus templaque mentis — ® 
 
 are translated from this passage of Empedocles : 
 
 o^K (lo-Tiv ircXdo-ourO ' ovS ' o<)>6aXp,oi<riv 4<)>ikt6v 
 *T)|MT4pois i) X<P^^ XaPckv T)ircp -yc (icYCorrt) 
 irciOovs dvdp<&iroia-iv d^o^ir^ els <|>p^va irCirrci.^ 
 
 But the marks of doctrinal agreement in the works of these poet- 
 philosophers are even more significant than resemblances of compos- 
 ition. While Empedocles and Lucretius differ on many of the 
 questions involved in their several discussions of the nature of things, 
 there are not a few notable points of coincidence in their writings. 
 They are of one mind touching the eternity of matter : 
 
 <|>vo'is oiScvds l(rriv &irdvT<i>v 
 6vi)T«v, 6v84 Ti$ 6vXo(Uvov OavdroLO tcXcvt^, 
 . . . ^v<ris 8 * lirV rois ovo^id^crai dv6pwiroKriv.^ 
 
 Quod si in eo spatio atque anteacta aetate fuere 
 E quibus haec rerum consistit summa re/ecta, 
 Immortali sunt natura praedita certe, 
 Haut igitur possunt ad nilum quaeque reverti. 
 
 ^ Emped., 115, Hallier. p. 13. 
 
 '^Lucret., II, 995. 
 
 '^Emped., 165. 
 
 ^Lucret., V, 487. 
 
 5 II, 290. 
 
 '^Lucret., V, 101-3. 
 
 '^Emped., 356. 
 
 8//^., 36. 37, 39, Hallier, p. 15. 
 
EMPEDOCLES. 25 
 
 Denique res or/mis eadem vis causaque volgo 
 Conficeret, nisi inateries aeterna teneret. 
 Inter se nexu minus aut magis indupedita. ' 
 
 Cognate with this doctrine is the theory of the constancy of the 
 sum of matter in the universe, on which they are agreed: 
 
 oiS^ Ti Tov iravT^s kcvc6v iriXct ovSc ircpi,<r<r6v. 
 TovTO 8 ' lirav|TJ<rcu to irdv ti k€ Kal ir66cv l\66v ; 
 ITT] $€ Kc Kal diroXoiar ' \ circl tmvS ' ovSiv cpt^iiov. 
 dXX' avT ' 60-TIV ravra."'' 
 
 Xam neque adaugescit quicquam neque deperit inde. 
 
 Xec rerujH summani commutare ulla potest vis; 
 Na/n neque quo possit genus ullum mater iai 
 Effugere ex omni, quicquam est extra, neque in omne 
 Unde coorta queat nova vis inrumpere et omnem 
 Xaturam rerum mutare et vertere motus. ^ 
 
 There is reason to suppose that the doctrine that the soul is blood, 
 to which Lucretius * refers, is derived from Empedocles, who says : 
 
 al^a -ydp avOpwirocs ircpiKdp8i6v lo-ri, vdT))ia.^ 
 
 They are in accord also on the doctrine that all things came into ex- 
 istence by the conjunction or combination of the eternal and infini- 
 tesimal semina. 
 
 dXXd )mSvov |ii|i$ Tc 8idXXa|is re (ii^^vtuv 
 Io-tI.« 
 
 certa suo quia tempore semina rerum 
 Cum confluxerunt, patefit quodcumque creatur. '' 
 
 In their explanations of the phenomena of nature there are likewise 
 important resemblances in Empedocles and Lucretius. The eclipse 
 of the sun affords this parallel : 
 
 ^Lucret., I, 234-40. 
 
 '^Etnped. 91-94, Hallier, p. 16, 
 
 •''Linret.. TI. 2Q0. 303-307. 
 
 Mil. 43- 
 
 '^Emped.. 317, Munro. II, p. 179. 
 '^Kiiipt'd.. 38, 39. Hallier, p. 22. 
 'f.iici\'t.. I. 176^ F77. 
 
26 CONTROVERSIAL KLKMENTS I\ LrCRETIL'S. 
 
 iirccTKCcurcv $€ ol' av'yds 
 i(rTa|i4vT) Ka6vircp6cv, iin<rKvL^aa-t 8« ^adis, 
 T6<r<rov So-ov r' cxipos ^XavKMiriSos SirXcro )ik^vi)s.* 
 
 .Vam cur /una queat terram secludere solis 
 Lumine et a terris altum caput obstruere ei, 
 Obiciens caecum radiis ardeniibus orbem. * 
 
 The growth of plants and trees is explained in a similar fashion by 
 
 each : 
 
 'E|&ircSoKX4)s irpwra rd 84vSpa t»v t<i>wv 4k -yf^s dvaSvveu <t>'n(ri, irplv rhv t)Xiov 
 mpiairXMOt^vai KaV irplv T)|&4pav Kal vvKxa SiaKpi6{)vai* Sid 8< o-viip^rpCav rfjs 
 Kpd(r<«»S rhv rov &ppcvos Kal rov 0^Xco$ ircpUxctv X^yov* a{}|c<r6ai 8c viro rod Iv tq 
 Y^ 6cp|tov 8iaip6|jKva, »<rT€ ^f^s clvai pipt^, KaOdircp Kal rd cfiPp\>a rd kv r^ Ycurrpl 
 
 Tf\S IJlVJTpaS Ji^pTJ.'' 
 
 Principio genus herbarum viridemque nitoreni 
 Terra dedit circum collis camposque per omnis, 
 Florida fulserunt viridanti prata colore, 
 Arbor tsque datumst variis exinde per auras 
 Crescendi magnum inmissis certamen habenis. 
 Ut pluma atque pili primum saetaeque creantur 
 Quadripedum membris et corpore pennipotentum. 
 Sic nova tum tellus herbas virgultaque primum 
 Sustulit, inde loci mortalia saecla creavit 
 Multa modis multis varia ratione coorta. * 
 
 Lightning is explained by both as the result of fire submerged in 
 clouds : 
 
 Kalroi rivis Xfyovciv ms Iv rots yk^wxv \:>(>{iyvTOx irvp* tovto 8' 'E|jLirc8oKX{^s 
 (i4v <|>T](riv (tvai TO {(iircpiXap.pavdiicvov tmv tov ^iXCov dKrCvwv.^ 
 
 Hac etiam fit uti de causa mobilis ille 
 Devolet in terram liquidi calor aureus ignis, 
 Semina quod nubes ipsas permulta necessust 
 Ignis habere; etenim cum sunt umore sine ullo, 
 Flammeus est plerumque colos et splendidus ollis. 
 
 ^Emped., 157-9, HalUer, p. 31. 
 
 '^Lucret., V, 753-5. 
 
 ^Plac, V, 26. 4 Dox., 438, Ritteret Preller, 136. 
 
 ^Lucret., V, 783-92. 
 
 ^Aristotle, Meteor. TI, 9. p. 369. B. II. quoted by I[<illier. p. 35. 
 
EMPEDOCLES. 27 
 
 Quin etiam solis de lumine multa necessest 
 Concipere, iit merito rubeant ignesque pro/undant. * 
 
 Epicurus doubtless borrowed his notion of effluxes^ (&ir6^^iai) from 
 Empedocles to explain the phenomena of perception. o-K6irci 8i| Kar* 
 'EfiircSoKX^a -yvovs Sri xdvrwv cUrlv diroppoal hvv I^^vovto* oi ^dp Xi^fay |idvov 
 ovSc (}>vT»v, ovSc Yf)s Kal 6aXdTTT)$, dXXd Kal X£6ci)v dircuriv IvScXcx^s iroXXd 
 ^vfiara Kal XOwv Kal <ri8^pov.=* These emanations he termed cC8«>Xa, and 
 Lucretius has adopted the same method of accounting for sense per- 
 ceptions, devoting a large proportion of Book IV to the considera- 
 tion of what he denominates simulacra. Sellar* has called attention 
 to the fact that the principle of beauty and life in the universe 
 figures in the verses of both writers under the symbol of the goddess 
 of love— Empedocles employing the form Kvirpi Boo-CXcta ; Lucretius, 
 alma Venus, genetrix. Zeller draws an interesting parallel between 
 the primitive substances of Empedocles (which are subject to no 
 qualitative changes, and combine only through the entrance of the 
 particles of one body into the intervals between the parts of another) 
 and the Atoms and Void of the Democritean system.* Perhaps a 
 similar comparison between the Empedoclean doctrine of Love and 
 Hate and the atomistic theory of the eternal conflict and conjunction 
 would be equally justifiable. rd |i€v (rwp,ariKd o-toix«i«- irout Wrrapa, irvp 
 Kal d4pa Kal vSwp Kal ^f^v, di8ia )uv ^vra irX^Oci Kal oXi^drtiTi, (uraPdXXovra S« 
 Kara tt]v Kry)>{K^\.fr\.v Kal Sidxpuriv, rds $€ KvpCcos dpxdsi v<|> ' wv Kivcirai ravra, 
 <^kXCav Kal vckKos. 8<i -ydp SiarcXctv lvaXXd| K(,v6v|icva ra o-roixcta, irorc fuv viri 
 Ti\s (^kX£a$ (TvyKpiv^iicva, irorc Sc viro rov vcCkovs SiaKptv6|i€va.*^ Compare 
 this statement with the lines of Lucretius — 
 
 ^Lucret., VI, 204-210. 
 
 '^Diog. Laert., X, 46-53. 
 
 '^Plutarch, Qu. Nat., 19, 3, in Rilter et Preller. 132 h. Cf. Zeller, Pre-Socratic 
 Philosophy, II, p. 165. 
 
 ^ Roman Poets of the RepublL-, p. 300. Cf. Hallier, p. 25. 
 
 ^"This whole theory is closely allied to that of the Atomists. The small, 
 invisible particles take the place of the atoms, and pores the place of void. 
 The Atomists see in bodies a mass of atoms separated by empty inter- 
 spaces ; Empedocles sees in them a mass of particles which have certain openings 
 between them, etc.." Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, II, p. 135. Cf. Munro, 
 II, p. 92. 
 
 ^Simpl. Phys.. 6 v.. 25. 21. D.. in Ritter et Preller. 132 b. 
 
28 CONTKOVKRSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 Nec sic interemit mors res ut material 
 Corpora conficiat, sed coetum dissupat oUis 
 Inde aliis aliud coniungit. ' 
 
 Is there not at least some external resemblance between these declar- 
 ations of the method by which the forces of nature operate ? 
 
 The comparisons thus far instituted by no means exhaust the pos- 
 sibilities of the subject, but are-sufficient to demonstrate the intimate 
 acquaintance of Lucretius with Empedocles, and his indisputable 
 obligation to the older poet. The eulogy which he pronounces upon 
 Empedocles is not merely the praise of an admirer ; it is an expres- 
 sion of gratitude from a beneficiary. 
 
 But despite his honorable acknowledgment of the greatness of Em- 
 pedocles, Lucretius is bound in all sincerity to combat certain of his 
 physicial doctrines and deductions as wholly inconsistent with a true 
 philosophy of the universe. Perhaps it would be mt)re just to say 
 that in his strictures upon Empedocles Lucretius is aiming at the 
 whole school of philosophers who name any qualitative substance or 
 substances as primal matter, rather than at a single teacher. Hiese, 
 in his judgment, which he presents with considerable fullness, have 
 all gone astray with regard to primordia. And the arguments ad- 
 duced against one are also valid against all. Yet it is possible in a 
 few instances to distinguish the shafts which are esyjccialiy tlirected 
 toward Empedocles. 
 
 Lucretius, in the first place, condemns the Agrigentine philosopher 
 for denying void, while at the same time he admits motions to 
 things. 
 
 Primum quod motus exempto rebus inani 
 Consh'tuufit, et res mollis rarasque relinquonl, 
 A era solem ignem terras animalia /rugis, 
 Nec tamen admiscent in eorum corpus inane. '^ 
 
 The testimony of Aristotle is clear on this point : cvioi |i€v ovv t«v |/ki| 
 (jxuTKdvTwv €tvai K€vov ovScv 8i(&pi(rav irepl kov<{>ov Kal ^apcos olov Ava^a-yopas 
 KarE|iire8oK\fis.-^ Hut Empedocles is himself equally plain: 
 
 1 II. 1002-4. Cf. TI. 560-80. 
 
 -'1. 742-45- 
 
 '/X- Caelo, TV. 2, 300. // i<). Ritter et I'lvllrr. 132 f. 
 
EMPEDOCLES. 29 
 
 oiSi Ti Tov iravT^ kcvc^v ir^Xci ov8< ircpuro'6vJ 
 
 This position Lucretius rightfully regards as incongruous. Indeed, 
 as already indicated, the Empedoclean doctrine of primitive sub- 
 stances and their method of combination leads logically and almost 
 inevitably to something very much akin to the atomistic hypothesis. 
 For atoms minute particles of matter are substituted, and for void 
 we have pores or interstices Combination is effected according to 
 a certain elective affinity, like particles being attracted by like and 
 dissimilar particles being mutually repellent. Notwithstanding the 
 palpable resemblances thus exhibited, Empedocles rejects the funda- 
 mental principles of the atomists, an inconsistency which Aristotle 
 was quick to discover. 
 
 (TXcSov 8c Kttl 'E|iirc8oKXci dvaYKaiov X^civ, «*<rircp Kal AtvKi'irir6% <^<riv. 
 clvai ^dp arra trrcpcd, dSiatpcra Si, li fit) irdvn] ir6poi <rvv€xcts cl<riv.^ 
 
 Lucretius furthermore exposes the fallacy of assigning softness to 
 primordia and still supposing them immortal. 
 
 Hue accedii item, quoniam primordia rerum 
 Mollia constituunt, quae nos nativa videmus 
 Esse et mortali cum corpore /unditus, utqui 
 Debeat ad nilum iam rerum summa reverti 
 De niloque renata vigescere copia rerum.^ 
 
 This disastrous conclusion Empedocles distinctly disavows : 
 
 4>v<rk$ ovS€v6s ^o-Tiv dirdvTwv 
 6tnf]TMv, ovSc Tis ovXofUvov davdroio tcXcvt-/]. 
 CK Tc -ydp ovSd)& ' 46vto$ d|X'fjxav6v lo-ri -ycvco-Oai, 
 Kal T khv €^airoX4<r6ak dv^wcrov Kal dirvo-rov. 
 alf|/a 8< OWJT ' I<^vovto rd irpiv (idOov dBdvar ctvai.^ 
 
 Lucretius next shows the inconsistency of maintaining that all 
 things are made out of four elements and reduced to them again, in- 
 asmuch as in this way the things are the primordia of the elements 
 quite as truly as the elements are of the things. 
 
 ^Emped., 91, in Fairbanks' First PhilosopJiers of Greece^ p. 168. 
 ^Aristotle, Gen. et Corr., I, i, 325 b, 5, in Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, II, 
 p. 136. 2. 
 
 'I. 753-57. 
 
 ^Emped.. 77. 78, 81. 82. 178. Fairbanks, pp. 162. 164, 180. Munro, II, p. 93. 
 
3© CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 Denique quattuor ex rebus si ctmcta creantur 
 Atque in eas rursum I'es omnia dissoluimtur , 
 Qui niagis ilia queunt rerum primordia did 
 Quam contra res illorum retroque putari? 
 Alternis gignuntur etiit?i inutantque color em 
 Et totam inter se naturam tempore ah omni. ^ 
 
 Lucretius also contends more pointedly against the Heracliteans, 
 perhaps, than against Empedocles, though the latter must be par- 
 tially intended/ that the supposed process from fire to air, water, 
 earth, and thence in reverse order, involves the theory that the 
 primordia must be distinct from these elements and unchangeable, 
 otherwise all things would ultimately be annihilated.* 
 
 Lucretius and Empedocles took opposite positions with reference 
 to the value of the perceptions as media of knowledge. The former 
 declared the senses to be infallible guides to truth. 
 
 Non modo enim ratio ruat omnis, vita quoque ipsa 
 Concidat extemplo, nisi credere sensibus ausis. * 
 
 The latter asserted that the senses are wholly unreliable, and en- 
 joined men to acquire knowledge of the nature of things by 
 reflection. 
 
 d\X' a-y' apOci irdo-n iroXdfi^f] ■nr\ SfiXov ^Kaorrov, 
 }iif)TC Tiv* 5<|;iv 6\«v irCo-Tci irX^ov y\ Kar* aKOVT)v 
 [i.'^T * dKOT]v IpCSovirov virip rpavMiiara •yXwarcT)? 
 (jf^T€ Ti Twv dXXwv, oirocwv irdpos ko-xX vofi<rai, 
 yyimv irCcTTiv SpvKC, voei 8* ]| S-^Xov (Jkcuttov.'^ 
 
 Lucretius maintains that the soul perishes with the body and em- 
 ploys much labor and ingenuity to make good his argument.* But 
 Empedocles taught the doctrine of a future life and the transmigra- 
 tion of spirits. 
 
 1 1, 763-68. 
 
 2 Hallier, p. 20, insists that Lucretius refers in this passage to Heraclitus alone. 
 but Munro, II, p. 95. says Empedocles was also included. 
 
 3 1, 782-802. 
 *IV, 507-8. 
 
 ^Emped., 19-23, in Fairbanks' First Philosophers of Greece, p. 160.' 
 « III, 417 829. 
 
EMPEDOCLES. 3 1 
 
 t]8n "Yap iroT e-yw -ycvoiiT^v KOvpiSs t€ Kopt] tc 
 
 ddflVOS T OIWVOS TC Kttl €lv &\l cXXoiTOS Ix®*'**' 
 
 Lucretius agrees with Empedocles in the theory that Nature tried 
 many experiments and constructed many malformations, which were 
 doomed to destruction, before she hit upon perfection in the variousi 
 species. 
 
 iroXXd |i,6v dfi(|>iirp6ar(i)ira Kal dp.<|>iarTcpv' I4>vovto, 
 
 ^u\k\.y^liva Ti] |i,€v dir ' dvSpwv, 
 Txi 8c YV^<'^^Ko4>vii, OTTcipois f|arKT](icva •yviois.^ 
 
 With this declaration of Empedocles may be compared a passage 
 from Lucretius too lengthy for quotation in this place, but equally 
 explicit on the same theory.^ But Lucretius condemns centaurs and 
 other beings of a two-fold nature as impossible/ though Empedocles 
 does not hesitate to affirm his credence in them : 
 
 Pov-ycvTi dvSpoirpwpa, rd 8* cfiiroXiv 4|avCTc\Xov 
 dv8po<|>ufi PovKpava.' 
 
 Lucretius likewise dissents entirely from the doctrine that primary 
 bodies worked teleologically, an idea which Empedocles embraces 
 with enthusiasm, and the promulgation of which constitutes him ac- 
 cording to Zeller "the earliest precursor of Darwin." * 
 
 iQ iroXXal ficv Kopo-ai dvavxcvcs ^pXdo-rqarav, 
 ^v^vol 8' cirXd^ovTO Ppax^ovcs cvvi8cs wfiwv, 
 op-fiara 8 ' ol ' cirXavdro ir€VT]TCv)OVTa (iCTwircav. 
 
 But Love — ^'A<|»po8iTT] — fashioned these together into comely and ap- 
 propriate unions. 
 
 avrdp ^ircl Kara (uttov cp-icrycro 8aCp.ovi 8aCfi,uv, 
 ravrd tc (rvfiirCirTco-Kov oirr| (ruvcKvpo-cv iKCurra, 
 dXXa TC irpos tois iroXXd 8it]vcki^ cIc-yevovTO.' 
 
 ^Emped., 384, 85. Fairbanks, p. 206. Diog. Laer., VIII, 76. 
 ^Emped., 257. 259, 260. Fairbanks, p. 19O. 
 =^V. 837-54. 
 
 ♦ IV, 878-924. Cf. Munro. II, pp. 328-9. 
 '^Empt'd., 258. 59. Fairbanks, p. 190. 
 ^Pi-e-Socratic Philosophy. II, p. 206. 
 ''Emped.. 244-46, 254-56. Fairbanks, pp. 188-90. Cf. Munro, II, p. 326. 
 
32 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 So Empedocles expresses himself, while Lucretius vehemently de- 
 nounces the doctrine of final causes in a passage * which is directed, 
 as we shall see hereafter, primarily against the Stoics. Faculties and 
 functions were not created for predestined ends, but finding himself 
 possessed of powers and appliances man uses them for his advantage. 
 
 Nil ideo quoniam naiumst in corpore ut uti 
 Possemus, sed quod natumst id procreat usum^ 
 
 It was the habit of the Epicurean school to include Empedocles in 
 the catalogue of philosophers to be derided and condemned, as 
 Cicero and Plutarch testify,* but Lucretius commends the author 
 as much as he combats him, and discloses in his lines an indebted- 
 ness to Empedocles which he is not averse from paying. 
 
 2. Anaxagoras. 
 
 Nunc et Anaxagorae scrutemur homoeomerian 
 Quam Grai memorant nee nostra dicere lingua 
 Concedit nobis patrii sermonis egestas, 
 Sed iamen ipsam rem facilest exponere verbis.^ 
 
 With these words Lucretius introduces a philosopher for whom he 
 has a degree of personal esteem, and with whom the Epicurean 
 school had some natural affiliation. The opinion which Epicurus 
 held concerning Anaxagoras was singularly high. 
 
 MdXio-ra 8' dircS^x^'^^^' ^l^l*^^ ^*'<^*<Ms> rwv dpxaCttv 'Avola-y^pav, KaCroicv ruriv 
 &VTCipi]K«l>S avTw.^ 
 
 In addition to this evidence of his warm regard Epicurus, it 
 has been conjectured, furnishes further proof in the freedom 
 with which in his letter to Pythocles he employs the views of 
 
 ' IV, 823-57. 
 
 nv, 834-5- 
 
 ^ Usener, Epicurea, pp. 175. 10 ; 187. 19. 
 
 * I, 830-32. 
 
 '^Diog. I^er., X, 12. 
 
AXAXAGORAS. 33 
 
 Anaxagoras in settini,^ forth a variety of explanations for remarkable 
 physical phenomena. A comparison of the extant fragments of An- 
 axagoras and the records of his opinions in other writings with cer- 
 tain statements of Epicurus in the document referred to has led to 
 this conviction. Attention has been especially directed by Usener ' 
 to the causes assigned for the rising and setting of the sun, moon 
 and stars ; the intertropical movement of the sun and moon ; the 
 successive phases of the moon ; the apparition of a face in the orb 
 of the moon ; the eclipses of the sun and moon ; and the phenom- 
 ena of lightning, earthquakes and hail.- 
 
 Moreover there is a general sense in which Anaxagoras occupies a 
 common ground with Empedocles, Leucippus and Democntus.^ 
 On the proposition of Parmenides that generation and destruction in 
 the ordinary meaning of those terms are impossible Anaxagoras is 
 in agreement with the Atomists and the Epicureans. With them 
 also he proceeds upon the supposition that there are certain original 
 and immutable substances, out of which were evolved all things by 
 combination and separation in space. There is this fundamental 
 dift'erence, however, between- Anaxagoras and the contemporaneous 
 philosophers with whom he contended: The latter conceived prim- 
 itive matter without the qualities of things in being. Empedocles 
 names four elements distinct in quality. Democritus designates 
 atoms unlimited in form and multitude and alike in quality as 
 primordial matter. Anaxagoras, on the other hand, regards original 
 and elementary substances as possessing all the qualities anti differ- 
 ences of thmgs derived, and conceives them infinite in number and. 
 kind, a theory which creates a radical divergence between himself 
 and the Atomists. 
 
 There is another position which separates Anaxagoras from the 
 systems named. They explain motion, which is the cause of all 
 combination, separation and order in the universe, by forces in- 
 herent in matter; Empedocles by the mythical contrivance of Love 
 and Hate, the Atomists by the force of gravity. But Anaxagoras 
 asserts that motion must be attributed to the operation of immaterial 
 
 '^Epicuvc'a. p. 400. 
 
 -Diog. Liwr.. X. q2-()6. ioi, 105. 106. 
 
 •'•Zeller. IW-Socra/ic Philosophy. II. p. 330. 
 
34 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN Ll'CRETIUS. 
 
 energy, and places Mind — vovs — in opposition to matter as the origin 
 of motion and order. 
 
 In support of the statement that Anaxagoras, like Epicurus, regard- 
 ed generation and destruction as in reality only combination 
 (o-v-yKpwris) and separation (Sidxpio-is), we have the affirmation of the 
 philosopher himself: 
 
 TO Sc yivea-dai Kttl dir6X.Xvo-0ai owk opOus vop.i^ov<riv oi 'TE3\Xtiv€S* ovSev -Ydp 
 X^pf)(j,a 'y(v€Tai ovh\ dir6\XvTai, dXX ' diro Iovtwv \pr]\i.ar(av trv\niLa-yira.L n Kal 
 SiaKpivcrai. Kal ovtojs av 6p6ws KaXouv to t€ "yiveo-Oai o-vp.p,io"Yca-6ai Kal to 
 diroXXvo-Oai 8iaKp£vc(r6ai.' 
 
 On this passage Zeller makes the following comment — "The 
 treatise of Anaxagoras did not begin with these words ; but that is. 
 of course, no reason why they should not form the starting-point of 
 his system.'*'* It has already been shown how fundamental this doc- 
 trine is to the Epicurean philosophy. Indeed ]\Iunro calls this 
 fragment of Anaxagoras " an aphorism which Epicurus might have 
 wholly adopted.''' Aristotle has preserved the following — 
 
 coiKC Se 'Ava|a-Y6pas dircipa ovtws olT)Ot]vai 8id to iiiroXapipdveiv ttjv koivt]v 
 8<S^av Twv ^va-iKtav elvai dXii9f], ws ov 'yivop.evov ovScvos €k tov |it) ovtos' Sta tovto 
 ^dp ovTft) X^-yovo-iv, riv 6p,ov Td irdvTa, Kal to yivurQai ToioiSf Ka9corTt]K«v 
 dXXoiovo-0ai.^ 
 
 In this connection we may also (juotc : 
 
 d»S Kal 'Ava^a-yopas Kal EupiiriSTis* 
 9vTfo-K€i 8' ou8€v Twv y\.yvo\iiv<av 
 8iaKpiv6p.€vov 8' dXXo irpos dXXo 
 
 |iop(|>ds CTc'pas d-Tr€8£i|€v. ' 
 
 In a similar vein are the lines oi' Lucretius alread\- cited : 
 
 Xec sic i7iteremit mors res ut material 
 Corpora conficiat, sed coetum dissupai o//is, 
 Inde aliis aliud coniungH. •^ 
 
 ^Fr. 17 Schorn., Ritter et Preller, iiq. 
 
 -Pre-Socratic Philosophy. II, p. 331. i. 
 
 MI. p. 167. 
 
 ^Phys., I. 4, 187 a, 26. in Ritter et Preller. 120 a. 
 
 '""Piac. V. If), Dox. 430 a. in Ritter et Preller. IIQ l>. 
 
 «II. 1002-4. 
 
ANAXAGORAS. 35 
 
 On the same grounds which enable him to declare against gen- 
 eration and destruction, Anaxagoras asserts his belief in the 
 unchangeableness of the sum of matter. 
 
 TOVTwv Sc ovToi SiaK€Kpi)j.€vcov -yivcGo-Kciv XPT> '^'^*' "f^^vra ovdikv 4Xd(r<r(i> i<rrXv 
 ovBi irXcio). ov -ydp dworrov irdvrwv ir\ti<a ctvai, dXXd trdvTa to-a dcC* 
 
 Epicurus has expressed himself with equal clearness and to the 
 same effect : 
 
 Kttl p,t]v Kttl TO irdv del toiovtov ■^v olov vvv €(rTi, Kttl del toiovtov Icrrai. ov6€v 
 ■ydp €<rTiv €ls o p-cra^aXct. irapd "y^p to irdv ovOc'v 6<rTiv, o av cltrcXOov els avTO 
 TT|v p.cTaPoXi]v iroi'^o-ai.'-' 
 
 Lucretius has embodied the same teaching in lines already cited in 
 connection with our discussion of Empedocles.^ 
 
 That Lucretius had much sympathy with Anaxagoras will become 
 further evident by an examination of a passage in the second book of 
 the De Reriim Natura, in w^hich there is a remarkably close transla- 
 tion of a fragment of the Chrysippus of Euripides, who was a disciple 
 of Anaxagoras. A comparison of the corresponding passages in the 
 two poets reveals the intimacy of Lucretius with the writings of 
 Euripides, and implies some warmth of regard on the part of the 
 latter for the former. Euripides says : 
 
 Fata pc-YicTT] Kal Aios alBrip, 
 6 p€v dv6puira>v Kal Gewv YCVCTup, 
 f| 8' v-ypo^oXovs o-Ta'yovas votiovs 
 irapa8c|a|jL€vT] TiKTti GvaTOvs, 
 tCkt€i 8e ^opdv, <|>vXd t€ 6t]p»v 
 
 oOcv ovK d8iKa)s 
 p'flTT^p irdvTctfv vevopio-Tai. 
 X,(i>p€i 8* oirio-w Td p€v Ik -yaias 
 <|>vvT els "yaiav, Td 8' dir' aldcpCov 
 pXao-TOvTa -yovtis els ovpdviov 
 iroXov TJX9« irdXiv Ovrjo-Kci 8' ov8ev 
 Twv -yi-yvopevwv, 8iaKpiv6pcvov 8 ' 
 
 dXXo irpos dXXov 
 p,op4>T)v l8Cav dir^Scilc/ 
 
 1 Fr. 14 in Ritter et Preller, ico. 
 
 '■Dio^. Laer.. X. 39. 
 
 ^W, 294-307. See p. 25. 
 
 ^Eiiripidis Fras^rut'tita. IVai^mr Ed.. Paris. 1878. Cf. Munro. II. p. 166. 
 
36 rON'IKOVKKSIAI. KI.F.MKNTS IX LICKKIIIS. 
 
 The passa<i^e in Lucretius is as follows: 
 
 Deniqiie caelesti sumus omnes scmind orhmdi ; 
 Omnibus ille idem pater est, unde alma liquentis 
 Umoris guttas mater cum terra recepit, 
 Feta par it nitidas fruges arbustaqiie laeta 
 Et genus humanum, parit omnia saecla ferarum, 
 Pahula cum praebet quibus omnes corpora pascunt 
 Kt dulcem ducunt vitam prolemque propagant; 
 Quapropter merito maternum nomen adepta est. 
 Cedit item retro, de terra quod fuit ante. 
 In terras, et quod missumst ex aetheris oris. 
 Id rursum caeli rellatum templa receptant. 
 Xec sic interemit mors res ut materiai 
 Corpora conficiat, sed coetum dissupat oilis, 
 Inde a His a Hud coniungit. ' 
 
 •Munro remarks that this "passage is quite Epicurean and con- 
 sistent with the general argument of Lucretius, though his fondness 
 for Euripides has made him express himself in the language of 
 Anaxagoras. "^ 
 
 Another instance in which Lucretius has adapted the text of An- 
 axagoras to his own purpose is apparently afforded in one portion of 
 his description of the manner in which the world was constructed. 
 The declaration of Anaxagoras on the subject under consideration 
 is : 
 
 TO ficv irvKvov Kal Supov Kal ^xpov Kal to to<t>cp6v ev6dSe o-vc^wpiicrtv €v0a 
 vvv [ti'V^il'To 8c dpaiov Kal to Ocppiov Kal to |i]pov [Kal to Xa|iirp6v] 4|cxwpi^- 
 (Tcv els TO irp6o-o) Tov alBcpos. ' 
 
 Quippe rtenini primum terrai corpora quaeque, 
 Propterea quod erant gravia et perplexa, coibant 
 In medio atque imas capiebant omnia sedes. * 
 
 ' II, 001-1004. 
 -^ Munro 11. p. 166. 
 
 •* Fr. 8. in Fairhunk's Finl IViilosoplu-rs of Cviurc. p. 242. CI". iMunro II. 
 p. 306. 
 
 *V,. 449-5 1. 
 
AXAXAGORAS, 
 
 11 
 
 The immediate occasion of conflict between Lucretius and An- 
 axagoras is the doctrine of the homoeomeria (ojioionepeta) or the theory 
 that the parts of a body are altogether similar to the whole, and 
 that^these homeogeneous parts are original and elementary substances, 
 infinite in number and variety.. The account of this doctrine which 
 Lu'cretius gives is comparatively brief, but is fair in the main and 
 sufficiently exact for his purpose: 
 
 Principw, rerum quom dicii homoeomerian, 
 Ossa videlicet e pauxillis atque viiiiidis 
 Ossibus hie et de pauxillis atque viinutis 
 Visceribus viscus gigni sa?iguenque creari 
 Sanguifiis inter se inultis coeuntibu guttis 
 Ex aurique putat micis consistere posse 
 A u?'um et de terris terram concrescere parvis, 
 Ignibus ex ignis, umorem umoribus esse. 
 Cetera consimili fingit ratione putatque. '^ 
 
 The argument which Lucretius makes against this doctrine will 
 be considered after some examination of the actual teaching of 
 Anaxagoras on this subject, as revealed in the most reliable extant 
 sources of information. 
 
 The word homoeomeria (ofioioncpcCa) does not appear in the frag- 
 ments of Anaxagoras which have been preserved to us. Is there any 
 ground for supposing that he ever employed the term.'* On this ques- 
 tion scholars are divided. Lucretius plainly asserts that Anaxagoras 
 uses the word. Plutarch affirms the same: — '0(ioio|ji€p€£as avrds IkoXco-c^ 
 
 Sim})licius makes a like declaration: — 
 
 "On 8c 'Ava^a-yopas €| cvos p.i-Yp.aT09 aireipa tw irX'^Oei 6p,oiop,cp{) diroKpCvcorOaC 
 <|>T]<riv irdvTwv jicv kv Travrl Ivovrtov, cKao-TOv Se Kara to liriKparovv xapaKTTfpi^o- 
 )i€vov, 8t]Xoi Sid Tov irpc&TOv T»v #v<riK«v X^-yuv dir* dpx'HS.^ 
 
 ]\Iunro unhesitatingly places himself in the company of those who 
 attribute this word to Anaxagoras, and maintains that there is 
 sufficient evidence that even this exact form of the word originated 
 with him and not with Lucretius, as had at first seemed probable, 
 
 1 1, 834-42. 
 
 2 Munro, II p. 98. 
 
 ^Fhys. 337/ 155, 23 D. Ritter et Preller. 120. 
 
38 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS I\ Ll(^RETIUS. 
 
 and as many critics still assert is the tact. x\ristotle, who seems to 
 be chiefly responsible for the perpetuation of the expression, it is 
 admitted, never uses this substantive forrn (6ftoiop,€p€£a) but invariably 
 the adjective (ofiotojispi)). But Munro shows that he has himself 
 traced the substantive to Epicurus, and expresses the conviction 
 that, since Epicurus and his school were so well acquainted with 
 Anaxagoras, they unquestionably derived it from them, and that 
 Lucretius had it also from them and from Epicurus.^ 
 
 Zeller, on the other hand, following Schleiermacher, Ritter and 
 others, denies that the term was ever employed by Anaxagoras. He 
 points in confirmation of this position not only to the fact that the 
 term does not appear in the extant fragments of Anaxagoras, but 
 also that in places where it would be natural to expect it, the words 
 o-ir^pjiara and xfyfi^ara are found, and that the word cannot be satisfact- 
 orily explained except in connection with Aristotle's use of language, 
 with whom he believes it originated; and contrary to Munro's assert- 
 ion, which he may not have seen, declares that the word homoeomeria 
 is first found in Lucretius. ^ 
 
 But whatever may have been the origin of the words ojioiojicpeCa and 
 6(ioiop.€pis, there is not a little doubt and confusion as to the precise 
 meaning attaching to them. Aristotle himself is apparently not 
 always consistent in his usage-. In general terms he mantains that 
 Anaxagoras claimed bodies of similar parts to be the elements of 
 things, a plain reversal of the atomistic theory, which teaches that 
 the organic is composed of the elementary and not the elementary 
 of the constituents of the organic.^ Ordinarily Aristotle employs the 
 words T^ ofjLoiofjLcpcta, TO. 6pLoio|ji6pf) to dcsiguatc the whole whose parts are 
 homogeneous with one another; in other words bodies which in all 
 their parts consist of one and the same substance, in which, there- 
 fore, all parts are of like kind with one another and with the whole. 
 
 'Avala-ydpas 8€ 6 KXa^ofi^vios rg p.€v t|\ikC<;l irpdrcpos «v tovtov ( 'Ep-ireSoKXe- 
 ovs ), TOis 8* ep-yois vo-repos, air€(povs etvaC <j)ii<ri rds apx^S* o-x«86v •ydp fiiravra 
 TcL op.oiop.ep'H, KaOdircp vSwp ^ irvp, ovtw -YC-yveo-Oai Kal diroXXvorOaC <|>T](ri (rv-yKpC- 
 
 ^ Munro, II p. 98. 
 
 ■^ Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy^ II. pp. 334, 35. 
 
 V^., p. 334. 
 
ANAXAGORAS. 39 
 
 <rci Kal SiaKpCcrci p.6vov, aXXws 8' ovn yiyvitrQai oir dirdWva'dai, dXXd 8ia)i^v€iv 
 dtSia. ^ 
 
 But in other instances Aristotle evidently makes the words 
 TO 6noio|jL€p^ and tA 6pioto|i€pfi refer to the homogeneous parts in 
 distinction from the whole, as for example when he says: — 
 
 'Ava^a-yopas 8* 'E|jnr€8oKX€C Ivavriws Xc-yct irepV t«v <rTOt\€(a»v. 6 (jlcv -yap irOp 
 Kttl 'Y'iv Kttl rd <rva-roi\a tovtois o-xoixeid <|>T]<rtv itvai t«v <r<a\i6iT(i»v Kal o-u-yKCio-- 
 9ai irdvT Ik tovtwv, 'Ava4a'Y6pas 8c Tovvavriov. rd -ydp 6|xoiO(i€pf) (rroixeia (kiyot 
 8' otov o-dpKa Kal oo-touv Kal twv toiovtwv €Ka<rTov) depa Si Kal irvp lAiYiia tov- 
 rci>v Kal Twv dXXcov (rireppkaroiv iravruvclvai -yAp CKdrcpov avrcov l| dopdrwv 6|ioio- 
 op,ep»v irdvTftJv T|6poi<r|i.€'vov.^ 
 
 According to Zeller/ however, x\ristotle is not to be regarded as 
 seriously inconsistent, but as presenting a graduated scale of things 
 under this terminology. At the bottom of the series are the primary 
 elements. Next in order, and composed of the foregoing, are the 
 bodies of similar parts. Finally we have the organic formed of the 
 bodies of homogeneous parts. These last Aristotle designates by 
 the term dvojtoio(t€pTi and they include the face, the hands, etc., bodies of 
 unlike parts. The opLoiofiepti include bone, flesh, gold, silver, etc., 
 and these in turn are made of the smallest substances of the same 
 kind as the bodies which they form. To represent these infinitesimal 
 parts the plural of the substantive (6jioio|ji€p€tai) is employed by later 
 writers such as Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius and others, as Zeller, 
 Ueberweg and others declare, but also by Epicurus, as has been 
 proven, and perhaps by Anaxagoras himself, as Munro contends, 
 though the extant fragments of Anaxagoras have only,the words 
 aririp\i.ara and xp^Ko-Ta to designate the original constituents of things. 
 But in dealing with this subject it is contended that Anaxagoras 
 did not mention elements, that term having been introduced into 
 philosophy at a later period by Plato and Aristotle.* In short the 
 primitive substances of Anaxagoras were infinitesimal bodies all of 
 whose parts were homogeneous with one another. In the qualities 
 which determined their distinctive characters they were underived 
 and imperishable. Now the number of things which are not alike 
 in the universe is unlimited. Hence there must be, according to 
 
 ^ Aristotle, AfeL I, 3, 984 a 11. Ritter et Preller, 119 a. 
 '^DeCaelo, III, 3, 302 a 28. Ritter et Preller, 119 a. 
 ^Pre-Socratic Philosophy II, p. 335, 3. 
 ^Ib.^ p. 126, I, 
 
40 ■ CONTROVKKSIAL ELEMENTS IN LL'CRETIL'S. 
 
 Anaxagoras, an unlimited number of primordial bodies, not one of 
 which resembles another, and these are differentiated in shape, color 
 and taste. ^ 
 
 irplv 86 diroKpiOfivai . . - - irdvTwv 6\iov i6vT<av ovhi XP^*-^ «v8t]\os t|v oii8£fi.{a. 
 dircK(tf\v£ -ydp tj (rvp.p.i^is irdvTwv \pT)fjLdTa)v tov t€ 8iepov Kal tov |t]POV Kal 
 Tov Ofpfiov Kal TOV \|/vxpov Kal TOV Xap,irpov Kal tov ^o<|>€pov Kal -y-qs iroXXfis 
 ^vcovo-qs Kal trirepjJLdTwv dTrcipwv irX-^Sovs ov8€v coikotcdv dW-^Xots . ov8€ -ydp 
 
 T&V dXXwV Ov8£V €01K« TO '^TCpOV TtO lT€pw.'-' 
 
 TOVTwv 8€ ovT«s Ix^^*^'*"* XP^ 8oK€iv Ivcivai TToXXd T€ Kttl iravTOia cv irdo-t 
 Tois (TvyKpivoixe'vois Kal o-ir^p|xaTa irdvTwv \pr\ii.a.T(av Kal ISt'as TravToCas e'xovTa 
 Kttl xpoi-^S Kal TjSovds.' 
 
 The objections which Lucretius brings against Anaxagoras are 
 characteristic. There is, of course, the fundamental difference 
 between them at the very begmning, that the Epicureans posit one 
 primitive matter, from which all things are derived by an in- 
 finite variety of combinations, while Anaxagoras maintains an un- 
 limited number of primordial. germs of every conceivable difference 
 and quality. Out of this fundamental disagreement spring in the 
 main the occasions of Lucretius' hostility. 
 
 The first count 'in the indictment against Anaxagoras is that he 
 does not recognize void in his calculations of the process of com- 
 bination and separation. Aristotle bears witness on this point as 
 follows: — 
 
 ol p,€v ovv 8€iKvvvat TTCipdiJLCvoi OTi ovK '^o-Ttv (t6 k€v6v) ovx o jSovXovTai Xiy- 
 €iv Ol dvOpwtrpi K€v6v, tovt c^eX^-yx^^*'"''^ °'^^' o-ixapTdvovTes Xc'-yovo-iv, cio-irep *Av- 
 a^a-yopas Kal ol tovtov tov Tpoirov eXc-yxovTcs, l-rriSciKvvovo-i "ydp oti €o-ti ti 6 d^p 
 <rTp€pXovvT€S Tovs do^KOvs Kal SeiKvvvTcs ws lo-x^pos 6 a.i\p Kal IvairoXauPdvov- 
 t€s 4v Tats KXc\|/v8pats. * 
 
 In the second place Anaxagoras holds to the infinite divisibility o( 
 bodies, a position in direct conflict with the atomistic theory. 
 
 oCtc "y^P tov o'fj.iKpov -ye eo-Tt to ye tXdxio-Tov. dXX* eXao-cov dcC* to "ydp eov ovk 
 60-Ti TO p.T| OVK tivai. dXXd Kal tov jxe-ydXcv dello-Ti p-ei^ov. Kal \!o-ov Io-tI tw o-jiik- 
 pip irX'nOos, irpos lavTo 8c '^Kao-Tov co-ti Kal ixcya Kal o-p.tKp6v.-' 
 
 1 Zeller Pre-Socratic Philosophy, II, pp. 336, 37. 
 
 '^Fr. 4, Ritter et Preller, 120. Cf. Fairbanks, First Philosophers of Greece p. 236. 
 
 '-''Fr, 3, Fairbanks, p. 236. Cf. Ritter et Preller, 120. 
 
 ^Phys. VI, 6, 213 a 22. Ritter et Preller, 126. 
 
 ^/>-. 15, Fairbanks, pp. 242, 44. Cf. Zeller. Pre-Socratic Philosophy. II p. 341, 3. 
 
ANAXAGORAS. 4 1 
 
 Quare in utraque inihi par iter ratione videtur 
 Err are aique illi, supra quos diximus ante. ^ 
 
 Again, primordia of the character ascribed to them by Anaxagoras 
 will be too feeble in the judgment of Lucretius to withstand the 
 shocks of antagonistic influences, and will ultimately perish. 
 
 Adde quod inhecilla nimis primordia fing it ; 
 
 Si primordia sunt, simili quae praedita constant 
 
 Natura atque ipsae res sunt aequeque laborani 
 
 Et pereunt neque ab exitio res ulla refrenat. 
 
 Nam quid in oppressu valido durabit eorum, 
 
 Ut mortem effugiat, leti sub dentibus ipsis? 
 
 Ignis an umor an aura? quid horump sanguen an ossaP 
 
 Nil, ut opinor, ubi ex aequo res funditus omnis 
 
 Tam mortalis erit quam quae manifesta videmus 
 
 Ex oculis nostris aliqua vi victa perire. 
 
 Such an obvious violation of the first principles of his philosophy 
 cannot be tolerated by so earnest an Epicurean as Lucretius, who 
 says: — 
 
 At neque reccidere ad nilum res posse neque autem 
 Crescere de nilo testor res ante probatas. '^ 
 
 Moreover, the fact that Anaxagoras attributes secondary qualities 
 to his primitive particles is enough in the estimation of Lucretius 
 to condemn the whole system. In his second book he labors ingen- 
 iously to demonstrate the impossibility that such qualities should 
 belong to original matter. As these qualities are themselves de- 
 structible, he believes that the atoms possessing them would necessar- 
 ily be perishable also.^ 
 
 Again, Epicurus and his school argued that the atoms, though 
 indivisible, consist of parts inseparable and undistinguishable, which 
 have existed in the atoms from eternity. These are called by Epi- 
 curus IXdxwTToi and by Lucretius minima, 
 
 1 I, 845-6. 
 
 2 I, 847-58. 
 
 3 IL 730-865. 
 
42 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN' LUCRETIUS. 
 
 t6 t€ IXAxhttov to cv t^ alcrG'^o-ci Set Karavoeiv on ovt€ roiovr6v Icnv oiov to 
 Tds (JL€Tapdo-€ts €X°*' o^T€ irdvT'j] irdvTws dv6pLOiov,d\X' €\ov ji^v Tiva Koivdrr^ra t«v 
 (jLCTaPaTuv, 8id\T^\)/iv 8e \upS>v ovk €xov dW 8Tav 8id tt)v ttis KOtv6TT]TOS irpoo-e^i- 
 <|>€p€iav olT)6o)p,cv 8ia\'q\{/€o-0a{ ti avTOv, to \uv ciriTdSc, to 8e lirCKCiva, to ta*ov t])jliv 
 8€i irpoo-irCiTTetv. k^r[s t€ de&>pov)i€v TavTa diro tov irpwTOv KaTapxo^cvoi Kal ovk 
 Iv Tip avTw, ovSe p.€peo-i (icpuv. dirTdjicv", dW i] 4v t]] l8i6rr]Tt t^ tavr&v ra. (ic-y^Oi] 
 KaTapt€TpowvTa, Td irXciw irXetov Kal Td IXdTTco e\aTTOv. TavT^ t-^ iivaXoyia vo\xi<rri- 
 ov Kal TO Iv tV| dT6fjta»€\dxt<rT0v K€XPTJ<r0ai. lAiKpdTi^Ti -ydp Ikcivo 8fi\ov a»s 8ia4>€p€i 
 TOV KaTd TTjv a\:o-0ii<riv 6ea)povp,€vov, dvaXo-yCcji Si rg avrjf Ke'xpTiTai. kird ir€p Kal 
 OTt (ic-yeOos i\n- Tj dTO(iOs, KaTd ttjv [ t«v ] IvTavGa dvaXo-ytav KaTi]Yop-^a-a)i€v, 
 pKp6v Ti p.6vov (laKpdv CKpdWovTes.' 
 
 Lucretius has given considerable space to the discussion of these 
 minima,'^ but Anaxagoras repudiates the whole idea. TovXdxwrrov jitj 
 60-Tiv flvai.^ 
 
 In harmony with all his reasoning, which is based on practical 
 considerations, Lucretius interposes as objections to the doctrine of 
 Anaxagoras a couple of dilemmas. In the first place, 
 
 quoniam cibus aiiget corpus alitque, 
 Scire licet nobis venas et sanguen et ossa 
 
 Sive cibos omnis commixto corpore dicent 
 Esse et habere in se nervorum corpora parva 
 Ossaque et omnino venas partisque cruoris, 
 Fiet uti cibus omnis, et aridus et liquor ipse, 
 Ex alienigenis rebus constare putetur, 
 Ossibus et nervis sanieque et sanguine mixto.* 
 In the second place, 
 
 quaecumque e terra corpora crescunt 
 Si sunt in terris, terram constare necessest 
 Ex alienigenis, quae terris exoriuntur. 
 Transfer item, totidem verbis utare licebit. 
 In lignis si fiamma latet fumusque cinisque, 
 Ex alienigenis consistant ligna necessest. 
 
 ^ Diogenes Laertius, X, 58, 59. 
 
 2 I, 599-634. 
 
 ^ Fr. 16, Fairbanks, First Philosophers of Greece, p. 244. 
 
 * I, 859-66. 
 
ANAXAGORAS. 43 
 
 Praeterea iellus quae corpora cumque alit, auget 
 Ex alienigenis, quae lignis his oriuntur. ^ 
 
 In other words, inasmuch as food supports the body, it must 
 contain particles of the same kind as the body, which are not the 
 same kind as itself, or the body must include particles of the same 
 kind as the food, but not of the same kind as itself. And the 
 same reasoning applies to the production of plants out of the earth 
 and the development of flames out of wood. 
 
 From these dilemmas Anaxagoras attempts to extricate himself by 
 the hypothesis that all things are latent in each thing. 
 
 Linquitur hie quaedam laiitandi copia tenvis. 
 
 Id quod Anaxagoras sibi suniit, ut omnibus omnis 
 
 Res putet inmixtas rebus latiiare, sed illud 
 
 Apparere unum cuius sint plurima mixta 
 
 Et viagis in prompiu primaque infronte locata. ^ 
 
 This representation of the position of Anaxagoras is certainly a 
 fair one. He conceives all the primitive bodies as originally mixed 
 together so throughly and in such infinitesimal particles that not one 
 of them was individually perceptible, and therefore the combination 
 exhibited none of the qualities of things in being. 
 
 6(L0v xP^H-d-Ta irdvTa -rjv aircipa Kal irXi^Bos Kal o'^iKp^'rqTa* Kal "ydp to orfxiKpov 
 a-rrtipov riv • Kal irdvTwv 6p.ov €6^^T«v ovScv €v8t]Xov ■^v viro <rfJiiKp6Tt]TOs . iravra 
 •ydp dT|p T€ Kal alOrip Karcix^v d|x<|>6Tepa dtrEipa Idvra • Tavra -ydp n^-yiorTa €V€<rTiv 
 cv TOto-i o-vfiirao-i Kal •ir\i^6€i Kal [j.c'yddci . '^ 
 
 But even things in being possessing all the qualities of the derived 
 do not disclose the distinction between constituent bodies, but each 
 contains parts of all; otherwise it would be impossible to explain the 
 transition of all things into one another, and one could not come out 
 of another, if it were not already a part of it. 
 
 6 fj.€v [ * Avala-yopas ] otiovv t»v (jiopCwv ctvai (iiYiia 6p.oia>s tw iravrl Sid to 6p<^v 
 OTiovv \% OTOvovv •yi'yvofJLtvcv • €VT€V06V ■ydp €OiK€ Kal ofiov iroT€ irdvra yj^-i\^fx.TtJk 
 (}>dvai ctvai, olov -qSt tj o-dp^ Kal t68€ to ostovv Kal ovt«s otiovv • Kal irdvTa dpa. 
 
 1 I, 867-74. 
 
 2 I, 875-79. 
 
 2 Fr. I in Ritter et Preller. 120, 
 
44 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IX LUCRETIUS. 
 
 Kttl &)JLa ToCwv • dpxT] -Yap ov |ji6vov kv CKdo-TO) la-r\ -ri^s 8iaKpC(rco>s, dXXd Kal 
 irdvTwv K, T. X. ^ 
 
 If, therefore, a thing seems to possess some single quality to the 
 exclusion of others, it is simply because there is an excess of the 
 substance indicated. The truth is that each thing has substances of 
 every kind in it, but it derives its name from the predominating con- 
 stituents, or as Munro puts it, "each individual thing is what it is by 
 having in it the greatest number of 6|ioio|jL€pfi o-rotxcia." ^ 
 
 Lucretius disposes of this theory quite summarily by answering 
 that if it were true, corn, water, clods, wood etc., would when ana- 
 lyzed reveal vestiges of blood, milk, fire etc. ; in other words when 
 sufficiently divided they would exhibit traces of the substances fed to 
 make them or produced from them. It is obvious that this is not 
 the case, and we must conclude, decides Lucretius, that various 
 things have certain elements in common. 
 
 His antagonist, he conjectures, may offer as an illustration of the 
 opposite view the fact that tree-tops frequently catch fire by rubbing 
 together under the action of the wind. But this simply demonstrates 
 what he has already asserted, that there are many seeds of things 
 which trees and heat possess in common. If there were fully formed 
 particles of fire in trees or anything else they might burst into flame 
 at any moment. It is all a matter of the arrangement and order of 
 the primordia whether they form one thing or another. 
 
 Finally, Lucretius makes his favorite appeal to common sense, and 
 closes his argument with a reducHo ad absurdum which he evidently 
 believes is unanswerable: 
 
 Denique iam quaecumque in rebus cernis apertis 
 Si fieri mm posse putas, quin viateriai 
 Corpora consimili natura praedita fingas, 
 Hac ratione tibi pereunt primordia rerum: 
 Fiet uti risu tremulo concussa cachinnent 
 Et lacrimis salsis U7nectent ora genasque. ^ 
 
 ^ Aristotle, Phys. Ill, 4, 203 a 23. Zeller Pre-Socratic Phil. II, 339, i. 
 
 2 II, p. lOI. 
 
 3 I, 915-20. 
 
ANAXAGORAS. 4 5 
 
 In the same vein are the verses of Lucretius in the second book 
 (973-90), where he combats the idea that the atoms must be similar 
 in quaHty to the whole, by showing that upon this supposition the 
 atoms of men must be able to laugh and cry and moralize on their 
 own constituent particles, and concludes, 
 
 Quod si delira haec furiosaque cernimus esse 
 Et rider e potest non ex ridentibti f actus 
 Et sapere et doctis rationem reddere dictis 
 Non ex seminibus sapientibus atque disertis, 
 Qui minu's esse queant ea quae sentire videmus 
 Seminibus per mixta carentibus undique sensup 
 
 It has been remarked that there is a striking similarity between 
 Lucretius' treatment of this portion of his argument against Anax- 
 agoras, and the discussion on Empedocles in Book I, 803-29, both 
 in language and matter. The reason for this is apparent. The par- 
 ticles of Anaxagoras seem to Lucretius to be open to the same 
 criticism as the four elements of Empedocles. Both possess those 
 secondary qualities which are the concomitants of things derived.^ 
 
 In order to avoid blind Chance and eternal Necessity, Anaxagoras 
 assumes Mind (voOs) as the world-forming energy, an immaterial es- 
 sence which is the cause of all motion and order in the universe. 
 This places him inevitably in opposition to the Epicurean doctrine of 
 the fortuitous concourse of atoms, but as this speculation does not 
 figure as a point of actual contention in the poem of Lucretius, we 
 may properly leave it without treatment here. 
 
 3. Democritus. 
 
 It is natural to expect that Lucretius will treat Democritus with 
 great gentleness and consideration on account of the unquestioned 
 indebtedness of the Epicurean school to this philosopher. Epicurus 
 can scarcely be said to have had any scientific attainments of his own, 
 
 ^Munro, II, p. 102. 
 
46 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 though he indulged in a superficial study of nature, and even ventured 
 to publish the results of his investigations.^ It is none the less true, 
 however, that he would have looked with contempt upon all scientific 
 observation but for the practical advantages which such study af- 
 forded him in his attempt to destroy the baneful influences of super- 
 stition on the human mind.^ For any other purpose the labor in- 
 volved would have been esteemed superfluous by him. Science, 
 therefore, Epicurus held to be subsidiary to ethics. Let the searcher 
 after truth take whatever explanation of physical phenomena he will — 
 only in the name of reason and for the sake of human comfort let him 
 not attribute them to the interference of divine hands — is the doctrine 
 of Epicurus. 
 
 Some general mechanical theory, however, is necessary to account 
 for the world and its activities, in order to banish this delusion of the 
 human race. Now, the atomic theory of Leucippus and Democritus 
 best serves Epicurus in this regard, and he adopts it without making 
 any contribution to it except in a single instance, which will be men- 
 tioned hereafter. ' 
 
 The dependence of Epicurus upon Democritus did not escape the 
 keen scrutiny of Cicero, who says: Quid est in physicis Epicuri non a 
 Democrito ? Nam etsi quaedam comviutauit ut quod paullo ante de in- 
 clinatione atomorum dixi, tamen pleraque dicit eadem, atomos inane im- 
 agines, infinitatem locorum innumerabilitatemque mundorum, eorum orius 
 interitus, omnia fere quibus naturae ratio continetur.^ In physicis, quibus 
 maxime gloriatur, primumi totus est alienus {Epicurus). Democritea 
 dicit perpauca mutans, sed ita ut ea quae corrigere uolt, mihi quidem 
 depruare uideatur . . . ita quae mutat ea corrumpit, quae sequiiur 
 sunt tota Democriti . . . quae etsi mihi nullo probantur, tamen 
 Democritum laudatum a ceteris ab hoc, qui eum unum secutus esset, 
 
 1 Thirty-seven books entitled ircpl <)>v(r€(i>s, mentioned by Diogenes Laertius, 
 X, 27. 
 
 2 ct ^y\Vkv T)}ias al t«v |iET6(&p(i>v viro\|/Cai t|V(&x\ovv Kal at irtpl Oavdrov, fi^ irort 
 irpos t)H>6i£ t) "^^i <^Ti Tc TO fiTj Karavoeiv tovs <ipovs t«v dXYTiSdvttfv Kal twv ciriOvfjii,- 
 «v, ovK av irpo(rcSc6(i68a <}>v(rioXoYCas. -Diog. Laer. X, 142, Usener, Epicurea, 
 p. 74. 
 
 ^ De Natura Deorum, I, 26, 72. 
 
DEMOCRITUS. 47 
 
 nollem uituperatum} . . Democritus, uir magnus in pn'mis, cuius 
 fontibus Epicurus hortulos suos inrigauit. '^ 
 
 In the same vein is the testimony of Plutarch:' Ati(jlokp(tov koXoL Kai 
 irp^irovTa 8i8a<rKd\ia KO|JLitoft^vovirap' avTOv ('EiriKOvpov), and Diogenes La- 
 ertius records: ^y\cr\ 8' "Epixi-mros ■Ypap.|jtaTo8i8d<rK<xXov avrov -ye-yevfio-Oai, 
 lircira (Jtivrot ircptrvxovTa tois A-qfiOKpCTOv ^ipXCois, lirl <|>i\oa-0(j>Cav 4l^*-^ 
 
 Usener has pointed out many positive imitations of Democritus in 
 the writings of Epicurus.^ Notwithstanding these palpable evidences 
 of the heavy indebtedness of Epicurus, he was very slow to acknowl- 
 edge that he was under obligation to any teacher. He loved to 
 herald himself as untaught.® He refrained from praising even those 
 from whom he had undoubtedly derived instruction. Cicero, refer- 
 ring to the custom of Socrates to eulogize other philosophers, says: 
 Decet hoc nescio qw) modo ilium, nee Epicuro, qui id reprehendil, as- 
 sentior.'^ Diogenes Laertius also remarks: 
 
 dXX' ovSc AcvKiirirdv riva -ye-yevficrOaC (jtTjo'i <{>iX6o-0(j>ov,ovT€ avros o{;T€''£jp|iapx- 
 OS) ov €vi.o{ <}>curi Kal 'Airo\\(S8cDpos 6 'ETTiKOvpcios 8i8d(rKaXov ArKiOKpCrov "ycycv- 
 fjo-eai .^ 
 
 This fully justifies Cicero's accusation of ingratitude.' At the 
 ^ame time Epicurus somewhat reluctantly gave an occasional ac- 
 knowledgment of his association with the Democritean school. 
 
 Ka( TOi iroXvv xpovov avros lauTov avTi-yopcve Ar||iOKpCT€iov 6 'EiriKOvpoSiWS aX- 
 Xot T€ Xc'-yovo-i Kttl AeovTtvs, tls Tciiv €Tr' OLKpov 'EiriKOvpov p.a6i]Tc!)v^ TTpos Avk6- 
 c|>pova 7pd4>(«)v Tip,d<r9al ri ^x^tx. tov Apip.6KpiTOv v»ir* 'Ettlkovpov 8id to irp6T6- 
 pov dxt/ao-Oai ttis 6p0f]s ■yvworetos, Kal to o-vvoXov tt^v irpa-Yp.aTc(av Ar^fiOKpCTCi- 
 ov irpoo-a-yopcveo-Gai 8id to irepiirco-eiv avTov irpoTtpov Tats dp^ais ircpl <j)'uo-6«s.^'* 
 
 ^De Finibiis I, 6, 17, 2i. 
 
 '^De Natura Deorum I, 43, 1 20. 
 
 'Usener, Epicurea, p. 175. 
 
 *X, 3. Usener, p. 360. 
 
 ^Epicurea, p. 402. 
 
 ^De Natura Deorum I, 26, 72. 
 
 "^Brutus, 85, 292. 
 
 «X, 13. 
 
 ^De Natura Deorum I, 33, 93. 
 
 ^° Plutarch in Usener, Epicurea, p. 175. 
 
48 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LLICRETIUS. 
 
 However, he treated Democritus himself, in at least one instance, 
 with undisguised contempt.^ 
 
 Lucretius shows a far more commendable spirit than Epicurus in 
 relation to Democritus. He makes no attempt to conceal his un- 
 qualified admiration for the philosopher to whom he owes so much. 
 It is characteristic of Lucretius that, while he discredits all gods, he 
 sets up for worship the best substitute he can find — a hero, to whom 
 he can conscientiously pay divine honor. His enthusiasm for great 
 men not only leads him to venerate Epicurus as a god, but also to be 
 exceedingly deferential to every commanding figure. To Epicurus he 
 assigns the supremacy among men, but Empedocles, Ennius, Homer, 
 Democritus and others are entitled to lofty positions in his pantheon. 
 Democritus would seem to occupy the closest proximity to Epicurus, 
 if there is any significance in the arrangement of the names in the 
 striking passage in which he strives to mitigate the terrors of death 
 by celebrating the fact that the grandest characters in human history 
 have been compelled to undergo the same melancholy experience: 
 
 Denique Democritum postquam viatura vetustas 
 Admonuit jjiemores motus languescere mentis, 
 Sponte sua leto cuput obviiis optulit ipse. ^ 
 
 The pressure of Democritus upon Lucretius is amply manifest. 
 One of the most concise presentations of the doctrines of Democritus 
 which we possess is that given by Diogenes Laertius. A comparison 
 of the physical theories of Lucretius with the statements of Democ- 
 ritus on corresponding questions contained in the following passage, 
 will reveal the close affiliation of the two authors: 
 
 'Apxds elvat t«v 8Xa)v dT6p,ovs, Kal k€v6v • rd 8* aXXa irdvTa v€vo- 
 (iCo-Oai 8o|dt€cr6ai. 'Airctpovs t€ etvai Kdo-fiovs, Kal -ycviiTOvs, Kal 4>6apTovis. Mt^Bcv 
 T€ Ik tov jjtti ovTOs "ytv€(r0ai, jiriSe els to [it] 5v <j>9€(p€<r0ai. Kal rds drbfiovs %\ d-ir- 
 eCpovs ctvai Kard |ie-ye6os Kal irXfjOos* <}>^pc(r0ai 8' Iv tw b\a> 8ivovp.evas . Kal ovro) 
 irdvTa rd o-vyKpCfiaTa "yevv^v, irvp, v8<ap, d^pa, -ytiv . Etvat -ydp Kal ravra \% drofi- 
 <i)v Ttvwv o-vo-T^jJiaTa' direp ctvat d-rraOf] Kal dvaWoCcDxa 8id ttiv o-T€pp6TT]Ta. Tov 
 T€ T]\iov Kal TTjv (TcX-^VTiv Ik ToiovT(i)v 81.VCOV Kal 'Trepi<{>€p(ov o-yKcov o-vyKCKpio-6ai, Kal 
 TTjv ^vxTjv o^oCcos* TjvKal vovv TavTov elvai. 'Op<jv 8* T)(jids Kar elSwXwvcjt'irTworeis.^ 
 
 '^Diogenes Laertius X, 8. 
 
 2 III, 1039- IO4I. 
 
 ^Diogenes Laertius IX, 44. 
 
DEMOCRITUS. 
 
 49 
 
 It will be seen by this declaration of the Democritean principles 
 that Lucretius has much in common with their author. They agree 
 on the origin of the universe; the solidity, indivisibility and eternity 
 of the atoms; the materiality of the soul; the media of sense percep- 
 tions and other points of importance to be indicated hereafter. 
 
 Special interest centres in the doctrine of emanations as held by 
 Lucretius and- Democritus. ^ In the scheme of the latter this theory 
 plays a more important part than in that of the former. According 
 to Democritus not only vision, but all perception, both that of the 
 senses and of thought itself, has its origin in these emanations, which 
 penetrate into the body through the organs of sense, and thus spread- 
 ing through all its parts, produce a representation of things. But 
 to secure this result it is essential that the emanations shall be like 
 the organs of the body in material constitution. We perceive each 
 thing with that part of our nature whick is akin to it. Democritus 
 differed from Lucretius and Empedocles on the method of sense per- 
 ception in this particular, that he did not conceive of his emanations 
 as coming into direct contact with the organs of the body. The 
 space between the objects and our bodies is filled with air. The 
 etSuXa, therefore, cannot themselves reach our senses, but the air 
 which is moved by them does so. Clearness of perception naturally 
 decreases in proportion to the distance between the organs of sense 
 and the image to be reproduced to sight, or the source from which 
 sound emanates or thought proceeds. It is evident that with such a 
 view of the mode of communicating impressions, there can be no ac- 
 curacy of knowledge through perception. And as thought is de- 
 clared by Democritus to have a similar origin, it is difficult to see 
 how he can place any more reliance upon the phenomena of the 
 mind than upon the sensations of the body, though he doubtless 
 does.^ To the doctrine of emanations held by Lucretius, Emped- 
 ocles, Democritus and Epicurus each contributed a part, the last 
 named having had an especial influence upon the poet.^ From the 
 
 ' AevKiiriros AiifioKpiTos ttiv at<r9T]<riv Kal ti\v v6r\a-iv -yivco-Oai, etSwXcov €|o>8cv 
 irpoo-iovTwv • p.TfScvl •ydp liriPdXXttv p.T]8€T£pav xt^p'^S tov irpoo-iriirTOVTOS el8wXov. 
 r/ac: IV, 8. Box. 395 in Hitter et Preller, 155. 
 
 ^ Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy^ II, pp. 265-72. 
 
 ^ Cf. Dio^eHi'S Lcit-rtius X, 46-53, with Litcrctius. IV. 
 
50 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 surface of all bodies infinitesimal particles are streaming every 
 moment. These particles take the figure of the objects from which 
 they proceed, and thus form images or idola of the things they 
 leave. These emanations are spontaneously generated, they are in- 
 cessantly streaming, they move with almost inconceivable rapidity, 
 and should they cease at any time we should at once lose sight, 
 smell and hearing. By reason of this perpetual evaporation of mat- 
 ter a never-ending waste is going on, which explains the theory of 
 Lucretius that the world is continually being fed with fresh matter 
 from without. Moreover, on account of the porosity of matter, these 
 simulacra constantly pass through them in all directions. Thus all 
 bodies are to a greater or less degree interpenetrated with other 
 matter. Somewhat more obscurely, but none the less truly, does 
 Lucretius state the Empedoclean notion of pores differing from or 
 resembling in shape the atoms which proceed by this streaming pro- 
 cess from all bodies.^ To these emanations we are indebted for 
 dreams, apparitions and many other strange phenomena. Our con- 
 ceptions of the deities, for example, have their origin in these images. 
 But while Democritus distrusts the evidences of the senses, Lu- 
 cretius, as we have already seen, maintains the absolute correctness 
 of the presentations of these organs of perception. If misconceptions 
 are formed from the testimony of the senses, it must be the mind 
 which errs in the inferences made.^ 
 
 There is a striking similarity in the views expressed by Lucretius 
 and Democritus on the question of the summum bonum, although 
 there is an unimpoVtant difference in the terms employed. 
 
 TeXos 8« €lvai ttiv cvOvfiCav, oil tt]v avt^v odo-av r^ t)8ovtj, <os evioi irapaKOv<rav- 
 T€s l|€8e|avT0, dWd Ka9* -qv -yaXTivftis Kal evo-raOws r\ x|/vxti 8id-y€i, viro fiTi8€v6s 
 TapaTTO|i€'vT] (}>6Pov, r\ 8eiori8a(.)JkOv(as, r] dWov tivos irdOovs. KaXci 8* avrriv Kal €v- 
 fO-To), Kttl iroWots dWois 6v6|ia(ri. ^ 
 
 If we compare this declaration with all that has been preserved as 
 the doctrine of Epicurus upon the same subject, we shall find that 
 the difference between the two is virtually nothing. In the recorded 
 sayings of Epicurus there is surely as refined a conception of the 
 
 * Masson, Atomic Theory of Lucretius, p. 46. 
 ''■Lucretius, IV, 379-86. 
 '^Dio.genes LMerfius, IX, 45. 
 
DEMOCRITUS. 5 1 
 
 meaning and function of pleasure as has been anywhere expressed by 
 Democritus so far as our knowledge of his sentiments enables us to 
 judge. ^ 
 
 Lucretius, who follows Epicurus faithfully here as elsewhere, ex- 
 presses himself with equal dignity and forcefulness: 
 
 O miseras hominum mentes, O pectora caeca ! 
 Qualibus in tenebris vitae quantisque periclis 
 Degitur hoc aevt quodcumquest ! nonne videre 
 Nil aliud sibi naturam latrare, nisi ut qui 
 Cor pore seiunctus dolor absit, mente fruatur 
 lucundo sensu cur a semota metuque? 
 Ergo corpoream ad naturam pauca videmus 
 Esse opus omnino, quae demant cumque dolorem. 
 Delicias quoque uti multas substernere possint 
 Gratius interdum, neque natura ipsa requirit, 
 Si non aurea sunt iuvenum simulacra per aedes 
 Lampadas igniferas manibus retinentia dextris, 
 Lu7nina nocturnis epulis ut suppeditentur , 
 Nee domus argento fulget auroque renidet 
 Nee citharae reboant laqueata aurataque tecta, 
 Cum tamen inter se prostrati in gr amine mo Hi 
 Propter aquae rivum sub ramis arboris altae 
 Non magnis opibus iucunde corpora curant, 
 Praesertim cum tempestas adridet et anni 
 Tempora conspergunt viridantis Jloribus herbas. 
 Nee calidae cititis decedunt corpore febres, 
 Textilibus si in picturis ostroque rubenti 
 lacteris, quam si in plebeia veste cubandum est. 
 Quapropter quoniam nil nostro in corpore gazae 
 Pruficiunt neque nobilitas nee gloria regni 
 Quod super est, animo quoque nil prodesse putandum.^ 
 
 In this connection we may also note the similarity of attitude 
 which Democritus and Lucretius take with reference to the passion 
 of love. For sexual enjoyment they both have a certain contempt," 
 
 ^Diogeftes Laertius, X. 1 28-132, 140. Usener. Epicurea^ pp. 62-64. 72. 
 ' 11. ,14-39. 
 
52 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IX LUCRETIUS. 
 
 which in Democritus amounts to positive hatred, because in the per- 
 suit of such pleasure the man gives himself over to the degrading 
 charm of the senses.^ The intense earnestness of Lucretius in deal- 
 ing with this subject in the fourth book of his poem, seems almost like 
 a commentary on the creed of Democritus in this regard. 
 
 An illustration of the characteristic Epicurean method of account- 
 ing for physical phenomena is afforded in the passage on earthquakes 
 in the sixth book, where Lucretius, following his master, is in accord 
 with Democritus in assigning these disturbances to a variety of 
 causes. Epicurus, after specifying certain reasons for earthquakes, 
 naivel}' Savs: kuI Kar aWovs Si trktiovs Tpdirous rds kiv^o-cis ravras Tfjs "yfis 
 -yCveo-Gai . ^ 
 
 We are indebted to Seneca for what Munro calls a better illustra- 
 tion of Lucretius in this connection than the extant writings of Epi- 
 curus himself provide, since the larger works of the latter, which 
 Lucretius had no means of consulting, were available to Seneca, who 
 says: J^em'amus nunc ad eos qui omnia ista quae rettuli in causa esse dix- 
 erunt aut ex his plura. Demncritus plura putat. Ait enim motum ali- 
 quando spiritu fieri, aliquando aqua, aliquando utroque. . . . 0?/i- 
 nes is/as posse esse causas Epicurus ait pluresque alias temptat et alios qui 
 aliquid unum ex istis esse adfirmaverunt corripit, etc. [Xat. Quaest. 
 VI, 20.)^ Attention has already been called to the fact that palpable 
 imitations of Democritus have been attributed to Epicurus. It has 
 also been maintained that Lucretius made liberal use of the same 
 authorit}'. The words ordo, positura, figurae, which appear in the 
 same succession and with the same technical significance in I, 685 
 and II, 102 1, have been traced to Democritus, by whom their Greek 
 equivalents were employed according to the testimony of two author- 
 ities. Aristotle says: 
 
 AT](jLOKpiTb> }i€v ovv Tpcis 8ia<|>opds €OiK€v olop.€vu> ctvai * TO jJL€v "yotp VirOKeifl€VOV 
 o-w|ia TTjv vXt)v €v Kal TavTOv, 8ia<)>6p€iv Be r\ pv(r(itp o Io-ti o-xfipta, r\ Tpoirti & Io-ti 
 64o-is, 11 SiaOt-Y-g '6 iarri Td|ts . * 
 
 1 Zeller, Pre-Socratic P/iitosop/iy, II, p. 285. 
 
 '^Diogenes Laeriius X, 105, 106. 
 
 ^ Munro, II, p. 370. 
 
 ^Metap/i., VIII, 2, p. 1042, b. ii. Munro, II, p. 87. 
 
DEMOCRITUS. 53 
 
 Simplicius, referring to the doctrines of Democritus, says : 
 Tp€is 84 tlo-iv avrai pv<r\Los rpoinj SiaOi-y-^, ravTov 8c direiv <r\r[\i.a Koi Qitris Kal 
 
 The theory that Lucretius enjoyed an intimate acquaintance with 
 the writings of Democritus must not be pressed too far, however, 
 since in all probability the philosopher of Abdera was better known 
 to later writers than to Lucretius and his contemporaries. Two 
 generations after the De Rerum Natura was published, in the era of 
 Tiberius, Thrasylus wrote an introduction to the writings of the 
 famous atomist. 
 
 ToL 8€ Pi^XCa avToO Kal 0pa<rvXos dva-ye-ypa((>c Kara Td|iv ovrcos «<nr€p€l Kttl rd 
 nXdTwvos, Kara TerpaXo^Cav, says Diogenes Laertius.^ It is apparent 
 that in" the study of Democritus the opportunities of Lucretius did 
 not equal those of his successors. 
 
 But while Lucretius agrees in many of the principles of his philos- 
 ophy with Democritus and offers similar elucidations of physical phe- 
 nomena, he does not hesitate to differ from him in important particulars. 
 The most significant divergence between the positions of these two 
 men is found in the celebrated passage on the declination of the 
 atoms in the second book. The doctrine of Democritus concerning 
 the origin (jf motion and the subsequent formation of the visible uni- 
 verse is attacked with firmness but courtesy. Doubtless the admira- 
 tion of Lucretius for Democritus impelled him to treat a subject, 
 which he knew to he of the utmost significance to his system, with 
 far more considerateness for his rival than he was accustomed to show 
 towani opponents. The early atomists, of whom Leucippus and 
 Democritus are the representative figures, explained the facts of 
 nature neither on the ground of chance nor of design, but referred 
 them to natural and necessary causes. Starting with the postulate 
 which the E[)icureans adopted, that atoms and the void consti- 
 tute the wh(^le (jf nature, they sought the origin of motion in gravi- 
 lativjn. The weight of the atoms, they declared, is the eternal cause 
 oi their movement. The velocity with which these atoms proceed 
 through space is conditioned on their mass. The larger and the 
 
 » Ritter et Preller. Hist. Phil. Gracae. 148 B. 
 ' IX. 45- 
 
54 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 heavier naturally fall with greater swiftness than the smaller and 
 lighter. They stream down through the void in perpendicular lines, 
 but the rapidity with which the heavy atoms descend enables them to 
 overtake and impinge on the lighter and slower ones, in consequence 
 of which there are deflections and repulsions, which set up at length 
 a rotary movement of matter from which was evolved the entire order 
 of the universe.^ That by means of collisions and interminglings the 
 worlds and all they contain were produced, is the doctrine of Epi- 
 curus no less than of Democritus; but there is a fundamental differ- 
 ence in their respective methods of accounting for the beginnings of 
 the process. And Lucretius has presented the arguments against the 
 Democritean hypothesis with great force. 
 
 The first reason adduced by the poet for rejecting the theory of 
 Democritus is that it is inadequate to the task of accounting for the 
 existence of the universe, being founded upon a ftilse physical prop- 
 osition. For the statement that the heavier atoms will ultimately 
 strike the lighter in their perpendicular plunge through space is in- 
 validated by the fact that in a vacuum all botiies move with the same 
 rapidity. 
 
 Quod si forte aliquis credit graviora potesse 
 Corpora, quo citius rectum per inane feruntur , 
 Incidere ex supero levioribus atque ita plagas 
 Gignere quae possint genitalis reddere motus, 
 'Avius a vera longe ratione recedit. 
 Nam per aquas quaecumque cadunt atque a era rarurn, 
 Haec pro ponderibus casus celerare necessest 
 Propterea quia corpus aquae naturaque tenvis 
 Aeris haut possunt aeque rem quamque morari, 
 Sed citius cedunt gravioribus exsuperata ; 
 At contra nulli de nulla parte neque ullo 
 Tempore inane potest vacuum suhsistere rei, 
 Quin, sua quod natura petit, concedere per gat; 
 Omnia, quapropter debent per inane quietum 
 
 ^ ol irtpl Ar](JL6KpiTOv Kal voTcpov 'EirCKOvpos rds dT6ptovs irdo-as 6(io4>vcis ov<ras 
 Pdpos €X€iv <|>a(ri, t« Sc clvai riva ^apvrcpa llwOovficva rd K0V({>6T€pa {iir' avroiv 
 v4>i^av6vT<i)v 4irl to dvo) <|>^p€(r6ai * xal ovto) Xe-yovo-iv ovroi Sokciv rd fxcv KoO()>a cl- 
 vai rd %\ Pape'a . Simplicius in Ritter et Preller, 149 e. 
 
DEMOCRITUS. 55 
 
 Aeque ponderibus non acquis concita ferri. 
 Haud igitur poterunt levioribus incidere umquam 
 Ex super graviora neque ictus gignere per se 
 Qui varient motus per quos natura gerat res. * 
 In arguing the equal rapidity of the atoms through space and the 
 consequent impossibility of atom overtaking atom in the eternal de- 
 scent, and thus rendering generation and combination inconceivable 
 without some variation of the downward sweep or the interference of 
 the divine will, which he distinctly disavows, Lucretius follows Ep- 
 icurus, who says : 
 
 Kal y.y\v Kal lo-oraxcts dvaYKaiov rds drdfiovs elvai, Srav 8id rov kcvov ct(r<|>^p- 
 <i)VTai }iT]9€v6s dvTiKoiTTOtn-os . ovT€ "ydp rd ^apf'a Odrrov ol<r6Vj<rcTai t»v (iiiKpwv 
 Ktti K0ii4>a»v, orav -yt St| p,T]8ev diravrj^ avTOis * ovt€ rd p.iKpd [PpaSvrcpov] T«v jiry- 
 dXwv, irdvTa iropov o-v)x.|JLeTpov exovra, orav |jlt]6€v fit^Sc CKcCvoi^ dvTiK6irrg .' 
 
 To account for the collision of the atoms and the resultant com- 
 bination .of matter and the formation of the worlds and their contents, 
 Lucretius and Epicurus adopt an mgenious expedient. 
 
 Corpora cum deorsum rectum per inane feruniur 
 Ponderibus propriis, se incerto tempore fer me 
 Incertisque locis spatio depellere paulum, 
 Tantum quod mo men mutatufn dicer e possis. 
 Quod nisi declinare solerent, omnia deorsum, 
 Imbris uti guttae, caderent per inane pro/undum. 
 Sec for et offensus natus nee plaga creata 
 Principiis : ita nil umquam natura creasset.^ 
 
 Lucretius seems to have realized how dangerous a thing it was to 
 introduce this physical contrivance into his system, for he attempts to 
 guard his readers from the error of supposing that the atoms can 
 travel downward in oblique lines, as would be the case if the swerve 
 were more than the slightest conceivable variation from the perpen- 
 dicular. 
 
 UI, 225-42. 
 
 ''Diogeiws Laertius X, 61. This objection, it is asserted, was borrowed from 
 Aristotle. Cf. Zeller, Stoics. Epicureans ami Sceptics, p. 445. 5. Masson Atomic 
 Theory of Lucretius, p. 48. 
 
 MI. 217 24. 
 
56 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 Quare eiiam atque etiam paulum inclinare necessest 
 Corpora; nee plus quam minimum, ne fifigere motus 
 Obliquos videamur et id res vera refutet.. 
 Namque hoc in promptu manifestumque esse videmus, 
 Pondera, quantum in sest, non posse ohliqua meare, 
 Ex supero cum praecipitant, quod cernere possis; 
 Sed nil omnino recta regione viai 
 Declinare quis est qui possit cernere seseP ' 
 
 It also seems apparent from the phraseology employed that Lucre- 
 tius conceived his atoms as swerving from their own inner impulse, 
 the words se depellere especially pointing to this conclusion.'' 
 
 The testimony of Cicero as a student of Epicureanism, though he 
 ridicules the expedient, is valuable in this connection as to the belief 
 of that school in the necessity of using the swerve to account for 
 combination and generation, and also as to their faith in the inherent 
 tendency of the atoms to diverge almost imperceptibly by their own 
 impulse: 
 
 Epicurus autem in quibus sequitur Democritum, non fere labilur . . . 
 illae Epicuri propriae ruinae censet: enim eadem ilia indiuidua et solida 
 corpora ferri deorsum suo ponder e ad lineam, hum: natural em esse om- 
 nium corporum motum. Deinde ibidem homo acutus, cum illud occurreret, 
 si omnia deorsus e regione f err entur et ut dixi ad lineam, nunquam fore 
 ut atomus altera alteram posset attingere itaque . . attulit rem com- 
 menticiam; declinare dixit atomum perpaullum, quo nihil posset Jieri min- 
 us; ita effici conplexioiies et copulationes et adhaesiones atomorum inter se, 
 ex quo efficeretur mundus omnesque partes mundi quaeque in eo essent. 
 Quae cum res tola ficta sit pueriliter, tum ne efficit quidem, quod vult. 
 Nam et ipsa declinatio ad libidine?n fingitur {ait eniju declinare aiomuju 
 sine causa; quo nihil turpius physico, quam fieri quicqua?n sine causa 
 dicer e), et ilium motum naturalem o??inium ponder um, ut ipse constituit, e 
 regione inferiorem locum petentium sine causa eripuit atomis nee tamen 
 id, cuius causa haec finxerat, assecutus est. Nam si omnes atomi declin- 
 abunt, nullae umquam cohaerescent, sive aliae declinabunt, aliae suo nutu 
 recte fer entur, primum erit hoc quasi provincias atomis dare, quae recte, 
 
 » TI, 243-50. 
 
 2 Munn), II, p. 132. 
 
DEMOCRITIS. 57 
 
 quae oblique ferantur, deinde eadern ilia alomorum, in quo eiiani Democ- 
 ritus haeret, turbulenia coficursio hunc mundi ornatum effi-cere non poterit. ' 
 
 But not only does the doctrine of the swerve enable Lucretius to 
 explain the contact of the atoms in space, but it also servesa far more 
 important purpose. It affords a rational basis for the doctrine of free 
 will, which the Epicureans maintained against the Stoics, the early 
 Atomists and other schools of thought. If the atoms had no power 
 to decline, neither would men, constructed by a fortuitous concourse 
 of these atoms, have the ability to move at will. The power of dec- 
 lination in the atoms corresponds to free action in animals and men, 
 and according to Lucretius* the former is the cause of the latter. It 
 has been conjectured that had not Lucretius required this theory to ex- 
 plain the mystery of free will, he would have left his whirling atoms to 
 take care of themselves, nor bothered his soul over the process of 
 world formation. But the desire to avoid the doctrine of eternal ne- 
 cessity or fate im{)elled him to invent this method of accounting for 
 the freedom of the will.^ Here Lucretius again followed his master, 
 Kpicurus, who — cum viderel, si atomi ferrentur in locum inferior em 
 suopte pondere, nihil /ore in nostra potestate, quod esset earum motus cer- 
 ttis et necessarius, invenit quo modo necessitatem effugeret, quod videlicet 
 Democritum fugerat; ait atomuvi, cum pofidere et gravitate derecto deor- 
 sus /'eratur, declinare paullulum.^ . . . Epicurus declinatione 
 atomi vitari necessitatem fati putat. Itaque tertius quidam motus oritur ex- 
 tra pondus et plagam, cum declinat atomus intervallo minimo — id appellat 
 4\dxio-Tov — ; quam declinationem sine causa fieri si minus verbis, re cog- 
 itur confiteri. . . . Hanc Epicurus rationem induxit ob eam rem, quod 
 veritus est ne si semper atomus gravitate ferretur naturali ac necessaria, 
 nihil liberum nobis esset, cum ita moveretur aftimus, ut atomorum motu cog- 
 eretur. Id Democritus auctor atomortim accipere maluit. necessitate 
 omnia fieri, quam a corporibus individuis naturalis motus avellere. * 
 
 Kpicurus doubtless did adopt the hypothesis of the declination or 
 swerve — as Cicero declares — in tjrder to avoid the Democritean 
 
 ' Cicero. De Finibus, I, 6, 18-20. 
 
 ■^ Munro, II, p. 136. 
 
 '•* Cicero, De Natura Drorum, 1, 25, 69. 
 
 * Cicero, De Fato. 10, 22, 23. 
 
58 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IX LUCRETIl'S. 
 
 doctrine of eternal necessity. He has emphatically denounced this 
 teaching in his famous letter to Menaeceus, and despite his purpose 
 to remove the gods from all participation in human affairs, he says: 
 
 KpciTTOv r\v rta ir€pl Oewv (ivOto KaraKoXovOetv r\ rri rtav <|>v(riKci)v clfiap^cvg 8ov- 
 \cveiv . ^ 
 
 This conviction Lucretius seems to share. 
 
 The adoption of the swerve is from the standpoint of Cicero a 
 thoroughly absurd, if not dishonest, proceeding. He cannot admit 
 that the conceit, is rational. Declinat, inquit, atomus. Prim urn cur? 
 A Ham ekim quandam vim motus habebant a^ Democrito inpuhionis, quam 
 plagam ille appellat, a te. Epicure, gravitatis et ponderis. Quae ergo 
 nova causa in natura est qua dec line i atomus? Aut num sortiuntur 
 ' inter se, quae declinet, quae non? Aut cur minimo declinent ititervallo, 
 maiore non ? A ut'Cur declinetit uno minimo, non declinent duobus aut t rib us ? 
 Optare hoc quidem est, non disputare. Nam neque extrinsecus inpulsam 
 atomum loco moveri et declinare dicis, neque in illo inani, per quod fera- 
 tur atotnus, quicquam fuisse causae, cur ea non e regione ferreiur, ncr 
 in ipsa atomo mutationis aliquid factum est, quam ob rem naturalcni mo- 
 tum sui ponder is non teneret. fta cum attulisset nuUim causa m, quae is- 
 lam declinationem efficeret, tamen aliquid sibi dicerr vidctur, cum id dical 
 quod ojnniiun mentes aspernentur ac respuant. '^ 
 
 Nee . . . est causa cur Epicurus fatum extimescat et ab atomis 
 petal praesiditim easque de via deducat et uno tempore suscipiat res duas 
 inenodabiles, U7iam, ut sine causa fiat aliquid — ex quo existet ut de nihilo 
 quippiam fiat . . . , alteram, ut cum duo individua per inanitalem 
 ferantur, alterum e regione moveatur, alterum declinet.'' 
 
 Of course in this asumption of the doctrine of free will Lucretius 
 antagonizes the Stoics, of whom Plutarch says in this relation: 
 
 'EliriKovp({> (JLCv ^dp ov8' dKap€S l-yKXivai, tt)v aropiov crvyxupova-iv ( 01 StwikoI ) 
 cl>S dvaiTiov lir€i(rd'yovTi KCvt]<riv Ik tov pii] ovros . ^ 
 
 But of the conflict with this school we are to speak at some length 
 
 ^Diogenes Laertiiis, X, 134. 
 
 '^De Fato, 20, 46. 
 
 V/;. 9, 18. 
 
 */)<• Aniinae Procrtationt' in Tim. Plat. Usener. p. 201. 
 
DKMOcRnrs. 59 
 
 later. It is of some significance, however, to observe at this point 
 that Cicero approaches more closely to the school which denies free 
 will than to the defenders of this doctrine, though he maintains a 
 theory of fate or destiny which is in virtual accord with the highest 
 conceptions of Providence, defending on the one hand the decrees of 
 Deity and on the other the qualified liberty of man. He commends 
 Democritus for adhering to the doctrine of necessity as being con- 
 sistent with his physical hypothesis,' and does not hesitate to declare 
 tl.at Epicurus is devoid of judgment. Referring to the expedient of 
 the swerve, he says: Hoc dicere turpius est quam illiid, quod imlt, mm 
 posse de fender e. ^ 
 
 Carneades, he asserts, has produced a far better method of ac- 
 counting for free will. Acutius Carneades, qui docebat posse Epicureos 
 suam causatn sine hac commenticia declinatione defender e. Nam cum 
 docereni esse posse quendam animi motum voluntarium, idfuit defendi mel- 
 ius quam introducere declinationem . . . Cum enim concessissent 
 motum nullum esse sine causa, mm concederent omnia quae fierent, fieri 
 causis antecedentibus ; voluntatis enim nostrae nan esse causas externas et 
 antecedentis. •* 
 
 But the argument which Lucretius makes in behalf of free will is 
 worthy of respectful attention despite the fact that Cicero, Plutarch 
 and other writers ridiculed the Epicurean expedient. For there is no 
 more serious piece of reasoning in the entire poem than that which 
 Lucretius devotes to the theory of atomic declination. The philos- 
 ophy of Epicurus has -emancipated him from slavery to that supersti- 
 tion, which attributes to the deities interference with the affairs of 
 men, and from the fear of unseen powers which is consequent upon 
 this delusion. But he has no sooner escaped from this- terror than he 
 is confronted by an equally forbidding phantom — eternal necessity or 
 fate, which annuls the free action of men and reduces them to mere 
 machines of destiny. If the universe is the product of relentless law, 
 each process following a fixed and unalterable order, cause upon 
 cause, motion upon motion, in everlasting and unbroken sequence, 
 then there can not possibly be any free will. How to elude, on the 
 
 ^De Fa to, passim. 
 
 '^De Natura Deorum, I. 25, 70. 
 
 ^De Fato. II, 23. 
 
6o CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 one hand, the tyranny of the gods and, on the other, the thralldom of 
 necessity, is the problem which was presented to Epicurus, and the 
 swerve was to him a sufficient solution of the puzzle. Without this 
 device he cannot account, from his point of view, for the freedom of 
 the human will. Lucretius fairly exposes the difficulty — 
 
 Denique si semper motus conectitur omnis 
 
 Ei vetere exoritur semper novus ordine certo 
 
 Nee declinando faciunt primordia motus 
 
 Principium quoddam quod fati foedera rumpat. 
 
 Ex infinito ne causam causa seqvaiur. 
 
 Libera per terras unde haec animantibus exstat 
 
 Unde est haec, inquam, fatis avolsa potestas 
 
 Per quam progredimur quo ducit quemque voluntas, 
 
 Declinamus item motus nee tempore certo 
 
 Nee regione loci certa, sed ubi ipsa tulit mens r* ' 
 
 But on what ground does Lucretius assert his doctrine of free will ? 
 He makes his confident appeal to consciousness and experience. Free 
 will is revealed first in initiating movement. The impulse for action 
 comes from the heart, and successively spreads through the various 
 members of the body, and of this Lucretius presents a very forcible 
 illustration. 
 
 Nam dubio procul his rebus sua cuique voluntas 
 
 Principium dat et hinc motus per membra rigantur. 
 
 Nonne vides etiam pate/actis tempore puncto 
 
 Carceribus mm posse tamen prorumpere equorum 
 
 Viin cupidam tam de subito quam mens avet ipsa? 
 
 Omnis enifu totum per corpus material 
 
 Copia conquiri debet, concita per artus 
 
 Omnis ut studium mentis conixa sequatur ; 
 
 Ut videas initum motus a corde creari 
 
 Ex anijiiique voluntate id procedere primum, 
 
 Inde dari porro per totum corpus et artus. ^ 
 
 1 11, 251-60. 
 ■Ub., 261-71. 
 
DEMOCRITUS. 6 1 
 
 But free will is also apparent in resisting compulsory movement, 
 which differs from voluntary action in that it results from a blow or 
 impulse from without. 
 
 Nee siviilest ut cum impuhi procedimus ictu 
 Viribtis alteritis niagnis magnoque coactu; 
 Natn turn materiem iotius corporis oninem 
 Perspiciiumst nobis invitis ire rapiqtie, 
 Donee earn refrenavit per membra voluntas, 
 lamne vides igitur, quajiiquam vis extera multos 
 Pellat et invitos cogat procedere saepe 
 Praecipiiesnue rapi, tamen esse in pectore nostra 
 Quiddam quod contra pugnare obstareque possitp 
 Cuius ad arbitrium quoque copia mater iai 
 Cogitur inter diim flee ti per membra per artus 
 . Et proiecta refrenatur rctroque residit. * 
 
 The conclusion derived from these considerations is that there 
 must be, in addition to movement by weight or gravity, Kara o-TdGjiTiv, 
 and movement by blows, or external influence, kitoL ttXtiyVj ^^- 
 swerve^ which has already been described. 
 
 Quare in seminibus quoque idem fateare necessest. 
 Esse alidm praeter plagas et pondera causam 
 Motibus, unde haee est nobis innata potestas, 
 De nilo quoniam fieri nil posse vidcmus. 
 Pondus enim prohibet ne plagis omnia fiant 
 Externa quasi vi; sed ne mens ipsa necessum 
 Intestinum habeat cunctis in rebus agendis 
 Et devicta quasi hoe cogatur ferre patique, 
 Id faeit exiguum elinamen principiorum 
 Nee regione loci eerta nee tempore eerto. * 
 
 Upon a recapitulation of this argument one finds that, while it is 
 unsatisfactory, mainly because it is impossible to account for the op- 
 erations of the intellect on a purely materialistic hypothesis, and 
 while Lucretius in specifying three causes of movement confuses 
 
 1 II, 272-83. 
 ni, 284-93- 
 
62 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 thought, having first asserted that movement by collision results from 
 the swerve and afterward having placed the swerve before us as a 
 separate cause of movement, yet the reasoning, from his standpoint, 
 is close and strong. It amounts to this: We are conscious of the 
 power of the will to originate action, which, beginning at the center, 
 extends under our personal direction through the whole physical 
 frame. We are also conscious of the difference between voluntary 
 action and necessary movement. When a body is moved by an ex- 
 ternal impulse, it moves all at once. And we easily discriminate 
 between moving of our own volition and being forced to move. In 
 the latter case we experience a feeling of resistance in our breast 
 which impels us to withstand the energy applied to us. The atoms 
 which compose body are subject to the same influences. There is 
 the impulse of gravity, the impulse of external force, but there must 
 be also in all atoms, and especially in those finer ones which form 
 the mind, the power to vary at will from the line of perpendicular 
 descent. This is inevitable, for if the soul has this power, as we 
 know from experience it has, and the atcHiis which compose soul 
 have it not, then the first principle of the atomistic philosophy — 
 ex nihilo nihil fit — is outraged. There is no way, according to Lu- 
 cretius, to explain the existence of free will in men — the highest re- 
 sult of the atomistic evolution — except by admitting that it is an 
 active principle in original matter. And there is no satisfactory 
 method of accounting for this inherent quality of the atoms except 
 to acknowledge the clinaiueii principiorinn nee regione loci certa Jiec 
 tempore certo.^ 
 
 An element of respect for Democritus enters into this discussion 
 on the part of Lucretius, who wished to make as distinct as possible 
 his divergence from the older philosopher, while he lingers over the 
 subject to show that his conclusions have not been inconsiderately 
 taken, and also that he may combat the Stoics.-' 
 
 Other points of controversial contact between the Epicurean sys- 
 tem and Democritus, as disclosed by the poem of Lucretius, seem of 
 secondary importance, and yet are sufficiently characteristic to demand 
 
 ^ Masson, Atomic Theory of Lucretius, pp. 127, 28. 
 ^Munro, II, p. 136. 
 
DEMOCRITUS. 63 
 
 attention. Democritus, as we learn chiefly from Aristotle and 
 Diogenes Laertius, held that the atoms are not only infinite in multi- 
 tude, but also in the number of their shapes. The grounds of this 
 opinion were that "there is no reason why one shape should belong 
 to them more than to another;" that " only on this supposition can 
 it be explained that things that are so infinitely diverse are subject 
 to so many changes and appear so differently to diff'erent people."'^ 
 Aristotle says: 
 
 At]|jl6kpitos Se Kttl AevKiiriros €k o-tufidTCDv dSiaipcVuv roXXa crv-yKEio-daC <|>ao'i, 
 ravTO, 8 aireipa Kal to ir\fi0os etvai Kal rds p.op()>ds, aira 8c -n-pos avrd 8ia<{>cp€iv 
 TOVT013 «^ wv €l<ri Kal OeVei Kal rd^ci tovtwv.- 
 
 Diogenes Laertius declares that Democritus believed — 
 
 Kal ras drofiovs 8c dircCpovs ctvai Kara iii-yeOos Kal irXfiOos . ' 
 
 Against this doctrine Epicurus is emphatic. He says: 
 
 irpos TC TOVTOis Tu dT0p.a Tuiv (r(dp.dTb>v Kal p.c<rTd, c^ «v Kal al crvyKpIo'cis 
 •yivovTai Kal els d 8ia\vovtai, ttTrcpiirXiTTrTd co-ti rais 8ia4)Opats twv o-XTj(idTft)v • 
 ov -yttp Swarov -ycvccrdai tus TO<ravTas 8ia4>opttS €k twv avToiiv <r\r]\x.aT<av ircpi- 
 ci\T||x)JLCv(dv. Kal Ka0' lKd<rTT]v 8c <rxTip.dTi(rtv dirXdis dircipoi clctv al ofxoiai, Tais 
 8c 8ia(|>opais ov\ dirXws dircipoi dXXd jjlovov direpiirXirirTOi . * 
 
 Lucretius adheres to his master in that he states; and argues that 
 the number of atoms is finite, but he does not, like F4)icurus, admit 
 that the number ^is incalculably great. He refrains from declaring 
 whether it is small or large. But he adduces cogent reasons tor his 
 belief. In order to haVe an infinite number of shapes of atoms, it 
 would be necessary to have atoms infinite in magnitude. For sup- 
 pose an atom has a limited number of least parts: their permutations 
 will only give a limited number of shapes. To secure an infinite 
 number of shapes, therefore, it would be necessary to keep adding 
 parts to infinity, and thus we should eventually have atoms of infinite 
 size, which has been demonstrated to be an impossibility. Again, 
 were the shapes of atoms infinite in number, there would be no limit 
 to the beauty of color and sound, or to that which is olTensivc. But 
 
 * Zeller, Fre-Socratic Philosophy, II, p. 223. 
 V/;., p. 224, I. 
 
 MX, 44. 
 
 ^Diogenes Laertius, X, 42. 
 
64 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS, 
 
 we know there is a limit to all this, as also to the heat and cold of 
 the year, summer's heat and winter's cold being two points between 
 which various degrees of temperature proceed in their order. ^ 
 
 Lucretius mentions Democritus by name when he combats, as he 
 feels compelled to do, this philosopher's theory of the formation of 
 the soul; but, while he deprecates his doctrine, he alludes to its 
 author in terms of compliment. 
 
 Illud in his rebus nequaqiiam sumere possis, 
 Democriti quod sancta viri sententia ponii, 
 Corporis atque animi primordia singula privis 
 Adposita alterriis variare, ac necitre memlra.''- 
 
 To say that between every pair of atoms which compose the body 
 there is a finer atom of the soul, is to Lucretius a wholly groundless 
 statement. In his judgment the atoms of the body are many times 
 as numerous as those of the soul, and therefore distributed at much 
 wider intervals than Democritus supposed. 
 
 Nayn cum viiiHo sunt animae elementa minora 
 Quam quibus e corpus nobis ft viscera constant. 
 Turn numero quoque coTicedunt et rara per artus 
 Dissita sunt dumtaxat; ut hoc promittere possis, 
 C'uatitula prima queant nobis iniecta ciere^ 
 Corpora sensiferos 7?iotus in corpore, tanta 
 Intervalla tenere exordia prima animai. 
 Nam neque pulveris interdum sentimus adhaesum 
 Corpore nee membris incussam sidere cretam, 
 Nee nebulam noctu neque aranei tenvia fila 
 Obvia sentimus, quando obretimur euntes. 
 Nee supera caput eiusdem cecidisse vietam 
 Vestem nee plumas avium papposque volantis 
 Qui nimia levitate cadiuit plerumque gravatim, 
 Nee repentis itum cuiusviscumque animantis 
 Sentimus nee priva pedum vestigia quaeque, 
 Corpore quae ifi nostro culices et cetera poitunt, 
 
 111,478-521. 
 2 III, 370-3. 
 
DEMOCRITUS. 6 5 
 
 Usque adeo prius est in nobis multa ciendum, 
 Qua?n primordia sentiscant coficussa animai 
 Semina corporibus nosiris inmixta per artus, 
 Et quam in his intervallis tuditantia possint 
 Concur sare coire et dissultare vicissim. * 
 
 This point of difference between Epicurus and Democritus Munro 
 declares we should never have known but /or this passage in Lucre- 
 tius, for in many particulars the two were in accord on the question 
 of the constitution of the soul as well as other subjects connected 
 with the atomistic philosophy.^ 
 
 On the origin of verbal designations, the teaching of Epicurus and 
 Lucretius seems to have been at variance with the doctrine of 
 Democritus. In his letter to Herodotus Epicurus says: 
 
 TO, ovofxara c| o-PX'HS H-^ Oeo-ei 'Ycv€<r8ai, dX\' avrds rds (|>varcis twv dvOpMirwv 
 Ka9' 'iKO.fna. e6vT] \!Sia irao-xovcras irdOr] Kal \!8ia Xa}iPavov<ras 4>avTd<r|jLaTa ISiois 
 Tov depa iKirefiirfiv o-TcXXofJievov v<|>' tKdTTwv Toiv iraOwv Kal twv <}>avTa(rfidTa>v, d>s 
 dv TTOTe Kal r\ irapd tovs tottovs twv IOvuv 8ia(|>opd rj • {'cTipov Si KOivdis KaO' ^k- 
 aora (.%vr\ to. tSia TeSfivai irpos to rds 8r|\(0(r£is t^ttov d}i4>iP6Xovs -Ycvco-Gai dXX^- 
 Xots Kal <ruvTO}jLcoT€po)s StiXovjjLc'vas k . t . X .^ 
 
 Terms of description and the language of common life were not 
 directly imparted, but are the product of a necessary evolution. Xa- 
 tureand the multiplying needs of men prompted them to invent forms 
 of speech. This is the conviction of Lucretius, who says: 
 
 At varios linguae so nit us natura sub eg it 
 _ Mittere et utilitas expressit nomina return, 
 Non alia longe ratione atque ipsa videtur 
 Protrahere ad gestum pueros infayitia linguae, 
 Cum facit ut digito quae sint praesentia monstrent. 
 Sentit enim vim quisque suam quoad possit abuti. 
 
 All creatures feel their natural powers before these powers have 
 been developed. The calf butts before his horns protrude; panthers 
 and lions fight ere teeth and claws have appeared; and birds attempt 
 flight before their pinnions have been fully plumed. 
 
 MIL 374-95. 
 
 2 Munro, II, p. 194. 
 
 ^Diogenes Laertius, X, 75, 76. 
 
66 CONTROVF.RSAL ELEMENTS IK LUCRETIUS. 
 
 Proinde putare aliquevi him nomina distribuisse 
 Rebus et inde homines didicisse vocabida prima, 
 Desiperest. 
 
 How could any one man know what he ought to teach, and how 
 could he succeed in inducing other men to learn from him? And 
 what hinders that man should apply different sounds to denote 
 various things, when, as is well known, the brutes pursue this 
 process; as for example, dogs, horses, sea-gulls, crows? 
 
 Ergo si varii sensus animalia cogunt, 
 Muta tamen cum sinl, varias emittere voces, 
 Quanta mortalis magis aecumst tum potuisse 
 Dissimilis alia aique alia res voce notare! ^ 
 
 Such is the reasoning of Lucretius, with which it is asserted De- 
 mocritus did not agree. ^ 
 
 The presentation of a variety of reasons for the rising of the Nile, 
 a choice of which the student of natural phenomena is entitled to 
 make for himself, is very characteristic of the Epicurean method of 
 dealing with physical facts, and also brings Lucretius into quasi con- 
 flict with Democritus, who according to Diodorus held a positive 
 theory of the cause of this phenomenon, which is included among 
 others asserted by Lucretius as possible.^ 
 
 Fit quoque uti pluviae forsan magis ad caput ei 
 ^ Tempore eo fiant, quod etesia flabra aquilonum 
 Nubila coniciunt in eas tunc 07nnia partis. 
 Scilicet ad mediam regionem eiecta diet 
 Cum convenerunt, ibi ad altos denique montis 
 Contrusae nubes coguntur vique premuntur.*' 
 
 This explanation Lucretius gives no higher place than he assigns 
 to the popular opinion, which Democritus intended to refute. 
 
 There is also an implied difference between Lucretius and Democ- 
 
 1 V, 1028-90. 
 
 2 Munro, II, p. 335. 
 »/^., p. 378. 
 
 * VI, 729-34- 
 
DEMOCRITUS. 67 
 
 ritus on tlie subject of the gods; for on this matter the poet has ac- 
 curately represented Epicurus, who, according to Augustinus. is at 
 issue with Democritus. 
 
 Quamquam Democritus etiam hoc distare in naturalibus quaestionibus 
 ab Epicuro dicitur, quod iste sentit inesse concursioni atomorum vim quan- 
 dam animalem et spiritalem ; qua vi eum credo el imagines ipsas divin- 
 itate praediias dicere, non omnes omnium rerum, sed deorum; et prin- 
 cipia mentis esse in universis, quibus divinitatem tribuit, et animantes im- 
 agines, quae vel prodesse nobis soleant vet nocere: Epicurus vero neque 
 aliquid in principiis rerum ponit praeter atomos id est corpuscula quaedam 
 tam minuta, ut etiam dividi nequeant neque sentiri aut visu auttactu possint: 
 quorum corpusculorum concursufortuitoetmundosinnumerabiles et animan- 
 tia et ipsas animas fieri dicit et deos, quos humana forma non in aliquo 
 mufido sed extra mundos atque inter mundos constituit; et non vutt omnino 
 aiiquid praeter corpora cogitare, quae tamen ut cogitet imagines dicit ab 
 ipsis rebus, quas atomis /ormari putat, defluere atque in animum introire 
 subtiliores quam sunt illae imagines quae ad oculos veniunt. nam et videndi 
 causam hanc esse dicit, ijigentts quasdam imagines ita ut universum mun- 
 dum conplectantur extrinsecus. ' 
 
 1 Usener, p,. 237. 
 
68 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 II. 
 
 Philosophers toward whom Lucretius is Hostile. 
 If the criticisms of Lucretius upon those philosophers with whose 
 theories he disagrees appear in some instances to be unduly severe, 
 it must be remembered that in his master he had an example of mer- 
 ciless and caustio censure. The references of Epicurus to the ex- 
 ponents of other schools of philosophy not infrequently descend to 
 scurrility. Contemptuous reflections upon Nausiphanes, Plato, Ar- 
 istotle, Protagoras, Heraclitus and even Democritus have been at- 
 tributed to him. 
 
 Kal Iv rats lirrd Kal TpidKOvra pCpXiois rats irepl ^vtnus to, irXeCo-ra ravxA. 
 [t£] Xc-yeiv Ka\ dvTi'ypd<j>£tv Iv avrais dWois ts Kal Nau(ri4>dv€i [ra. irXcio-ra], Ka 
 av»T|] Xc'^ei 4>d(rKEiv outcos 'AXX' 'inoa-av • il\i yap Ikcivos wSivwv tt]v aTro tov trro- 
 (xaros Kavx.'HO'iv tt^v cro<l)i(rTiKT|v, KaOd tnp Kal dXXoi iroXXol t<Sv dvSpaTroScov. Kal 
 avTov 'EiriKOvpov kv rais €irio-ToXais irepl Nau<ri<j)dvovs Xc'-yciv Tavra TJ-yo.'yev av- 
 Tov tls tKO-rao-iv TOiavTT]v, w<rT6 jioi XoiSopcicrdai Kal diroKaXeiv SiSdcKaXov. irXev- 
 (jLOvd T€ avTov CKdXei Kal d-ypdfi(iarov Kal dirarewva Kal iropviiv • rovs xcTrcpl IlXd- 
 Tcova Aiovvo-OKoXaKas Kal avrov JlXdrtova xpv<rovv. Kal 'Apio-TOTeXr] dcrcDTOv, (6v) 
 KaTa(t>a-Y6vTa ttjv irarpwav ovcrCav (rTpaT€ii£<r0ai Kal <})ap}iaKO'irci)X£iv (|>opfio(t>6pov 
 re Xlpwra-yopav Kal 'Ypa<}>ea A-qfiiOKpiTOv Kal Iv K(iop,ais 'ypdp.jxara SiSdo-Kciv * 'HpdK- 
 
 XeiTOV TC KVKTJTTJV * Kal Al^JlOKpiTOV ATJpOKpiTOV ' Kal 'AvTlSwpOV DavVlSwpOV • TOVS 
 
 T6 KvviKOvs Ix^povs TTis 'EXXdSos' Kal TOVS SioXcKTiKovs 7roXv<j>96pous' Ilvppctfva 
 8€ dfjiadf] Kal d'irai6€VT0v. ^ 
 
 The most notable thing in this passage, of course, is the fact that 
 even Democritus, to whom Epicurus was so much indebted, comes 
 in for his share of obloquy. Cicero confirms in a large degree the 
 reports preserved by Diogenes Laertius. 
 
 Aa??i Phaedro nihil elegantiiis, nihil humaniiis; sed stomachabatur 
 senex, si quid asperitis dixerani, ctan Epicurus Arislolelein vexarii co?i- 
 lumeliosissiine, Phaedoni Socratico iurpissivie male dixc?it, JMelrodori, 
 sodalis stti, fratrem, Pimocralen, quia nescio quid in philosophia dis- 
 
 * Diogenes Laertius, X, 7, 8. 
 
HERACLITUS. 69 
 
 sentiret, totis voluminibus conciderii, in Democritum ipsum, quern secutus 
 est, fuerit ingratus, Nausiphanen, magistrum suum, a quo {non) nihil di- 
 dicerat, tarn male acceperit. ^ 
 
 With such traditions before him and filled with an idolatrous ven- 
 eration for his master, it is not strange that Lucretius exhibited some 
 severity in the treatment of his controversial antagonists, albeit his 
 language is mild compared with that of Epicurus. 
 
 I. Heraclitus. 
 
 Of the persons referred to by Lucretius in his poem, Heraclitus 
 alone is severely denounced by name. It is interesting to note that 
 this philosopher was himself abusive in his manner toward his com- 
 petitors and contemporaries. Such honored names as Hesiod, Pyth- 
 agoras. Xenophanes and Homer fell under the ban of his reprobation. 
 
 )jL€-YaX6((>p(i>v %\ yiyovi irap* ovTivaovv, Kal vircp6irn]S' a)S Kal Ik tov a-vyypa\i.\i.m- 
 ro$ avTov Sf^Xov, ev tJ 4>T)(ri,IIoXv(i.a6iT] voov ov 8i8d(rK€i. 'HcioSov 'ydp av 4Si8ok|c 
 Kal nvOa-yop-qv, avOCs t€ ^«vo<j)dv€d n Kal 'EKaratov. Elvai -ydp €v to o-0(|>pov 4ir- 
 i<rTa<r6ai yv(a\ir\v, -liTC 01 lyKv^pvr]cr€i irdvTa 8id irdvTwv. t6v "0\ir]pov €<|>curKCv 
 a|iov 6K Twv d-ywvwv CK^dXXco-Oai Kal pairi^ccrOai, Kal 'ApxCXoxov ofioCws*^ 
 
 At the same time, as has been pointed out by scholars, Heraclitus 
 was influenced by some of the teachers whom he antagonized, nota- 
 bly by Xenophanes, with whose views of the heavenly bodies he un- 
 doubtedly sympathized.' 
 
 The avowed reason for the animosity of Lucretius toward Herac- 
 litus, as exhibited in the passage now to be considered, is that he is 
 the leader of those philosophers who assert that fire is the original 
 essence from which everything has been derived. The Epicurean 
 physics is arrayed against all systems that ascribe primordial matter 
 to one, two or any limited number of substances. This of itself 
 would be sufficient to bring the condemnation of Lucretius down 
 
 ^De Nat. Deor., I, 93. 
 
 ^ Diogenes Laertiiis, IX, I. 
 
 ' Ueberweg, Hisi. Phil., I, 39. 
 
70 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 upon the head of Heraclitus. But when the element chosen to 
 stand for all matter is fire, the whole Stoic school seems to be in- 
 volved, and the virulence of the Epicurean poet is largely explained, 
 as will become more apparent later by the deathless hostility existing 
 between the "porch" and the ''garden." It is a truly Epicurean 
 and natural temper which displays itself in the lines with which Lu- 
 cretius begins the attack upon Heraclitus. 
 
 Heraclitus mil quorum dux proelia primus, 
 Clarus ob obscuram linguam magis inler inanis 
 Quamde gravis inler Graios qui vera requirunl. 
 Omnia enim slolidi magis admiranlur amanlque, 
 Inversis quae sub verbis lalilantia cernunl, 
 Veraque consliluunl quae belle langere possunt 
 Auris el lepido quae sunt fucata sonar e.^ 
 
 The taunt of obscurity contained in these lines originated as much 
 from the reputation given Heraclitus by several writers of antiquity, 
 as from any personal conviction which possessed Lucretius. The 
 title 6 <rKOT€ivds was early applied to Heraclitus. 
 
 avSpcs 8 * d|i<SXo-YOi yv>i6voxr\.v iv avr^J t«v jiiv iroXaiuv 'HpaKXcirds tc 6 <rKO- 
 
 T€iv6s KaXoV|JL€VOS K.T.X. ^ 
 
 The earliest employment of this term in connection with Heracli- 
 tus is said to be found in Ps. Aristotle, De Mundo, 5, unless this 
 work is later than the time of Hannibal, in which case the passage 
 in Livy, xxiii, 39, would indicate an earlier origin.* 
 
 The testimony of Cicero is to the same effect as that already given. 
 Heraclitus, cognomento qui o-kot€iv6s perhibetur , quia de natura nimis 
 obscvre memoravit. * 
 
 Sed omnia vestri, Balbe, sclent ad igneam vim referre Heraclitum, ut 
 opinor, sequentes, quem ipsum non omnes interpretantur uno modo; qui 
 quoniam quid diceret intelligi noluit, omittamus, etc. ^ 
 
 » I, 638-44. 
 
 ■^ Stra/wn, XIV, 25 in Ritter et Preller, 22b. 
 
 »Munro, II, 84. 
 
 *De Fin., II, 15. 
 
 ^De Nat. Deor., Ill, 35. 
 
HERACLITUS. 7 1 
 
 In a similar tenor is the witness of Diogenes Laertius. 
 
 dvc9T]K€ 8* avTo els TO t9\s 'ApW^iSos Upov, a>s \i.{v rivts, liriTTj8«v<ras 4<ra<}>^<rT«- 
 pov 'Ypdtl'cii, OTTws oi 8vvd{AcvoL irpotrioicv avrw KaV \i.r\ Ik tov StificOSovs cvKaTa<|>p6v« 
 TjTov ctt). TOVTOv Sc Kttl 6 T£)i,(i)v viTO'Ypditxi, Xcyt^v. 
 
 Tois 8' €vi K0KKVO-T1]? ox^oXoiSopos 'HpdicXctTOf 
 
 aCviKTT)s dv6pov(rc.^ 
 
 In the letter from Darius, the son of Hystaspes, to Heraclitus we 
 have further evidence of the recondite character of the Ephesian phil- 
 osopher's writings. 
 
 T«v 8c irX«CorTo>v lirox^v exovra* &<rrt Kal tovs liriirXcurrov |UTC(rxt)K6Ta$ <rvy« 
 'Ypafi|xdTci)v, 8iaxopci(r6ak rr\s opO'qs 8oK0V(n)s 'YC'Ypd<|>6ai irapd <roi Sitf^^orcws.^ 
 
 The saying that a Delian diver was required to fathom the depths 
 of his composition has been attributed both to Socrates and to a 
 certain Crates, who is reputed to be the first person who brought the 
 work of Heraclitus into Central Greece. 
 
 A more favorable construction has, however, been placed upon the 
 literary performances of Heraclitus by some authors, who declare in 
 certain instances that his obscurity is due to the brevity with which 
 he expresses himself. Others think that the figurative style of his 
 speech has much to do with the difficulty of understanding him. 
 Others attribute this fault to a certain loose method of expression; 
 while the opinion is held in still other quarters that Heraclitus had 
 no intention of explaining the matters which he proposed for consid- 
 eration. Hue accedit quod et omnis illorum temporum oratio philoso- 
 phiae difficiles aditus praebebat et ille proponere malebat quae sentiret quam 
 exponere. ' 
 
 On the other hand, it is asserted that he sometimes wrote with 
 lucidity and brilliancy. 
 
 Xa^irpws T€ evioT€ Iv tw (rvy-Ypd^tfjiaTi Kal o-a<|>a>s IkPoXXji, wotc Kal tov vvAiv 
 Barov p(;i8i(ds -yvuvai Kal 8iap(ta <)/v\iis XaP^iv i) ^pa^vTi^s Kal to ^dpos t{)s fp- 
 )iT)v€Cas do-v-yKpiTov.^ 
 
 ^ Diog. Laer., IX, 6. 
 '^Ib., IX, 13. 
 » Ritter et Preller, 2T,a 
 * Diog. Laer., IX, 7. 
 
72 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 He himself compared his gravity with the seriousness of oracles 
 when correctly interpreted. 
 
 6 ava| (ov to piavTctdv Io-ti to) iv AcX4>ois oUrt \iyti oUrt KpvirTCi, dXXd aii\]t.aivu. 
 o-CPvXXa Sc )j,aivop,^v(^ o-T6fiaTi d-yeXao-Ta Kal dKoXXwirio-Ta Kal d|xvpio-Ta <)>OiY- 
 yo\iAvr\ \i\U»v iritav ^^iKv^Tai tq 4>a>v^ 8id tov 6c6v.' 
 
 There are a few persons who doubtless will agree with Prof. Fer- 
 rier that Heraclitus is "the deepest probably, if also the darkest, of 
 all the thinkers of antiquity.^ 
 
 The argument of Lucretius against Heraclitus betrays perhaps 
 more clearly than any other controversial passage in his poem how 
 difficult it is for him to argue from any standpoint except his own. 
 His reasoning is neither as cogent nor as fair in this instance as in 
 Some other portions of his work. Accepting his own premises and 
 proceeding from his own point of view, his argument is weighty 
 enough; but there are evidences of either a wilful attempt to mis- 
 represent the opinions of Heraclitus, or a disposition to allow the 
 prejudices of his school against the Stoics, with whom he identifies 
 Heraclitus, to obscure the real teaching of the Kphesian. On the 
 supposition that the fire out of which the universe is evolved accord- 
 ing to Heraclitus is the same as the fire which he pictures to his own 
 consciousness, Lucretius presents his objections in this order: 
 
 1. It is impossible to obtain such a variety of things from fire. 
 
 2. Condensation and rarefaction are insufficient to account for 
 this variety, because they effect no qualitative change. 
 
 3. Heraclitus denies void in things, without which condensation 
 and rarefaction are inconceivable. 
 
 4. When he declares that changes occur by the extinction of the 
 fire he is at fault, for that would mean annihilation, and things 
 would then need to be produced from nothing, which is contrary to 
 the first principle of true philosophy. 
 
 5. To assert that fire is the only real existence, all other things 
 being only apparent is to deny the infallibility of the senses, a funda- 
 mental doctrine of Epicureanism.' 
 
 ' Fr. II, 12, in Fairbanks, First Philosophers of Greece, p. 26. 
 ^Masson, /^/<7ot;V Theory of Lucretius, p. 27, 3. 
 » I, 645-764. 
 
HERACLITUS. 
 
 IZ 
 
 The question suggested by an examination of the argument thus 
 outlined is: To what extent does Lucretius represent the actual posi- 
 tion of Heraclitus? What, for example, is the precise significance of 
 the fire which the latter employs to indicate primitive matter? That 
 Heraclitus has adopted fire as the primordial sole element from 
 which all things have been derived, is certified in the most unequivo- 
 cal manner. 
 
 Ik irvpos to, irAvra <rvv€«rTdvai, Kal els tovto dvaXv€<rdai . . . irvp clvai otoixci- 
 ov, Kal irupos d|ioiPT)v rd irdvra dpaiMcci Kal iruKvtdo-ci rd 'yiv^fuva . . . Kal \vOk ct- 
 vai K6o-fiov. -yevvdcrOaC t€ avTov Ik irupos, Kal irdXiv iKirvpovo-dai Kard rivas . . . 
 irvKvov^cvov -ydp to irvp l|vYpa{v€(r6ai, crvvko-rdficv^v ic 'ytveo'dai v8ti>p* 'TrT]'Yvv}uvov 
 Be TO v8(i)p, els •YT]v Tp€ir€o-6ai* Kal TavTtjv 686v cirl to KdTot civai. irdXiv tc avTr^v 
 TTiv 'Y'nv xcio-6ai, k\ y\% to v8ci>p ■y^veo-Oai' Ik 8^ tovtov Td Xotird ar)(.686v irdvTa, lirl 
 Tf]v dvaOv^iao-iv dvd-ywv ttjv diro ttjs OaXdTrrjs. avn] 8€ Io-tiv tj lirl to av« 686s. ^ 
 
 But was the fire of Heraclitus that of Lucretius? The poet would 
 have us think so, and the words of Cicero already cited seem to 
 claim as much. Lucretius apparently has before his mind constantly 
 the visible flame, the process of combustion, and other phenomena 
 which appeal to the senses. But no student of the fragments of Her- 
 aclitus can be persuaded that he was tied to any such narrow con- 
 ceptions. Grote admits that the Lucretian interpretation is coun- 
 tenanced by some striking passages from Heraclitus, but maintains 
 that from the whole mass of his works, in as far as we possess them, 
 "it appears that his main doctrine was not physical but metaphys- 
 ical or ontological; that the want of general adequate terms induced 
 him to clothe it in a multitude of symbolical illustrations, among 
 which fire was only one, though the most prominent and significant." ^ 
 The latter part of this sta;tement would seem to be scarcely accurate, 
 since Heraclitus evidently regarded fire, not simply as one of several 
 symbols which could serve as illustrations of his doctrine, but as the 
 one inclusive symbol, which in a special sense answered the require- 
 ments of ever-changing nature. With this modification Zeller would 
 be in substantial harmony with Grote's view. The former says in ef- 
 fect, that with the doctrine that all things are in constant flux as the 
 
 1 Diogenes Laertius, IX. 7, 8, 9. 'HpdKXeiTos <|>no-lv diravTa -ylvco-Oai. ttotc irvp. 
 Aristotle, Fhys. Ill, 5, 205^, 3. Ritter et Preller, iga. 
 
 2 Grote, Plato, I, 27. 
 
74 CONTROVERSAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 fundamental principle of his philosophy, fire seems to Heraclitus to 
 be the living, moving element in nature. The foundation of this 
 theory, lies in the fact that fire seems to the philosopher to be the sub- 
 stance which least of all has a permanent consistency or allows it in 
 another; and he consequently understands by his fire not merely 
 flame, but warmth in general, for which reason he also designates it 
 as vapor or breath — t|n>x^. His reason for adopting fire as the material 
 of the universe was "in order to express the absolute life of nature, 
 and to make the restless alternation of phenomena comprehensible. 
 Fire is not to him an unvarying substance out of which things de- 
 rived were compounded, but which in this union remains qualitat- 
 ively unchanged, like the elements of Empedocles or the primitive 
 substances of Anaxagoras; "it is the essence which ceaselessly passes 
 into all elements, the universal nourishing matter which, in its 
 eternal circulation, permeates all parts of the cosmos, assumes in 
 each a different constitution, produces individual existences, and 
 again resolves itself; and by its absolute motion causes the restless 
 beating of the pulse of nature. ^ 
 
 Heraclitus has left a statement which harmonizes with this phrase- 
 ology, and serves to elucidate his meaning in the use of fire: 
 
 TTupos &.vra\ui^rai iravra Kal irvp &irdvT»v, tSo-ircp xpvoroii xp^^ara Kal xp-p- 
 ftdruv x^o-os . ^ 
 
 Brandis, commenting upon this, as quoted by Munro,''' says that 
 fire "is that for which all things are exchanged as wares for gold; 
 but it changes itself as little into the things, as gold changes into 
 these wares. ' But Zeller* puts a somewhat different construction on 
 the pa.ssage when he says: " Herein he gives us to understand that 
 the derived arises out of the primitive matter, not merely by com- 
 bination and separation, but by transformation, by qualitative 
 change; for in the barter of wares for gold, the substance does not 
 remain, but only the worth of it." 
 
 Another pertinent inquiry in this connection is this: Does Lucre- 
 tius correctly represent Heraclitus in attributing to him the hypothesis 
 
 1 Zeller, Fre-Socratic Philosophy, II, 23. 
 
 2 Fr., 22, in Fairbanks, First Phil. Greece, p. 30. 
 MI, 85. 
 
 * Fre-Socratic Philosophy, II, 28. 
 
HERACLITUS. 
 
 75 
 
 of condensation and rarefaction to account for the derivation of 
 things? There is undoubtedly on the surface of much that is cred- 
 ited to Heraclitus an indication of this theory. The passage already 
 quoted from Diogenes Laertius ' certainly bears this construction. 
 Other testimony is equally direct and definite. 
 
 'HpdKXciTos . . . apX'lv ''''**' &X«v to irOp . . tovtov 8c Karoo-pcvvupivov KO(r)u>- 
 iroicicOai TcL ircLvTa. irpwTwv p,€v ■ydp to iraxvixcp^o-TaTOv avTOv cts avTO o-u<rTcXX6- 
 (icvov yr\v 'Yiv€o-0ai, eirtiTa dvax.ciX<«)}i(EVTjv ti]v "Yfjv viro tov irvpos 4)v<rci vSwp diro- 
 TcXciorOai, dva6v)ii(6(uvov 8c dcpa yivta-Bat,.^ 
 
 "Iirirao-os Kal 'HpdKXciTOs 2v Kal ovroi Kal Kivovpicvov Kal ircircpourpivov, dXXd 
 irOp ciroi-qo-av ttjv dpxT]v Kal ck irvpos irotovo-i Td ovTa irvKvcoo-ci Kal |iav(0<rci Kal 
 SioXvovo-i irdXiv els irOp us TavTTis p-ids ovcrqs <f>v(rc(i>s ti^S WoKCk|x4vT]s' irupos^dp 
 d)ioiPT]v ctvat 4>T|o'iv 'HpdKXciTos irdvTa.^ 
 
 But this interpretation of Heraclitus, which is made by later 
 writers exclusively, is irreconcilable with the fundamental principle 
 of his philosophy, which is that all things are in perpetual flux — 
 there is nothing permanent. It is inevitable that when fire passes 
 into moisture and thence into earth, condensation occurs, and when 
 this process is reversed, rarefaction just as certainly takes place. But 
 these are results, and not causes of a change of substance. The 
 phraseology employed by Heraclitus is foreign to the notion of con- 
 densation and rarefaction, and combination and separation of sub- 
 stances. His terms are transmutation, kindling and extinguishing, life 
 and death. Moreover, the idea of one immutable primitive sub- 
 stance is utterly incongruous with the underlying principle of his 
 philosophy. Though fire was in his view the essence from which all 
 things .were evolved, it was not so in the sense in which Thales or 
 Anaximenes made water or rain the original element. The early 
 physicists regarded their elements as abiding without change in the 
 midst of the constant mutations of things derived. The fire of Her- 
 aclitus, on the other hand, is that element which by its perpetual 
 transmutation efi"ects these changes.* 
 
 But Lucretius contends that without void in matter, the existence 
 
 ^ IX, 8, 9. 
 
 '^Plutarch, Ptac, I, 3, 25, in Zeller, Pre-Socratic Philosophy, II. 28, 2. 
 
 ^ Simplicius, Phys., 6r, 23, 33Z) in Ritter et Preller, 2gc. 
 
 ♦Zeller, Pre-Soc. Phil., 11,28-30. 
 
76 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 of which Heraclitus denies, there could be no such processes as rare- 
 faction and condensation; and hence, even if they were sufficient to 
 account for the variety in nature produced from fire as the sole orig- 
 inal element, on his opponent's own theory, they are not to be con- 
 sidered. 
 
 Id quoque, si faciant admixtum rebus inane, 
 Denseri poterunt ignes rarique relinqui. 
 Sed quia multa sibi cernunt contraria nasci 
 Et fugitant in rebus inane relinquere purum, 
 Ardua dum metuunt, amittunt vera viai. 
 Nee rursum cernunt exempto rebus inani 
 Omnia denseri fierique ex omnibus unum 
 Corpus, nil ab se quod pos sit mittere raptim; 
 Aestifer ignis uti lumen iacit atque vapor em, 
 Ut videas nan e stipatis partibus esse. ^ 
 
 Again, bearing in mind the terminology of Heraclitus referred to 
 above, which apparently involves the ideas of death and extinction, 
 Lucretius fancies he has hit upon an argument calculated utterly to 
 destroy his adversary, when he declares that the extinguishing of the 
 primordial fire to produce the changes of nature would signify that 
 things were constantly being produced out of nothing, which is con- 
 trary to the first principle of rational philosophy. 
 
 Quod si forte alia credunt ratione potesse 
 Ignis in coetu stingui mutareque corpus. 
 Scilicet ex nulla facer e id si parte reparcent, 
 Occidet ad nilum nimirum funditus ardor 
 Omnis et e nilo fient quaecumque creantur. * 
 
 But when Heraclitus conceives of his fire as extinguished, it is cer- 
 tainly not in the sense in which Lucretius fancies he does, for he 
 plainly declares that his fire is never destroyed. The lightning flash 
 passes away, but the essential warmth is still in existence. The sun 
 goes down and darkness follows, but Helios is not quenched. The 
 
 ' 1, 655-64. 
 2 1 665-69. 
 
HERACLITUS. 77 
 
 fire of Heraclitus "is not like sunlight, connected with a particular 
 and therefore changing phenomenon, but is the universal essence, 
 which is contained in all things as their substance."' The remarkable 
 approach which Heraclitus thus makes to the nebular hypothesis of 
 modern science imparts to his doctrines an exceedingly vital interest. 
 An examination of the Heraclitean doctrine of the senses, sug- 
 gested by the criticism of Lucretius, presents another difficulty of 
 interpretation. Had Lucretius some better knowledge of the 
 opinions of Heraclitus than we possess in order to enable him to 
 make the assertions regarding his views contained in the following 
 lines? is a problem propounded by Munro:'^ 
 
 Dicer e porro igtiem res omnis esse neque ullam 
 Rem veram in numero rerum constare nisi ignem. 
 Quod facit hie idem, perdelirum esse vide fur. 
 Xam contra sensus ab sensibus ipse repugnat 
 Et labefactat eos iinde omnia credita pendent, 
 Unde hie cognitus est ipsi quem nominat ignem; 
 Credit enim sensus ignem cognoscere vere, 
 Cetera non credit, quae nilo clara minus sunt} 
 
 There can be no doubt that Heraclitus did distrust the senses. 
 
 KaKol pidprvpcs dv9pwTroi<ri 6(|>9a\|iol Kal wra, pap^dpovs \|/vxds i\6vTiov^ 
 T^v T€ otrio-tv, icpdv v6<rov tXt-ye* Kal tt]v opouriv, \)/cv8€(r6ai.-'' 
 
 According to his opinion " what our senses perceive is merely the 
 fleeting phenomenon, not the essence. "* Fire alone reveals original 
 matter. Other things which appeal to our senses actually conceal, 
 instead of disclosing, the essential quality of matter. Separate 
 phenomena at best can only aiford us a meagre and fractional view 
 of that universal nature which is in constant flux. The testimony of 
 the senses is, therefore, never true, for the reason that it is always 
 fragmentary and inexact. The unwisdom ofthegenerality of mankind 
 
 J Zeller Pre-Soc. Phil., II, 26. 
 
 2 II, 88. 
 
 =*I. 690-97. 
 
 * Her act., Fr., 4, in Fairbanks, First Phil. Greece, p. 24. 
 
 ^Diogenes La er tins, IX, 7. 
 
 6 Zeller, Pre- Socratic Philosophy, II. 88. 
 
yS CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 is consequently seen in the fact that the mass depend for knowl- 
 edge upon the evidence of the senses, an opinion with which Lucretius 
 is wholly at variance, being fully persuaded in his own mind of 
 the infallability of the sense perceptions. 
 
 Quod mihi mm vanum turn delirum esse videtur ; 
 Quo refer ejuus enim P quid nobis certius ipsis 
 Sensibus esse potest, qui vera ac falsa no tenuis P^ 
 
 After his treatment of Empedocles and his four elements, in 
 which fire is included, Lucretius apparently swings back to Heracli- 
 tus, though there is a difference among critics as to whether he 
 actually refers to the Ephesian philosopher in the passage we are 
 about to consider.^ Munro thinks that Lucretius may be ''viewing 
 Heraclitus through the glosses of the Stoics,' and may be "thinking 
 among other theories of his 686s av« kcLtw ; " but, as he affirms, no 
 scholar would attribute to him the interchange oi ih^four elements.* 
 Hallier, on the other hand, whose contribution to the literature on 
 Empedocles and Lucretius has already been noted, believes that this 
 passage points directly to Heraclitus, and not to the Stoics at all, 
 except (perhaps he would admit) in a remote and adapted sense. 
 After quoting the citation on the doctrines of Heraclitus from Diog- 
 enes Laertius, IX, 9, which we have given above (p. 73), and which 
 he declares to be almost identical in language with Lucretius, I, 
 782-88, he says: Unde aliquantum discrepant quae de Stoicis refer t Di- 
 ogenes Laertius, VII, 142,* which runs as follows: 
 
 ■ytveo-Oai Se t6v K6(rp.ov, Srav Ik irvpos r\ ov<r(a rpairg 81' dcpos els v'Yp6v, ilra. t6 
 iraxv(up€S awTOV otuo-toLv diroTeXco-Si] -yfi, to 8c \£irTop,€p€S €|apaia)0]] Kal tovt* IttI 
 irXt'ov XtiTTvvGev irOp diro-yevv^oT)* etra Kara jii|iv Ik tovtwv <|>vTd tc Kal ^wa Kal rd 
 aXXa 76VTJ . 
 
 The' opposition of Lucretius to the doctrine of transmutation, con- 
 tained in the passage under discussion, is that primordia cannot thus 
 change, but must be distinct and unchangeable, otherwise they 
 would be annihilated; for, according to his view, whenever a thing 
 changes and deserts its own limitations, immediately the death of 
 
 ' I, 698-700. 
 
 2 1, 782-802. 
 
 ^ Munro, II, 95. 
 
 ♦ Lucrefi Carmina e Fragmcntis Enipedoclis Adumbrata, p. 20. 
 
HERACLITIS. 79 
 
 that which was ensues. Hence, if the elements, which the philoso- 
 phers under consideration have described, are not formed out of 
 things themselves immutable, we should have things returning to 
 nothing, and again defy the first principle, of all true philosophy. 
 
 Quin potius tali naiiira praedita quaedam 
 Corpora constituas, igfiern si forte crearint, 
 Posse eadem demptis paucis paucisque tributis, 
 Or dine mutato et motu, facer e aeris avras. 
 Sic alias aliis rebus mutarier onmisp^ — 
 
 exclaims Lucretius, who in this as ail other instances, argues from 
 his own standpoint exclusively. 
 
 It may serve to mitigate in our judgment the severity of Lucretius' 
 assault upon Heraclitus to remember that he is principally actuated 
 by his hostility to the Stoics, who adopted very largely the physical 
 theory of the origin of the universe taught by Heraclitus, as the Epi- 
 cureans employed that of Leucippus and Democritus for their pur- 
 pose. Munro feels that the use of plural subjects and verbs in the 
 section under survey (I, 645-89), undoubtedly points to the Stoic 
 school.^ 
 
 2. The Stoics. 
 The antagonism of Lucretius toward the Stoic school was one of 
 the inevitable consequences of his absolute confidence in -Epicurus. 
 Trusting him with unquestioning devotion, he could not avoid being 
 intolerant of that system of philosophy which, at the time he wrote, 
 was the only successful rival of Epicureanism. Though Lucretius 
 never mentions the Stoics or their chief teachers, Zeno, Chrysippus 
 and Cleanthes by name, there are repeated allusions to them in his 
 verses, which betray an intensity of feeling not always manifest in 
 other polemical passages. Twice in Book I (641, 106 8)- he con- 
 temptuously calls the Stoics stolidi, a word containing more bitterness 
 
 » 1, 798-802. 
 
 "^ Munro. II, p. 83. 
 
80 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS L\ LUCRETIUS. 
 
 than he evinces in the case of any other school. This hostility of 
 Lucretius to the philosophers of the "porch," one might almost 
 call an inherited passion. Reference has already been made to the 
 unfriendliness with which Epicurus spoke of competitors for philo- 
 sophic honors.' Diogenes Laertius endeavors to refute these reports 
 of harshness on' the part of Epicurus toward his rivals, insisting that 
 they are calumnies, and citing evidences of his kindness and affability. 
 
 \ie\ii\vaa-i 8' ovtoi. tw ■ydp dvSpl (idprvpcs iKavol ttjs dvvireppX'^TOv irpos irdvros 
 ev-yvwfjLOo-vviis t^ rt irarpls xo^^ais elKocri Tin"^<rao-a, oi t€ ^CKoi tootoOtoi to irXf)- 
 6os &>S K'n^' ""^ irdXco-iv oXais |j^Tp€i(rdai Svvacrdai, oi re yv<api\ioi irdvTcs rats So-y- 
 (jLariKais avrov o-eipfio-i irpoo-KaTao-xtGe'vTes irXtiv M'qTpoSupov tov STparoviKCcas 
 irpos KapvedSrjv diroxa)pT|a-avTOs, r6.\a ^apvvQivros rats dvvireppXT]TOis avrov 
 XP'»l<rT6rT]<riv . . ij r€ irpos rovs "yovcas evxapio-rCa, Kal tj irpos rovs d8€X4>o\js €V- 
 iroiCa, irpos rt rovs oUc'ras Tip.€p«5rTjs, . • KaOoXov re t) irpos irdvras avrov 4>iXav- 
 BpcoirCa. rtis fiev ^ydp irpos 6eov»s oa-idrryros Kal irpos irarp(8a (f>iX(as aXcKros tj 8id- 
 Geo-is. ^ 
 
 But an attitude of friendliness toward disciples and admirers is 
 certainly not inconsistent with injustice and hatred toward philo- 
 sophic opponents. Moreover, the defence which Diogenes Laertius 
 makes is not wholly disinterested, since if not a disciple himself, he 
 was at least a warm friend of the Epicureans.^ The spirit of hostil- 
 ity which Epicurus exhibited toward the champions of other philo- 
 sophic schemes he transmitted to his followers, whose most conspic- 
 uous characteristic, as we have seen, was their servile devotion to 
 their master's instruction. It was natural that a contention which 
 had ensued for two hundred years should suffer no diminution with 
 the lapse of time. In agreement with this probability we find Zeno, 
 the Sidonian, a o-xoXdpxrjs, who wrote in the time of Lucretius, in- 
 dulging in positive scurrility when he mentions the older philoso- 
 ophers as well as his contemporaries. Cicero* declares: Zefio quidem 
 non eos solum, qui turn erant, Apollodoi'um, Sihwi, ceteros, figebat mal- 
 ediciis, sed Socraten ipsum, parenfem philosophiae, Latino verbo utens 
 
 ^ Diogenes Laertius, X. 7, 8. 
 
 ^ Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans atid Sceptics (Eng. Tr.), p. 416, 
 * De Nat. Deor., I, 93. 
 
THE STOICS. 8 1 
 
 scurram Atticum fuisse dicebat Chrysippum nemquam nisi Chrysippam} 
 vocebat. Such contumelious treatment was sure to be resented. 
 The Stoics of earlier days did not hesitate to heap the foulest abuse 
 upon Epicurus "^ in return for his strictures upon their philosophy ; 
 and their successors were not slow to emulate them in this respect 
 when they came to consider the later Epicureans. But the Stoic 
 charges of gross immorality have never been proven against Epicurus 
 and his immediate disciples. It is very natural that a company of 
 persons who assert that pleasure is the highest good should be open 
 to the suspicion of sensuality. And this likelihood was increased in 
 the case of Epicurus bv the admission of women, some of whom were 
 of easy virtue, to the garden where his philosophy was taught. Such 
 conduct, however, was not extraordinary in the state of Greek soci- 
 ety at that time. And in all justice it must be confessed that the 
 idolatrous veneration of his adherents for Epicurus is difficult of ex- 
 planation on the supposition that he was a man of impure character. 
 Moreover, his letters here and there give evidence of a righteousness 
 almost Puritanic in some particulars. That he subsisted on frugal 
 fare, and refrained from excesses of every sort, is the testimony not 
 only of his friends,^ but also of those who ridiculed his abstemious- 
 ness.* Great writers subsequent to Lucretius, such as Seneca, Ju- 
 venal and Lucian, vindicate the name of Epicurus from the dishonor 
 
 ^ Or, Chesipptan. 
 
 -AiOTifios 8 6 Stwikos 8v<r|i,6vt!)s Xyj^av irpos avrov iriKpoTaTa avTov Sia^cpXi^Kcv, 
 lirio-ToXds 4>€'pwv irevTTiKovTa do-cX-yeiS <«)S 'ETrtKovpov Kal 6 rd els Xpvitrnrirov dv. 
 a()>€p6}i€va lirio-ToXia ws 'EiriKovpov <rvvTd|as. dXXa Kal ol ir€pl Iloo-eiSwviov tov 
 SrcaiKov Kal NiKoXaos Kal Swtiwv - - Kal Aiovvcrios 6 'AXiKapva<ro-tvs. - - Kal 
 AcovTiu) <rvv€ivai ttj IraCpa* - - Kal dXXais %\ iroXXais eraipais "ypd4)€iv, Kal fidX- 
 wrra Aeovriw ■^s Kal MT^rpoScopov IpacrOffvai. - - 'EiriKTqTos re KivaiSoXd'YOv av- 
 Tov KaXci Kal rd (idXicra XoiSopci. Kal (jli^v Kal Tip.OKpdr'qs - - <|>T](rl 8ls avrov rifs 
 T^ficpas l)J.€iv d-TTo Tpv(|>fis. - - (Twcivai re avrw re Kal MTjrpoScopo) IraCpas Kal aX- 
 Xas, Ma(ip.dpiov Kal 'HSciav Kal 'Epwriov Kal NiKiSiov. — Diog. Laer., X, 3-7. 
 Usener, Epicurea, pp. 360-2. 
 
 ^AiokXt^s 8c €v t^ TpiTT) rr\'i liri8pop.fis <j>T]crtv - fvTcXeo-Tara Kal Xirdrara 8iaiTc&- 
 (jkcvoi* kot-uXt) -yovv, 4>T]<riv, ot8iviov f|pKoi)vTO' to 8€ irdv v8a)p tJv avrois iroTOv. 
 ir€'}ji\|/ov (ioi Tvpoii <}>T]o-l Kv6pi8iov, IV* orav ^vXiOfiat iroXvTcX€v<ra<r0ai 8vva>(jt,ai. 
 
 lb., X. X. II. C/.. 130 144, 146. 
 
 * James Baldwin Brown. Stoics and Saints, p. 17 (Mac Millan & Co.). 
 
82 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 which is attached to it through the perversion of his doctrines. * 
 At the same time it must be confessed that there is nothing in his 
 principles or system of philosophy to restrain those who espouse his 
 teaching from a life of self-indulgence. That a convivialist will 
 adopt such a scheme of doctrines to justify lascivious and effeminate 
 conduct, is not only a natural inference, but a fact of history. 
 
 Usener, speaking of the opponents of the Epicureans, refers to the 
 never-ending hostility of the Stoics in the following language: 
 
 Omnium longe acerb issimi et gravissimi Stoici. Quorum sectae cum a 
 principio Epicuri philosophia omnis repugnaret, etiavi magis contraria 
 facta est, postquam Persaeus unam Stoicorum doctrinam servanda regno 
 et civiiati utilem esse Antigono regi persuasit et ad regni commoda philos- 
 ophiam revocavit. Prodiit Clean thes adversarius ut Arisiarchus Saniius 
 expertus est, acer vehemensque, qui nnn solum atomos inpugnaret sed eti~ 
 am i?iiaginem vividam exornando Virtutum ancillantium miserationem, 
 odium Voluptatis dominantis commoveret. lam magis magisque coeptum 
 est odiis irisque diniicari. Ad infainandum Epicurum fuere qui epislulas 
 inpudicas tamquam ab illo scriptas publicarent. Severissima plebiscita in 
 Epicureox a Messeniis Lyctiis Phalannaeis facta multitudinis superstiti- 
 osae odio Stoicorum calumniis exciiato. '^ 
 
 The Epicureans on their part were, of course, no less bitter in their 
 criticisms upon the followers of Zeno. Philodemus, a close con- 
 temporary of Lucretius, brings serious charges of impiety against the 
 Stoics. Erom the Volumina Herculanensia Usener makes this 
 extract: 
 
 irdvTcs ovv ol diro Z('^)v<«)vos el Kal dir6\(€i)irov to 8ai|i6viov, cScrir(€)p ot jtev 
 ovK air(€)\ciirov, (ot) 8' ^v tktIv ovk d'ir€'(X€t)irov, Siva (0€)6v \€'"yov(<ri)v ctvai, -ytv- 
 €(r6ai (Se) Kal to irdv o-vv ttii ^/wxTIj irXavdio-iv 8* (a)s) iroXXovs diroX(€)iTrov(T€s). 
 &0-T (ov Ka)Td v(6)|i.(o)v 6(€0vs lvvo)ctv d(XX* d)vaipciv €irt8€iK(v)vo-0wo-av Tots iroX- 
 Xois, Siva ndvov diravTa X^^ovtcs, ov troXXovs, oi8€ rrdvTas Scovs t| koivt] ((j))-^!!!] 
 irapa8£8a)K€v, T)ficav ov p,6vov ocovs <j>aa*lv ol Ilav^Xrivcs dXXd Kal irXciovas etvai 
 XcYdvTwv.* 
 
 •Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 299. Seneca, Vit. Be., 13, I. Ep, 
 33, 2. Cf., Cic. Fin., II, 25, 81. Zeller, Stoics. Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 
 
 487, 3- 
 
 2 Epic urea. Prefatio, LXXI. LXXII. 
 
 ' irepl Ivore^cCas, in Epicurea, Praefatio, LXXIII. 
 
THE STOICS. 83 
 
 Cicero refers to the master of the Epicurean school as Epicurum, 
 quern hebetem et rudeni dicere solent Stoici. ' 
 
 Knowing the animosity of some of the belligerents in the contests 
 of the Stoics and the Epicureans, we easily conjecture the manner in 
 which those treated one another, of whom we have no accurate 
 record. Formerly, we are told,^ there were extant many volumes of 
 the controversial writings of Chrysippus bearing upon Epicurus, but 
 we have now only an imperfect, though valuable, index of the pro- 
 ductions of the famous Stoic, those treating of Epicurean tenets be- 
 ing as follows: 
 
 ircpl Tov KoXov Kal Tfjs TiSovfis, diroScC^cis irpos to jjlt] etvai ttjv t)Sovi]v t^os, 4- 
 iroStt^tis irpos TO ftt] ctvai rtiv tiSovtjv d-yaOov."^ 
 
 The- hostility of Lucretius toward Stoicism, however, cannot be 
 adequately accounted for on the mere ground of the traditional en- 
 mity existing between the two schools. Not only do irreconcilable 
 differences occur immediately the systems are brought to the solution 
 of the same fundamental problems, but there are remarkable points 
 of agreement between them, which alone would be sufficient to beget 
 an ungenerous rivalry. Epicureans and Stoics alike were in quest of 
 the same desideratum — rest of soul (dTapa^Ca). They both employed 
 in this pursuit a philosophy thoroughly materialistic, and assigned to 
 practical questions a supremacy over matters of pure speculation. 
 The perceptions of the senses were by both regarded as the only 
 standard by which truth could be measured. They were both agreed 
 that accurate knowledge is attainable, otherwise there could be no 
 positive action. Even in the consideration of the summum bonum, 
 where it would be natural to expect the widest breach, it has been 
 shown that the grounds of contentment and spiritual repose in both 
 were exceedingly similar.* It has been truthfully asserted "that the 
 
 ^ De Divinatione. II, 50, 103. 
 
 2 Usener, Epicurea Praefatio, LXXIII. 
 
 ' Diogenes Laertius, VII, 202. 
 
 * "According to Zeno virtue, according to Epicurus pleasure, is the highest and 
 only good ; but the former in making virtue consist essentially in withdrawal from 
 the senses or insensibility ; the latter in seeking pleasure in repose of mmd or in- 
 perturbability, are expressing the same bt-lief. Man can only find unconditional 
 and enduring satisfaction, when by means of knowledge he attains to a condition 
 
84 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 tones of Lucretius might in many places be mistaken for those of 
 a Stoic, rather than an Epicurean. In their resistance to the com- 
 mon forms of evil these systems were at one. Perhaps, too, in the 
 positive good at which he aimed, the spirit of Lucretius was more 
 that of a Stoic than he imagined."^ Furthermore, both Epicureans 
 and Stoics are devoid of any permanent interest in social life, and 
 both would divorce the wise man from public and political activity. 
 The very likeness ^ of these several approaches to the main question 
 at issue was calculated to engender enmity and rancour. In addi- 
 tion to which there v/as an irrepressible conflict between the two 
 schools in the detailed development of their materialistic views. 
 Speaking broadly, the occasions of this contention may be best de- 
 scribed in the language of another: "These divergencies appear 
 particularly on the subject of nature, the Stoic regarding nature as a 
 system of design, the Epicureans explaining it as a mechanical prod- 
 uct. Whilst the Stoics adhered to fatalism, and saw God every- 
 where, the Epicureans held the theory of atoms and the theory of 
 necessity. Whilst the Stoics were speculatively orthodox, the Epi- 
 cureans were irreligious free-thinkers."' Hence it was inevitable that 
 the author of De Rerum Natura should give large place to contro- 
 versy witli his master's chief antagonists. 
 
 Particular instances of conflict between Lucretius and the Stoic 
 school appear early in "the poem. The passage in which properties 
 and accidents [eventa et conjuncta) are discussed * is directly opposed 
 to the teaching of the rival philosophy which regards all states, 
 qualities, virtues, emotions, etc., as corporeal. 
 
 of mind at rest with itself, and also to an independence of external attractions and 
 misfortunes. . , . Neither the Stoic can separate happiness from virtue, nor the 
 Epicurean separate virtue irom happiness." — Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Scep- 
 tics^ pp. 505, 6. 
 
 ^ Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, p. 363. 
 
 '^ " The united weight of all these points of resemblance is sufficient to warrant 
 the assertion that, notwithstanding their difference, the Stoics and Epicureans 
 stand on the same footing, and that the sharpness of contrast between them is ow- 
 ing to their laying hold of opposite sides of one and the same principle." Zeller, 
 Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 506. 
 
 ^Jb.y p. 505. 
 
 * I, 430-82. 
 
THE STOICS. 85 
 
 The Stoics and Epicureans were agreed that reality could only be 
 ascribed to material objects. ^ They argued in almost identical terms 
 that whatever affects anything, or is in turn affected by anything, is 
 bodily substance. Cicero^ says: Discrepahat etiam ab iisdem {superi- 
 or ibus ZeTio), quod nullo mode arbitrabatur quidquam effici posse ab ea 
 (natura), quae expers esset corporis — nee vero aut quod efficeret aliquid 
 aiit quod efficeretur posse esse non corpus. Plutarch says: ^vra "ydp |jt6va 
 TO. (r<tf|iaTa KaXovo-iv, IitciSt) ovtos to irowiv re Kal ird<rx€iv.'^ 
 
 With this declaration Epicurus concurs: 
 
 Ka6' lavTo %\ ovK €o-ti voT^crai to do-«|JiTOv irXT]v tov kcvov. to 8c kcvov ovtc 
 iroif^cat, ovT« iraOeiv SvvaTai, dXXd k£vt]o-iv |x6vov 81' eavTOv tois o'(&|iao-i trapc'xc- 
 «Tai.^ 
 
 Lucretius says: ^ 
 
 Praeterea per se quodcumque erit, aut faciei quid 
 Aut aliis fungi debebit agent ibus ipsum 
 Aut erit, ut possunt in eo res esse gei'ique. 
 At facer e et fungi sine cor pore nulla potest res 
 Nee praebere locum porro nisi inane vacansque. 
 Ergo praeter inane et corpora tertia per se 
 Xulla potest rerum in numero natura relinqui, 
 Nee quae sub sensus cadat ullo tempore nostros 
 Nee ratione animi quam quisquam possit apisci.* 
 
 The theory that existence belongs to that alone which is material 
 necessitates the doctrine of the corporeality of the soul; nor did the 
 Stoics and Epicureans alike shrink from declaring their allegiance to 
 this tenet. - Cleanthes and Chrysippus assert it without hesitation. 
 
 ov8cv do-(0|iaTOv o-vfjiirdo-xti o-toftaTi ov8€ do-a>p.dTu> o-wfia dXXd o-wpia o-t&piaTi • 
 o-v|iirdo-x€i 8€ T| xj/vxT] tw (r(op.aTi voo-ovvti Kal Tep,vop,cv(p Kal to (rci))xa t-q \|/vxii ' 
 alcxwo^tevT^S 'yovv cpvOpov 'yivcTai Kal <}>oPovp,4vi]s itX[>6v. orup,a apa t| ^vx*^* ^ 
 
 Other Stoic authorities are equally pronounced in this view. 
 
 ^Acad., I, 39. 
 
 2 Comm. Notit. 30, 2 in Ritter et Preller 396<7. 
 
 ^ Diogenes Laertius, X. 67. 
 
 *1. 440-8. 
 
 » Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, 210, i. 
 
86 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN H'CRETirS. 
 
 The Epicurean position on this question coincides with that of the 
 Stoics, as the accompanying quotations sufficiently prove. 
 
 ot X^-yovTCS 6i.<r6\iarov tlvai rtiv <|/vxt]v (iaT(;i{ov(riv. oiBiv "YcLp &v {Svvaro iroiciv 
 o<>T€ ir&a-xiiv, cl tJv rouavrr]' vvv 8* ivayn^ d}jL<t>6Tcpa ravra a-v\i^aivt\, wtpl t^v 
 ^vxt]v TO, <rv\i'trT<a\i.ara.^ 
 
 Haec eadem ratio naiuram animi atque animai 
 Corpoream docet esse; ubi enim propeller e membra, 
 Cor riper e ex somno corpus mutareque vultum 
 Atque hominem totum regere ac versare videtur, 
 Quorum nil fieri sine tactu posse videmus 
 Nee tactum porro sine cor pore, nonne fatendumst 
 Corporea natura animum cons tare anifnamque P'^ 
 
 But on the same principles the Stoics proceeded to still greater 
 lengths. They asserted that all properties, qualities and forms were 
 material. Hence, virtues and vices were accounted by them as cor- 
 poreal, and even emotions, impulses, judgments and notions, which 
 are due to material causes. 
 
 aTOirov -ycLp tv (idXa toLs dpcrds Kal rds KaxCas, irpos Be ravrats rds Tt'xvas Kal 
 rds }iv^p,as ird<ras, 'in Be <|)avTa<r(as Kal irdOri Kal op^Jids Kal o-v-yKaTaOtVfis or«na- 
 ro. iroiovfji^vovs €v |jlt]8cvI (|>dvai Kcto-Oai. . . ol 8* ov fjiovov rds dperds Kal rds KaK- 
 (as X,(ao, ctvai X^-youo-tv, ovh\ rd irdOr] |x6vov, op-yds Kal <})06vous Kal Xviras Kal €iri- 
 XaipcKaKias. ov8e KaTaX'^\(rei$ Kal (|>avTa<rias Kal d'yvoCas, ov8^ rds r^x^^^ t^^> 
 TTjv o-KVTOTop,iK'<]v TTjv xo-Xkotuttik'/iv, dXXd iTpos TOVTOis tTi Kal rds Ivep-yeCas crcop.- 
 ara Kal X^iaa iroiovo-i, tov irtpCiraTOv 5«ov, ttjv Spxiio-iv, it^v virdOco-iv, Tt]v irp- 
 oo-aYopcvo-iv, Tt]v Xoi8op(av.^ 
 
 The Good was also regarded by the Stoics as in the same category. 
 Seneca sa\s: Quaeris, bonum an corpus sit. Bonum facit, prodest enim; 
 quod facit corpus est. Bonum agitat animum et quodam modo format ef 
 c on tine t, quae propria sunt corporis. Quae corporis bona sunt, corpora 
 sunt ergo; et quae animi sunt; nam et hie corpus est. .... Non puto te 
 dubitaturum an adfectus corpora sint, — tanquam ira, amor, tristitia. Si 
 dubitas, vide an voltum nobis mutent, an frontem adstringant, an faciem 
 diffundant, an rubor em evocent, an fugent sanguinem. Quid ergo, tarn 
 manifestas notas corpori credis imprimi nisi a corpore.'^ Si adfectus 
 
 ^ Diogenes Laertins, X, 67. 
 2 III, 161-6. 
 
 '^Plutarch, Com. Not., 45, 2, in Ritter et Preller, 396^. 
 
THE STOICS. 87 
 
 corpora sunt, et morbi animorum, et avaritia, crudeliias, induraia viiia ei' 
 in statum inemendabilem adducta; ergo et malitia et species eius omnes, . 
 maiignitas, invidia, superbia. Ergo et bona, prinium quia contraria istis 
 sunt, deinde quia eadeju tibi indicia praestabunt. ^ 
 
 Truth is likewise placed in the same classification, the significance 
 of truth being the knowledge which the soul possesses in itself 
 
 TT]v 8c dX^Ociav otovrai tivcs, Kal fidXio-ra ot diri ttjs StooLs, 8ia4>6p€iv rdXriOovs 
 Kara rpcts rpoirovs, ov<riqi |X€v irap6(rov t) p.€v dX'^Ocia (rufid Ictti, to St dXT]6cs d- 
 <r«|iaTov uiri^px€v. Kai clKdrws 4>ao'(v tovtI |X€v -ydp d^ico^d cctti, to St d|C(U(jLa 
 X€Kt6v, to h\ \€kt6v d(r(6p,aTOv. dvdiraXiv %\ tj d\-f|6eia o-d)p,d €o-ti irapdcov Ittio-t^- 
 (iTj irdvTwv d\t]0(ov diro<j>avTiKTj 8ok€i Tv-yxdveiv, trdo-a 8c lirio-T-^fiT] irais €xov ia-rXv 
 ■f^'Ycp.oviKdv TO Se Tj-ycfioviKOv o-co|xa KaTd tovtovs viirfipxcv. -' 
 
 Against these and other similar claims of the Stoics, Lucretius op- 
 poses his doctrine that there are but two conceivable things in the 
 universe, atoms and the void, materies et inane, dTojia Kal k«v6v. All 
 other things are not distinct entities, but properties and accidents of 
 things, having no material existence apart from the bodies with 
 which they are identified, 
 
 Xafn quaecumque cluent, aut his coniuncta duabus 
 Rebus ea invenies aut horum eventa videbis. 
 Coniunctuju est id quod nusquam sine permitiali 
 Discidio potis est seiungi seque gregari, 
 Pondus uti saxist, calor ignis, liquor aquai. 
 Tactus corporibus cimctis intactus inani 
 Servitium contra paupertas divitiaeque, 
 Libertas bellum concordia, cetera quorum 
 Adventu manet incolumis natura abituque, 
 Haec soliti sumus, ut par est, eventa vocare} 
 
 Starting with the principle that existence alone belongs to that 
 which is material, the Stoics had great difficulty in assigning time 
 and space to their proper category. While they could not describe 
 these as corporeal, they did speak of day and night, months and 
 years and seasons, as bodies, though it is evident that those who did 
 
 '^ Epistotaf, 106, 3, in Ritter et Preller, 396C. 
 '^ Sext. Math.. VII. 38, in Ritter et Preller. 396^9. 
 3 I. 449-59- 
 
00 CONTROVERSIAL ELF.MF.NTS IX LUCRETH'S. 
 
 SO v'irtually meant that these divisions of time answered to certain 
 material states; the heat of the sun, for example, being responsible 
 for summer, and the other seasons being regulated duly by the ap- 
 proach and retirement of this planet. 
 
 T«v 8c Iv dc'pt yivo\kiv(av, \ti\i.Mva jiev ctvai <f>a(rl tov virep yi\s i^pa KaT€\|ru'Yp.^vov 
 8id TTiv TOV TjXCov irpoo-w a(|>o8ov cap 8c, ttiv cvKpacrCav tov d^pos, kutu ttiv irpos 
 T)(ids iropc(av. ' 
 
 CTi 8^ Kal TOV \p6vov do'<»|xaTOv, 8kd(rTT]pLa Svra tt^s tov K6o*p.ov Kivt\<r«as-^ 
 
 But, while they admitted the incorporeality of time, they insisted 
 on calling it a thing to be regarded by itself like void, though how 
 they reconciled this obvious inconsistency is not recorded. The 
 Epicurean doctrine with reference to time is that it is a particular 
 property of activity and passivity, movement and repose. 
 
 ofiTC aXXd Ti KttT avTOV Karri-yopTjT^ov a>s ti^v a{iTi|v ova-iav exov tw l8i(op,aTi 
 tovtw (Kal-ydp tovto iroiovcrt tiv^s)j dWd \i6vov w o-vp.ir\^KOp,€v to I'Siov tovto Kal 
 irapapicTpovficv, fidXicTa iTriXo-yio-T^ov. Kal -ydp tovto ovk d7ro8€i|€(tfs irpoo-SciTai 
 dXX' ^irtXo-yio-p.ov, oti Tais Tjp,4pais Kal Tais vv|l orvfiirXcKOfiev Kal tois tovtwv ptep- 
 >oriv, wo'avTws 8c Kal TOis irdOco'i Kal Tais diraOcCais, Kal Kiv-^o-eo-i Kal o-Tao-co'iVy 
 t8i6v Ti cru)j,TrTta>|ia ircpl TavTa irdvTa avTo tovto Ivvoovvtcs, Ka9' 6 ^povov ovo- 
 (id^ojicv. ^ 
 
 This more consistent view is well expressed by Lucretius: 
 
 Tempus item per se non est, sed rebus ab ipsis 
 Consequitur sensus, transactum quid sit aevo. 
 Turn quae res instet, quid porro deinde sequatur. 
 Nee per se quemquam tempus sentire fatendumst 
 Semotum ab rerum motu placidaque quiete. 
 
 Perspicere ut possis res gestas funditus omnis 
 Non ita uti corpus per se constare neque esse, 
 Nee ratione cluere eadem qua constet inane, 
 Sed magis ut merito possis eventa vocare 
 Corporis atque loci, res in quo quaeque gerantur,.* 
 
 '^ Diogenes Laertius, VII, 15 1. 
 
 '^Ib., 141, Cf., Sext. Math., X, 218, in Ritter et Preller, 399^^. 
 
 ^Diogenes Laertius, X, 72. 73. 
 
 n, 459-63; 478-82. 
 
THE STOICS. 89 
 
 The point of conflict between the two schools in this matter is 
 this, — the Stoics strove very Jiard to assign corporeality to what the 
 Epicureans described not as being itself, but as modes of being. 
 
 In our discussion of Heraclitus we have already adverted to the 
 physical basis with which this philosopher provides the Stoic school 
 by his doctrine of primordial fire. We have also noted the dif- 
 ference of opinion held by critics regarding the real object of Lucre- 
 tius' attack in the following lines: ^ 
 
 Quin etiam repetunt a caelo atque ignibus eius, 
 Et primum faciunt ignem se verier e in auras 
 A en's, hinc inibrem gigni, terravique creari 
 Ex imbri, relroqtie a terra cuncta reverti, 
 Umorem primum, post aera, deinde calorem, 
 Nee cessare haec inter se mutare, meare 
 A caelo ad terram, de terra ad sideya mundi. 
 Quod facer e haud ullo debent primordia pacta. 
 Immutabile enim quiddam superare necessest, 
 Ne res ad nilum redigantur fundifus omnes: 
 Nam quodcumque suis mutatum finibus exit, 
 Continuo hoc mors est illius qvod fuit ante. 
 Qu.ipropter quonijm qu:ie paulo diximus ante 
 In commutatum veniunt, constare necessest 
 Ex aliis ea, quae nequeatit convertier usquam, 
 Ne tibi res redeant ad nilum funditus omnes. 
 Quin potius tali natura praedita quaedam 
 Corpora constituas, ignem si forte crearint 
 Posse eadem, demplis paucis paucisque tributis, 
 Ordine mutato et motu, facere aeris auras. 
 Sic alias aliis rebus mutarier omnisj^ 
 
 Whatever we may determine to have been the actual occasion of 
 this passage, it certainly doas not misrepresent the position of the 
 Stoics, if aimed at them. For, observing that warmth supplies 
 nourishment, motion and life to matter, and that heat is existent in 
 all things, they ascribed the origin and preservation of the world to 
 
 ^p. 78. 
 
 2 1, 782-802. 
 
90 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 fire. Since it is a law of nature that primary being shall transmute 
 itself into specific things, fire passes into air, water, earth; and 
 through the distribution and combination of these elements the 
 world is produced. After describing what, in the Stoic terminology, 
 an element (o-Toixetov) signifies, and explaining that Zeno and his fol- 
 lowers regarded fire, air, water, earth, as equally essential matter, 
 without any distinctive quality, Diogenes Laertius continues: 
 
 dvcDTdra) jacv ovv clvai to irvp, o St] alO^pa KaXeio-Gai, iv w irpc&Tqv ttiv t<Sv &ir\a> 
 vwv cr4>aCpav ^cvvdcrSai, clra tt]v twv irXavcDpicvwv* (Jie8' t^v rov d^pa' ctra to vSwp' 
 (nroo-TdOjJiTjv 8c irdvTwv ttjv -yf^v, p.^o-i)v dirdvTwv ovo-av. ^ 
 
 He also asserts this to be their view of nature: 
 
 80K6I $€ avTots TT)v \uv <)>vo-iv ctvai irvp TCXvtK6v, 68(0 PaOt^ov el$ ^^vco'iv, ^trcp 
 ^o-tI irvcvfia irupociScs Kal tcxvo€i86s. ^ 
 
 Again on the interchange of the elements, he records the Stoic 
 doctrine as follows: 
 
 yLvtarQai hi rov K6o-p.ov, 8Tav 4k irup6s tj ovcCa Tpair^ 81' d^pos ds vyp6v, ilra. 
 t6 iraxv|jL€p6S avTOV o-vorTdv diroTeXco-O]} y9\, to hi \€irT0|jLcp€S l^apaiwO-g Kal tovt 
 lirl irX^ov XciTTvvOcv irvp airoyiwf\<rQ' tlra KardL\ii^iv Ik tovuv ^vr&.rt Kal %t^a Kal 
 Ttt dXXa -y^vTi. '^ 
 
 In a similar strain is the declaration of Plutarch concerning the 
 teaching of Chrysippus: 
 
 T) 8c irvpos fiCTa^oX'^ ktrri Toiavrt)' 81' dipos els vh<ap Tp^ircTai KdK ToiiTOv yi]s v- 
 ^\.a'ra\iivr\^ dtjp dvaOvfiLaTai* Xcirruvo^c'vov 8c tov d^pos 6 al6T]p ircpixciTai kvkX({), 
 ol 8* do-T^pes Ik OoXdo-orrfs \ur6. tov t]XCov dvdiTTOvTat. * 
 
 The account of the Stoic doctrines contained in Cicero's Z>^ Natura 
 Deorum coincides with the testimony herewith presented: 
 
 Sic enim res habei, ut omnia, quae alantur et quae crescant, contineant 
 in se vim caloris, sine qua neque ali possent nee crescere. Nam o??ine, 
 quod est calidum el igneum, cietur et agitur motu suo. ^ 
 
 Quod quidem Cleanthes his etiam argumentis docet, quanta vis insit 
 
 1 VII, 137. 
 2/^., 156. 
 »/^., 142. 
 
 ^Chrysipp. Ap. Plut. Stoic, Rep. 41, 3, p. 1053. in Ritter et Preller, 405^. 
 '11. 9» 23. 
 
THE STOICS. 91 
 
 caloris in omni corpore: negat enim esse uUum cibum tarn gravem, quin 
 is node et die concoquatur ; cuius etiam in reliquiis inest calor iis, quas 
 natura respuerit. . . . Omne igitw, quod vivil, sive animal sive 
 terra editum, id vivit propter inclusum in eo colorem. Ex quo iniellegi 
 debet earn caloris naturam vim habere in se vitalem per omnem mundum 
 pertiftentem. ^ 
 
 Et cum quattuor genera sint corporum, vicissitudine eorum mundi con- 
 tinuata natura est. Nam ex terra aqua, ex aqua oritur aer, ex aere 
 aether^ deinde retrorsum vicissim ex aethere aer, inde aqua, ex aqua terra 
 infima. Sic naturis his, ex quibus omnia constant sursus deorsus, ultra 
 citro commeantibus mundi par tium coniunctio continetur.^ 
 
 The resemblance between the opinions of Heraclitus already noted 
 and the views of the Stoics herein expressed is so close as to imply 
 that whatever Lucretius urges against the doctrine of elemental fire of 
 the one he intends to be valid against the similar doctrine of the 
 other. Both were doubtless in mind as he wrote the passage under 
 consideration. Moreover, whatever he directs against the four ele- 
 ments of Empedocles has a purposed bearing on the physical theories 
 of the Stoics as well. 
 
 Lucretius takes issue with the Stoics on the structure and course 
 of the universe no less than on its constituent elements. Having 
 controverted the doctrine of primordial fire, he proceeds to discuss 
 the method by which the universal order came into existence, and 
 finds himself again in conflict with the hereditary foe. Accident, 
 and not design, is responsible for the production of the world. The 
 eternal whirl of the atoms, with their perpetual collisions and attempts 
 at combination, at length succeeded in begetting the present constitu- 
 tion of things. This proposition Lucretius announces repeatedly in 
 the progress of his poem, but never more elaborately than in the fol- 
 lowing lines : 
 
 A^am certe neque consilio primordia rerum 
 Ordine se suo quaeque sagaci mente locarunt 
 Nee quos quaeque darent motus pepigere prq/ecto, 
 Sed quia multa modis multis primordia rerum 
 
 ^ Cicero. De Natura Deorttm. II, 9, 24. 
 2 /<^., II, 33, 84. 
 
92 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 Ex infinito iam ternpore percita plagis 
 Ponder ibusque suis consuerunt concita ferri 
 Omnimodisque coire aique omnia pertempiare. 
 Quae cumque inter se possent congressa creare, 
 Propter ea fit uti magnum volgata per aevom 
 Omne genus coetus et motus experiundo 
 Tandem conveniant ea quae convecta repent e 
 Magnarum rerum fiunt exordia semper, 
 Terrai maris et caeli generis que animantum. * 
 
 Such a process of world-formation necessarily involves infinity of 
 matter and of space. Lucretius introduces his argument for this 
 doctrine by a declaration that the universe is infinite, which he illus- 
 trates and enforces at some length. 
 
 Omne quod est igitur nulla regione viarum 
 Finitumst; namque extremum debebat habere, etc. ' 
 
 In this he follows Epicurus with remarkable fidelity, both in ideas 
 and phraseology. 
 
 TO irdv aircipdv €<rTi. to "ydp ireirepacrn^vov aKpov €X€i* to 8c aKpov irap* 2T€p6v 
 Ti OcctfpciTai. wo-Tc ovK cxov aKpov ir^pas ovk cxci' ircpas Sc ovk cxov direipov av 
 ctt) Kal ov ircirpao-(Ji^vov.^ 
 
 Now, space and matter, being co-extensive with the universe, are 
 also infinite. If space were finite, all matter would sink by grav- 
 ity to the bottom, whereas we know it is in constant motion. 
 
 Praeterea spatium summai totius ovine 
 Undique si inclusum certis consisteret oris 
 Finitumque /oret, iam copia materiai 
 Undique po?ideribus solidis cofifiuxet ad imum, 
 Nee res ulla geri sub caeli tegmine posset, 
 Nee /oret omnino caelum neque lumina solis; 
 Quippe ubi materies omnis cumulata iaceret 
 Ex infinito iam tempore subsidendo. 
 
 IV, 419-31- Cf- I» 1021-30 ; II, 1053-63 ; V, 187-94. 
 
 2 1, 958-87. 
 
 ^Diogenes Laertius, X, 41. 
 
THE STOICS. 93 
 
 At nunc, iiiiniriim, requies data principiorum 
 Corporibus nullast, quia ml est funditus imum, 
 Quo quasi conjluere et sedes ubi ponere possint, 
 Semper in adsiduo viotu res quaeque geruntur 
 Partibus e cunctis, infernaque suppeditantur 
 Ex infinito cita corpora materiai. ^ 
 
 But matter must as surely be infinite as space, for the following 
 reasons: It is a provision of nature that Void and Body should 
 bound each other, and these alternations continue to infinity. If 
 space alone were infinite sea, earth, heavens and all the objects of 
 sense would dissolve into ruin. Indeed the atoms would never have 
 combined to form things in beings; nor would the inevitable loss in 
 nature be repaired if there were not an infinite supply of matter. 
 The intricate clashings of the atoms would possibly maintain the 
 unity of the world temporarily, but ultimately disintegration would 
 occur. For the atomic collisions themselves would cease in time 
 without an infinity of matter.'^ 
 
 This is the position touching infinity of space and matter which is 
 taken by Epicurus, who says: 
 
 Kal (JLT]V Kal T(J irXifiOei twv o'wp.drotv aircipdv Icri to irav Kal tco [icy^Oei tov kcv> 
 ov. cl' re "ydp r\v ro kcvov dircipov, rd 8e o-idfiara wpi(r|JL€va, ovSaixov dv ep.evc rd 
 (TMiiara, dX.\* c<{>epeTO Kard to dircipov kcvov 8kco"irap(jL€va, ovk c^ovTa Td vircpcCSov- 
 Ta Kal orTcXXovTa Kard rds dvaKoirds. tt t€ to kcvov -qv b)pi<r)Ji€vov, ovk av flyjt Td 
 aircipa o-w|iaTa oirov Iv€o-ttj.^ 
 
 But the Stoic doctrine of the universe is at variance with this. 
 According to Zeno and his followers the earth is a globe resting in 
 the centre of a system known as the world. Immediately above its 
 surface is water, and beyond the water is air. Around these revolves 
 the ether in a circle, composed of several strata, in which are set sun, 
 moon and other heavenly bodies. Beyond this Kdo-fios is empty space 
 extending to infinity, though the existence of any vacuum within 
 the world is denied.* This is the Stoic universe. In such a scheme 
 matter could not be unlimited. The Epicurean conception of the 
 
 U. 988-1001. 
 
 21, 1008-51. 
 
 ^ Diogenes Laerthis, X, 41, 42. 
 
 ♦ Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, pp. 202. 3. 
 
94 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 universe corresponds with that of the Stoics to the extent of regard- 
 ing the earth as placed in the center of a system enclosed by a circuit 
 of ether studded with celestial spheres. But Epicurus and Lucretius 
 hold this to be but one of an infinite number of worlds, while the 
 Stoics content themselves with a single system and a boundless ex- 
 panse of space beyond. Epicureanism, therefore, demands an infin- 
 ite supply of matter for an infinite quantity of worlds, but Stoicism 
 derides the idea of unlimited body, and declares that the very nature 
 of the corporeal renders infinity of matter impossible. The opinions 
 of the Stoic philosophers on this subject are stated by Diogenes 
 Laertius in the following terms: 
 
 iva rhv K6<r}iov ctvai Kal lovrov ircircpao-fi^vov, orx'nK''^ cxovra a-<|>aipoci8€s . . c^- 
 «9€v 8* auTOv ircpiKexv|i^vov clvai to K€v6v aireipov, oirep d<r(0|iaTOv etvai . . . cv 8e 
 Tw Kdo-fjLO) p.T]8ev ctvai kcvov, d\\* r\v<a<rQai avrov.^ 
 
 TO 8c irav Xc'-ycTat («s <}>t|o-iv *A'n-o\X68(«)pos) o8* rt Kocfios, Kal Ka0* eVcpov Tpoirov 
 TO €K ToO K6(rp.ov Kttl Tov c^cuOcv Kcvov, (rva-Tr\\ia. 6 fxev oZv K6<r\ios ireirtpao-nt'vos 
 Io-t(' to hi K€v6v, airtipov.^ 
 
 a-u\ia hi 60-Ti KttT avTOvs t) 8' ovcia Kal tr6'mpaa-\Uvt\.''^ 
 
 But when worlds have once been formed from this infinite supply 
 of matter extending through the universe, how are they held 
 together.? This is the question which forces Lucretius into direct 
 conflict with the Stoics, and incidently with the Peripatetics and 
 some other philosophers. The theory of centripetal force as a solu- 
 tion of the problem is scorned by the Epicurean poet. 
 
 I//ud in his rebus longe /uge cedere, Memmi, 
 In medium summae quod dicunt omnia niti, 
 Aique idea mundi naturam stare sine ullis 
 Ictibus externis neque quoquam posse resolvi 
 Summa aique ima, quod in medium sini omnia ?iixa; 
 Ipsum si quicquam posse in se sister e credis, 
 Et quae pondera sunt sub terris omnia sursum 
 Nitier in ierraque retro requiescere posta. * 
 
 Balbus, who gives an exposition of the Stoic doctrines in Cicero's 
 
 iVII, HO. 
 
 ^n>., 
 
 » 143- 
 
 ■' ih. 
 
 . 150. 
 
 *i, 
 
 1052-9. 
 
THE STOICS. 95 
 
 De Natiira Deorum, elaborates the exact theory which Lucretius 
 thus condemns. 
 
 Omnes enini partes ems undique medium locum capessenles nitujitur 
 aequaliter. Maxime autem corpora inter se iuficta permanent, cum 
 quasi quodam vi?iculo circumdato coltiga?itur; quod facit ea natura, quae 
 per omnem mundum o??inia mente et ratione conficiens funditur et ad 
 medium rapit et convertit extrema. . . . Eademque ratione mare, 
 cum supra terram sit, medium tamen terrae locum expetens conglobatur 
 undique aequabiliter neque redundat umquam neque effunditur. * 
 
 Stobaeus attributes this theory to Zeno. 
 
 iravra rd n^prj tov Koo-piov IttI to (le'o-ov tov koo-jiov ttjv (}>opdv exciv, (idXio-a 8c 
 ToL pdpos €XOVTa.^ 
 
 To Lucretius the conception is absurd, and the existence of the 
 antipodes is ridiculed as the dream of fools. 
 
 Ut per aquas quae nunc rerum simulacra videmus, 
 Adsi?nili ratione animalia suppa vagari 
 Contendtint, neque posse e terris in loca caeli 
 Reccidere inferiora magis quam corpora nostra 
 SpoTite sua possint in caeli templa volare 
 Illi cum videant solem, nos sidera noctis 
 Cernere, et alternis nobiscum tempora caeli 
 Divider e et nodes parilis agitare diebus, 
 Sed vanus stolidis haec [error somnia finxit].' 
 
 The inadequacy of the arguments adduced by the Stoics in sup- 
 port of the theory of centripetal force is clearly shown by Lucretius, 
 who denies that infinite space can have any center, and asserts that 
 if it were possible, nothing could come to a rest at this point, since 
 space will always yield to heavy bodies, which cannot lose their 
 weight, in whatever direction they move.* 
 
 The inconsistency of the Stoics in asserting that only the heavy 
 elements, earth and water, press to the center, while air and fire 
 
 '11.45,113, 116. 
 '^ Munro, II, p. 1 14. 
 =^I, 1060-8. 
 ♦I, 1069-82. 
 
96 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 mount upward, is expressed not only in this connection, but in a 
 subsequent passage, in which Lucretius refutes the Aristotelian 
 notion of an upward centrifugal force. ^ The language of Lucretius 
 is full of force, and justly represents the views of his antagonists. 
 
 Praeterea quoniam non omnia corpora fingunt 
 In medium niti, sed terrarum atque liquoris, 
 Et quasi terreno quae corpore contineantur, 
 Umorem ponti magnasque e montibus undas, 
 At contra tenuis exponunt aeris auras 
 Et calidos simul a medio differrier ignis, 
 Atque ideo totum circum tremere aether a signis 
 Et solis flammam per caeli caerula pasci 
 Quod calor a medio fugiens se ibi conligat omnis, 
 Nee pr or sum arboribus summos frondescere ramos 
 Posse, nisi a terris paulatim cuique cibatum, etc. ^ 
 
 The teaching of Zeno, as we have sufficient evidence, confirms the 
 charge of incongruity which Lucretius here makes against his 
 followers: 
 
 oti iravTCDS 8e xrSt^a, pdpos ^\l^^v, d\X* dpapfj elvai dc'pa Kal xup* •yC-yvfo-Oai 8c Kal 
 Tavrd irws lirl to ttjs oXt]s <r4>ciCpas tov K6<r(iov ^i<rov, tt]v Se <rvo-Ta<riv irpos ttjv 
 ir£pi({>€pciav avTov iroi€io-6ai k.tA.^ 
 
 In has been observed by Munro that ''had Epicurus, while retain- 
 ing his conceptions of infinite space and matter and innumerable 
 worlds and systems, seen fit to adopt this Stoical doctrine of things 
 tending to a center, and so to make his atoms rush from all sides of 
 space alike towards a center, he might have anticipated the doctrine 
 of universal gravity."* But he did not possess interest enough in 
 the problems of physical science to pursue them beyond their imme- 
 diate and obvious relation to ethical questions, nor was his know- 
 ledge of mathematics sufficient to lead him toward the discovery 
 which has made the name of Newton immortal. Lucretius, though 
 
 ^11, 184-215. 
 
 21, 1083-93. 
 
 '^ Stobaeus, Eclogue, in Munro, II. p. 114. 
 
 *I, p. 114. 
 
THE STOICS. 97 
 
 exhibiting keener powers of scientific observation than Epicurus 
 evinces in any fragments of his writings which have been preserved, 
 is in this instance, as in many others, l)ut the echo of his idoHzed 
 master. 
 
 Omnis enini locus ac spatium, quod in [ane vocamus], 
 Per medium, per non medium, concedere [debet] 
 Aeque ponderibus, motus qua cumque feruntur. 
 Nee quisquam locus est, quo corpora cuni venerunf, 
 Ponderis amissa vi possint stare in inani: 
 Nee quod inane autem est ulli subsistere debet, 
 Quin, sua quod natura petit, concedere pergat. 
 Haud igitur possunt tali ratione teneri 
 Res in concilium medii cuppedine vinctae. ' 
 
 Having shown his hostility to the Stoic conceptions of the origin, 
 constitution and maintenance of the universe, it is natural that 
 Lucretius should oppose the doctrine of the immortality and divinity 
 of the world as held by the followers of Zeno. This he does in the 
 following vigorous protest; 
 
 Multa tibi expediam doctis solacia dictis; 
 Religione re/renatus ne forte rear is 
 Terras et solem et caelum, mare sidera lunam, 
 Corpore divino debere aeterna manere, 
 Proptereaque pules ritu par esse Gigantum 
 Pender e eos poenas inmani pro seek re om?iis. 
 Qui ratione sua disturbent moenia mundi 
 Praeclar unique velint caeli restinguere solem, 
 Inmortalia mortali sermone notantes; 
 Quae procul usque adeo divino a numine distent, 
 Inque deum numero quae sint indigna videri, 
 Notitiaju potius praebere ut posse putentur 
 Qtiid sit vital i motu sensuque remotum.'^ 
 
 While there was apparently some diversity of opinion among the 
 Stoic leaders regarding portions of the doctrine herein assailed. 
 
 ^ I. 1074-82. Cf. Diogenes Laertius, X, 43, 61. 
 n\ 113-25. 
 
98 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 there was perfect unanimity touching the identification of the 
 creative energy inherent in primordial fire with deity. The all- 
 pervading essence which was responsible for the world and its phen- 
 omena, they argued, could only be defined as the highest reason, 
 operative in matter as the soul is in man. The unity and perfection 
 of the world could only be accounted for on this theory. Nor, with- 
 out a rational principle acting upon formless matter, could reason- 
 ing creatures be produced out of the world. This rational essence, 
 this anima mundi, is God. But since, according to the Stoics, deity 
 could only attain reality when clothed with material forms, it was in- 
 evitable that the universe and its parts should be regarded as bodying 
 forth divinity, and that ultimatelv the distinction between the ex- 
 ternal manifestation and the inner spirit of being should be so 
 obscured as to be practically lost, and the divinity of the world be 
 acknowledged. And this pantheistic conception seems to have i)re- 
 vailed among all the great Stoics except Boethus, who insisted on a 
 separation between God and the world. ^ 
 
 Cicero has presented the Stoic view of the divinity of the universe 
 and its parts, and the arguments by which this proposition was sus- 
 tained with great fulness, as the accompanying excerpts from his 
 elaborate discussion will sufficiently show. To Zeno he attributes 
 these sentiments: 
 
 Quod ratione utitiir, id melius est quam id, quod raiione no?! ufi/ur; 
 nihil autem viundo melius; raiione igitur mtindus utitur. 
 Nullius sensu carentis pars aliqua potest esse sentiens; vnmdi 
 autetn partes sentientes sunt; Tion igitur caret sensu mundus. 
 Nihil quod aninii quodque rationis est expers, id gen- 
 erare ex se potest animantem conpotemque rationis; mundus autein 
 generat animantis conpotesque rationis; animans est igitur mundus com- 
 posque rationis. . . . Cur igitur mundus nan animans sapiensque 
 iudicetur, cum ev se procreet animantis atque sapientis ?'■ 
 
 Natura est igitur, quae contineat ?nundum omnem etimque tueatur, et 
 ea quidem non sine sensu atque ratione; omnem enim naturam necesse 
 est, quae non solitaria sit neque si?nplex, sed cu?n alio iuncta atque conexa, 
 
 • Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sa-pfics, pp. 1 44- 160. 
 "^ De Natura Deo7-u7u, II, 21, 22. 
 
THE STOICS. 99 
 
 habere aliguem in se principattim. . . . Principatum auiem id dico, 
 quod Graeci t|^€|iovik6v vocani, quo nihil in quoque genere nee potest nee 
 debet esse praestantius. Ita necesseest illud etia??i, in quo sit totius naturae 
 principatus, esse omnium optimum omniumque rerum potestate dominatuque 
 dignissimum. Videmus autem in partibus mundi {nihil est enim in omni 
 mundo, quod non pars universi sit) inesse sensum atque rationem. In ea 
 parte igitur, in qua mundi inest principatus, haec inesse necesse est, et 
 acriora quidem atque maiora. Quodcirca sapient em esse mundum necesse 
 est, naturanique cam, quae res omnes conplexa teneat, perfectione ration- 
 is excellere, eoque deum esse mundum, omnemque vim mundi natura di- 
 vina contineri. ^ 
 
 In arguing for the eternal wisdom and virtue of the workl the 
 Stoic advocate says: 
 
 Si rationis particeps sit nee sit tanien a principio sapiens, 7ion sit deter- 
 ior mundi potius quam humana condicio; homo enim sapiens fieri potest, 
 mundus autem si in aeterno praeteriti temporis spatio fuit insipiens, nun- 
 quam profecto sapientiam consequetur; ita erit homine deterior. Quod 
 quoniam absurdum est, et sapiens a principio mundus et deus habendus est. 
 Est autem nihil mundo per/ectius, nihil virtute melius ; igitur 
 mundi est propria virtus. Nee vero hominis natura perfecta est, et ef- 
 ficitur tamen in homine virtus; quanto igitur in mundo facilius. Est 
 ergo in eo virtus; sapiens est igitur et propter ea deus. ^ 
 
 Diogenes Laertius, in specifying the opinions of Zeno's disciples on 
 the subject under discussion, has the following: 
 
 Xc-yovo-i 8e Kdorfiov rpixus, avrdv re tov Oeov tov Ik ird<rT|s ov<r(as ISiws iroi6v. h% 
 %rr\ a4>6apT6s 6<rTi Kal d-ycvT^TOs, 8t]|xiovp'y69 «v ttis 8iaKO<r|xi^(r€w$, Kara XP<>v«v 
 iroids ircpioSovs dvaXicKuv els cavrov tt]v airourav ovcriav Kal irdXiv e^ eavrov 
 
 9€ov 8*, elvat 5«ov dddvarov, Xo-YkKOVyTeXciov, y\ vocpov ev cv8aip.ovC(ji, KaKov irav- 
 
 TOS dv€iri8€KT0V irpOVOT^TlKOV KOCTfiOV T€ Kal T»V €V KOOrpifa)' Jit] clvai [JtCVTOt dvOptuiTO- 
 
 ^op<|>ov. etvai 8c rov |i€v, 8t]}iiovp'yov tmv SXwv, Kal we-ircp iraWpa irdvTwv* koivws 
 T€ Kal TO (Upos avTOv TO 8i'nK0v 8id irdvTwv, o iroXXais irpo(rr)'YopCais irpotrovoud- 
 JeTai Kara tus 8vvd(i€ic.* 
 
 * De Natura Deorum, II, 29, 30. 
 2/^., 36-39. 
 
 ' Diogenes Laertius. VII. 137. 
 *//;., 147. 
 
lOO CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 ov<r(av 8c 6cov Z'/jvwv p.cv ^r\(ri rov bXov K6(r|JL0v, Kal rov ovpav6v* 6(ioi(us 8c Kal 
 Xpv(riiriros Iv rt^ id ircpl 6cwv, Kal IIo(rci8wvios ^v irpwTb) ircpl 6cwv.' 
 
 It is but a Step from the acknowledgment of the deity of the 
 world to the acceptance of the divinity of the heavenly bodies which 
 form such an important part of the K6<r(jios. This the Stoic Balbus 
 avers in Cicero's dissertation on the nature of the gods.*^ 
 
 In the same immediate connection is a hearty commendation of 
 Aristotle, whose views on the doctrine under discussion har- 
 monized with the Stoic teaching, and against whom, therefore, 
 together with the Peripatetics, and even Plato, who taught a similar 
 theory, Lucretius, as Munro maintains, evidently directs his shaft. '^ 
 
 Because, as has already been demonstrated in the third book of 
 his poem, mind cannot be conceived by him as existing apart from 
 the body, senses and blood, Lucretius insists that the world and its 
 parts cannot be endowed with vitality and intelligence, and is there- 
 fore not divine.* 
 
 But, while this passage seems conclusive against the doctrine of the 
 world as a living organism, it must be acknowledged that Lucretius 
 has been betrayed by his poetic feeling into characterizing the uni- 
 verse in terms which are only appropriate in connection with living 
 beings. Following the analogy of the human body, he has described 
 the world as being produced, increased, wasted and ultimately de- 
 stroyed like an animal. According, to his opinion, it assimilates 
 food, breathes through pores, puts forth herbage corresponding with 
 
 * Diogenes Laertius, VII, 148. 
 
 *^ Atque hac mundi divinitate perspecta trihiienda est siderihus eadem divinitas, 
 quae ex mohilissima purissimaque aetheris parte gignuntiir, neque ulla praeterea 
 sunt admixta natura totaque sunt calida atque periucida, ut ea quoque recti sshne et 
 animantia esse et sentire atque intellegere dicantur. — De N^atura Deortwi, II, 39. 
 
 01 SrwiKol . . diro(|>a£vovTak . . Ocovs 8c Kal rov K6<rp.ov Kal tovs do-r^pas Kal 
 TTiv -yf^v, t6v8* dvwTdTCD -irdvTwv vovv alOcpi. — Plac. /, 7, j-j Dox., J05, in Ritter 
 et Prelier, 398B. 
 
 Senswn autem astrorum atque intellegentiam maxume declarat ordo eorum atque 
 constantia. . . . Sequitur ergo, tit ipsa sua sponfe, sua sensu ac divinitate 
 vioreantur. — De Natura Deorufu. II. 43. 
 
 :^II, 291. 
 
 *V. 138-45. 
 
THE STOICS. lOI 
 
 the hair and feathers of animals, begets offspring and exhibits the 
 multiform and varied phenomena of living creatures.' 
 
 Epicurus denounces the doctrine of the divinity of the stars in 
 the following language : 
 
 \i(\Tt av irvpbs dvdp.pLaTa (rvvc(rTpafLp,cvov tt|v (laKapidri^ra KCKTT|)icva Kara ^ov- 
 XT]<riv Tois Kivi^<r€is TavTtts Xafipdv6iv.' 
 
 $€1 KttTavociv, OTi rdpaxos 6 Kvpiwraros rats dvOpwirivais \(rvxais -yiveTai Iv Tip 
 ravra (laKdpid re 8o|d^€iv (ctvai) Kal d4>6apTa, Kal vircvatn'ias i\iiv tovtw ^ovX'^- 
 ccis SL\La. Kal irpd|€is Kal alrias/^ 
 
 Though Lucretius denies the divinity of the world, he is not so far 
 apart from his philosophic rivals on the question of the world's de- 
 structibility as on first observation would appear to be the case. 
 The difference between the Stoic and the Epicurean positions on this 
 subject was due chiefly to the divergence of their respective concep- 
 tions of the universe. Zeno and many of his disciples held the theory 
 of recurrent cycles in the career of the world. As matter had in the 
 process of creation been separated from primary being, so eventually 
 it would return to primary being at the end of the present course of 
 things, when a general conflagration would dissolve everything into 
 its ])rimitive elemental condition. As soon as this dissolution had 
 occurred, however, there would begin the formation of a new world 
 exactly conforming in every particular to the preceding one, the 
 identical persons, things and events completing the new cycle which 
 existed in the previous aeon. 
 
 dpc'cKCi 8 * avTois Kal i|>6apT6v ctvai t6v Koo-p-o v, are y€vt]t6v tw X6'Ya> t»v 8i* aUr6^- 
 <rcws voovpt'vcDV ov t« rd ptpT] <f>9apTd, ia-ri Kal to oXov Td Si p^'pt] Toii Koo-pov (}>6apTd, 
 €is dXXT]Xa •ydp pcTa^dXXci* <|>6apT6s dpa 6 Koo-pos. Kal ei ti €iri8€KTiK6v Ictti ttjs 
 lirl TO x*^pov ptTaPoXfjs, 4>0apT6v €o-ti' Kal 6 Kocpos dpa* c^avxpovrai ^dp Kal 
 €^v8aTovTai.^ 
 
 Xpvo-iiriros . . . <|>Y]<rlv av|co-6ai pcxpis av €ls avTov diravTa KaTavoXwcrg. 
 eirel -ydp 6 OdvaTOs p^v Io-ti 4'vX'ns X'^P^'^'P'^S diro tov crwpaTOs, tj St tov Kocpov 
 y\>v\r] ov \(i>pLlfrai pcv av^cTai Se o-vv€X"S P^'XP*-? ^^ *^S avTr^v (|avaXwo-T| tt^v 
 vXt]v, ov piyriov diro6W)<rKCiv tov Kdo-pov.^ 
 
 ' C/. II, 1105-74; VI, 492-4; V, 788-91 ; I, 774. Masson, Atomic Theory of 
 Lucretius, pp. 143-9, has a very lucid discussion of this apparent incongruity. 
 
 -Diogenes Laertius. X. 77. 
 
 =V/a, 81. 
 
 *//^, VII, 141. 
 
 '^ Plut. Sto. Rep.. ^9. 2. p. /oj2, in Zeller. Stoics. Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 
 164. 2. 
 
102 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 While this is the view of the Stoics in the main, several prominent 
 leaders, including Panaetius, Boethus and others, dissented from 
 this judgment. Posidonius is also claimed by Philo as in this class. 
 But Diogenes Laertius, who is confirmed by Plutarch and Stobaeus, 
 asserts that Posidonius believed in the theory of recurrent world- 
 cycles.' 
 
 The Stoic universe, it must be remembered, however, consisted of 
 the K6<rnos, i. e., the world-system of which the earth is the centre, 
 and infinite space. Into this limitless void the K<S(r(jLos was dissolved, 
 and from this boundless space it was called together again after each 
 conflagration. In this sense its immortality must be understood. 
 The Epicurean universe, on the other hand, was filled with innum- 
 erable worlds or systems, each of which, as it had arisen in time out 
 of the fortuitous concourse of atoms, would also in time wear away 
 and utterly disintegrate into its original and indivisible atoms. But 
 the process of creating worlds anew would continue to infinity, the 
 clashing atoms striking out some fresh order and system as often as 
 by accident the conditions of world formation should be ful- 
 filled. In a way, therefore, the Epicurean to irav is as immortal as 
 the Stoic K6(r(ios, though the individual world systems of the former 
 are eternally subject to destruction. 
 
 Stoicism, it has been remarked, is as much a system of religion as 
 it is a system of philosophy."^ Theological questions, therefore, oc- 
 cupy a position of pre-eminent importance in its scheme of thought. 
 Moreover, its advocates constantly attempt to harmonize its prin- 
 ciples with conventional religion. Epicureanism, on the other 
 hand, treats theology with little less than contempt, and protests 
 against the traditional faith as stultifying to the intellect and per- 
 nicious in its influence on character. The Stoic asserts his belief in 
 God on the ground that the existence of the world and the phenom- 
 ena of life are inexplicable without the hypothesis of an originating 
 and controlling Reason, and because the nt)tion of deity is one of 
 the primary and universal judgments of mankind.'^ The Epicurean, 
 
 1 Zeller, Stoics, Flpicureans and Sceptics, p. 1 68, I. 
 
 V^., p. 342. 
 
 ' Cicero, De Natiira Deorum, II. 4- 1 2. 
 
THE STOICS. 103 
 
 on the contrary, discerns nothing in nature to indicate the governing 
 presence of the divine, but agrees with the Stoic, though for reasons 
 of his own, that the universal belief in the gods is based on the actual 
 existence of these deities. 
 
 Sohis eniin {Epicurus) vidit prhnum esse deos, quod in o??inium an- 
 imis eorum notionem impressisset ipsa nalura. Quae est enim gens aut 
 quod genus honiinum, quod non habeat sine doctrina anficipafionem quan- 
 dam deoruJH ? quam appellat irp6Xt|«|/iv Epicurus, id est anticeptam animo 
 rei quandam in/ormationem, sine qua nee intelligi quicquam nee quaeri 
 nee disputari potest} 
 
 That Epicurus believed this irpoXrufus to be wrought upon the hu- 
 man consciousness by those emanations, the doctrine of which he 
 borrowed from Empedocles and Democritus, and which have already 
 been considered by us,^ is amply testified. 
 
 '£ir(KOvpos 8e €K Twv Kara rovs virvot^s <}>avTCuriwv otcrai rovs dv6pwTrovs cvvoi- 
 av co-iraKCvai 6€0v* (ic-ydXtav -ydp clSwXwv, «|>T)<r(, Kal dv6p(Diropi6p4>wv Kard rovs 
 virvovs irpoo'iri'TrTovTwv vircXapov Kal rats dXT|6eiais iiirdp\civ rivds toiovtovs 
 Ocovs dydpftiirofiop^jovs.'^ 
 
 Cicero's Epicurean advocate suggests the same: 
 
 Nam a natura habemus omnes omnium gentium speciem nullam aliam 
 nisi hurnanam deorum; quae enim forma alia occurrit umquam aut vigil- 
 anti cuiquam aut dortnienti ? Sed ne omnia revocentur ad primas noti- 
 ones: ratio hoc idem ipsa dechirat.* 
 
 Lucretius expresses the same theory: 
 
 de cor pore quae sane to simulacra feruntur 
 In mentes hojuinum divinae mintia formae} 
 
 Quippe eienim iam tum divofu mortalia saecla 
 Egregias animo fades vigilante videbant, 
 Et magis in sonmis mirando corporis auctu. 
 
 ^ Cicero. De Xatiira Dc'orum, I, 43. 0€ol jicv ^dp cl<riv cvap-yrfs 'ydp avTwv l<r- 
 Tiv T| "yvwo-is. Diogems lAiertius, X, 123. 
 
 - pp. ' 7. 49. 50- 
 
 '^Sextus Math. IX, 2^, in Usener EpiatVc'a, p. 238. 
 
 ^De lYatura Deortnn. I. 46. 
 
 'VI. 76, 77. 
 
I04 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 His igitur sensum tribuebant p7-()pterea quod 
 Membra movere videbantur vocesque superbas 
 Mittere pro facie praeclara et viribus amplis. 
 Aelernamque dabant vitam, quia semper eorum 
 Subpeditabatur fades et forma manebai, 
 Et iamen omnino quod taniis viribus auctos 
 No7i temere ulla vi convinci posse putabant. 
 Fortunisque ideo longe praestare putabant. 
 Quod mortis timor haut quemquam vexaret eorum, 
 Et simul in somnis quia multa et mira videbant 
 Efficere et nullum caper e ipsos inde lab or em } 
 It has also been conjectured that Epicurus maintained a belief in 
 the gods in order to make possible the realization of the lofty ideals 
 of happiness which he conceived, but which were confessedly never 
 attained in human life.'"* 
 
 But the opinions of the character and function of the gods as held 
 by the Stoics and Epicureans respectively were totally at variance. 
 Primary being was conceived of by the Stoics, in one aspect, as the 
 Generative Reason, from which and by which all things are produced. 
 Attention has already been drawn to this tenet. ^ The accompany- 
 ing quotations likewise support this position: 
 
 TOVTOV -Yap ovTtt diSiov 8id irdo-qs awT-qs S-qfiiovp-Yeiv ^Kao-ra.* 
 cv TC elvai 6cov Kal vovv, Kal €lp.ap|jLCvt]v Kal A(a, iroWais tc cWpais ovofjiao-lais 
 irpoorovo(id^eo-6ai. Kar* dpxds \ixv ovv Ka9 * avrov ovra, Tpt'irctv rrjv irdo-ov ow<r(- 
 av 81 dcpos els vScop* Kal wtrirep Iv rrf 70VT] to o-ir^pfia irepw'xeTai, ovtw Kal tovtov 
 o-irepiiaTiKov Xd-yov ovra tov Koo-fiou, roiovSe viroXiirtVOai Iv tw VYpw, cvcp'yov av- 
 Tw iroiovvTa ti^v yi\r\v Trpos ttjv twv c|fis 7«v€<riv clra dTroY<vv<jv irpwTOv rd T€(r- 
 o-apa (TTOixtta, irvp, v8a>p, d^pa, "ytiv.' 
 
 ACa }i€v "ydp (}>a(ri, 81 6v ra iravTa* Zf)va %\ KaXovo-i, irap &<rov tov \^v aCTi6$ 
 lo-Tiv, \ 8id Toi) 5liv K€X«pT]K€V *A9r]vdv 8£, KaTd TT]v els alO^pa 8idTao-iv tov fj*Y«- 
 (lOviKov avTov" "Hpav 86, KaTd tt]v els to t€Xvik6v irvp* Kal noo-ci8wva, KaTd tt|v 
 els TO v-ypov Kal Aifjui^Tpav, KaTd ttjv els "yfiv 6p.ola>s 8e Kal Tds dXXas irpoo-ij-Yop- 
 Cas, ex'^P'*^^^ Tivos olKeioT-qTOS, dir^Soo-av.^ 
 
 IV, 1169-82. 
 
 '^ Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 466. 
 
 =» Diogenes Laertius, VII. 137. quoted p. 99. 
 
 ^ lb., VII, 134. 
 
 ^ lb., 135, 136. 
 
 «//.., 147. 
 
THE STOICS. 105 
 
 It is obvious from these declarations that, while the Stoics in strict 
 consistency assigned the name of Deity in its original significance only 
 to the sole primary Being, "they did not hesitate to apply it in a 
 limited and derivative sense to all those objects by means of which 
 the divine power is especially manifested."* 
 
 The Epicureans, on the other hand, derided the very idea of the 
 directing presence of deity in the creation, preservation and guidance 
 of the world. The prime purpose of Lucretius, announced at the 
 beginning of his poem and reiterated many times in its progress, is to 
 demonstrate 
 
 et unde queat res quaeque creart 
 Et quo quaeque viodo fiant opera sine divom. ^ 
 
 Velleius, Cicero's exponent of Epicurean principles, ridicules the 
 doctrine of the creation of the world through divine agency, and 
 charges the Stoics with resorting to the hypothesis of gods for lack 
 of any rational method of accounting for the phenomena of nature. 
 
 Docuit enim nos idem, qui cetera, natura effectum esse mundum, nihil 
 opus fuisse fabrica, tamque earn rem esse facilem, quam vos effici negatis 
 sine divina posse solertia, ut innumerabilis natura mundos effeciura sit, 
 efficiat, effecerit. Quod quia quern ad modum natura efficere si?ie aliqua 
 viente possit non videtis, ut tragici poetae, cum explicare argwnenti 
 exitum tioti potestis, confugitis ad deum. "' 
 
 The gods of the Epicureans are beings like men, but of a more re- 
 fined essence. The cCSwXa of the gods which are presented to our 
 minds, whether asleep or awake, take the figure of men. Moreover, 
 the human form is the most admirable that can be conceived of for 
 rational and happy beings. But divine bodies are not tangible to 
 mortals. 
 
 Hominis esse specie deos confitendiim est. Nee tamen ea species cor- 
 pus est, sed quasi corpus, nee habet sanguinem, sed quasi sanguinem. 
 
 * Zel!er. Stoics. Epiciivc-ans and Sceptics, p. 347. 
 
 n. 157.8. 
 
 '' Dc- Xatura Dc-orum. I. 53. 
 
I06 COXTROVERSIAI. ELEMENTS IN H'CRETIl'S, 
 
 Epicurus autem, qui res occultas et penitus abditas non modi) 
 viderit animo, sed eiiam sic tractet, ut manu, docet eani esse vim ef natur- 
 ani deortwi, ut primum non sensu, sed mente cernatur ; nee soliditaie 
 quadam nee ad numerum, ut ea, quae ille propter firmitatem o-rcpcVvia ap- 
 pellat, sed imagimbus similitudine et transitione perceptis. ^ 
 
 Tenvis enim natura deum longeque remota 
 Sensibus ab nostris atiimi vix mente videtur ; 
 Quae quoniam manuum tactum suffugit et icium, 
 Tactile nil nobis quod sit contingere debet. 
 Tangere enim non quit quod tangi non licet ipsum. ^ 
 
 Now, these deities, which are innumerable, are immortal and per- 
 . fectly happy. 
 
 vptoTOv ficv rhv 6c6v ^<Jov a4>6aprov Kal |jiaKdpiov vopiC^wv, b>s f| koivt) rov Ocov 
 voTjoris v'rrc'Ypd4>T], p,T]6ev (I'^rc Tf]s d()>6ap(rCas dWdrpiov ^"(yn rf)s p,aKapi6Tr|ros 
 dvolKciov avTw irp6o-airT€* irdv Be to <j>vXdTT€iv avrov Svvd^ievov tt]v (X€Td d4>0ap- 
 cCas p,aKapi6TT]Ta ircpl avrov 8d^a^<.^ 
 
 rh fiaKdpiov Kal d4>6apTOv ofirc avro irpd'Yiiara txt\. ovt€ dXXio iraptxti, «<rT€ 
 0UT6 op-yais ovT€ xdpi(ri <rvv€X€Taf Iv d<r6cvci -ydp irdv to toiovtov.^ 
 
 Ea videlicet, qua nihil beatius, nihil omnibus bonis ajffuentius cogitari 
 potest. Nihil enim agit, nullis occupationibus est inplicatus, nulla opera 
 molitur, sua sapientia et virtute gaudet, habet exploratum fore se semper 
 cum in maxim is, tum in aeternis voluptatibus.'^ 
 
 Omnis enim per se divom natura necessest 
 Inmortali aevo summa cum pace fruatur 
 Semota ab nostris rebus seiunctaque longe; 
 Xa?n privata dolor e onuti, privata periclis, 
 Ipsa suis pollens opibus, nil indiga nostri, 
 Aec bene promeritis capitur neque tangitur ira. ^ 
 
 Their places of abode must also differ from the habitations of men, 
 corresponding in refinement with their bodies. 
 
 ' Cicero, De Natura Dcoruvi, I, 49. 
 
 "^ Lucretitis. V. 148-52. 
 
 ■^ Dio affiles La e7'f ins, X. 123. 
 
 * /b., 139, I. 
 
 ^ De Natura Dt'oruf/i, I, 5 i . 
 
 "'Lucretius. II. 646-51. 
 
THE STOICS. 107 
 
 Quare eiiam sedes quoque nostris sedibus esse 
 Dissimiles debent, tenues de corpore eortim. ^ 
 
 Apparet divnm numen sedesque quietae 
 Quas neque concutiunt venti nee nubila nimbis 
 Aspergunt neqtie nix acri concreta pruina 
 Cana cadens violat semperque innubilis aether 
 Integit, et large diffusa lumine rident. 
 Omnia suppeditat porro natura neque uUa 
 Res aninii pacem delibat tempore in ullo. ^ 
 
 Gods, however, it is easy to observe, who have the amount of bus- 
 iness on their hands which the Stoics attribute to their deities, must 
 be far from happy, so Epicurus and his disciples would contend. 
 
 ov -ydp (rv|i<|><i)vow<riv irpaYP-areiai Kal <f>povTi8cs Kal op-yal Kal xdpircs fiaKapid- 
 TT]Ti, dW €v do-6cveia Kal <{>6P(i> Kal irpoo-Sc-fja-ct t«v irXT^o-iov ravra -yiveTai.^ 
 
 Kal T] Oeia 4>v(ris irpos ravra p.T)8a|jk'^ irpo<ra-Ye(r6a), dXX' dXciTOvpYn'^'OS SiarrjpcC- 
 <r9« Kal €v TT] Trdo-T) |iaKapi6rT)ri.^ 
 
 The Epicurean Velleius indulges in merriment over the Stoic 
 notion of the world as a divinity, eternally revolving in space with 
 inevitable discomfort, and seriously combats their favorite doctrine of 
 Providence on the ground that such constant occupation would be 
 ilestructive of the peace and quietude which are indispensable in his 
 opinion to the complete happiness of the gods. 
 
 Sive in ipso miindo dens inest atiquis, qui regat, qui gubernet, qui cur- 
 sus astrorum, mutationes temporum, rerum vicissitudines ordinesque con- 
 servet, terras et maria contemplans hominum commoda vitasque tueatur, 
 ne Hie est implicatus molestis negotiis et operosisf Nos autem beatam vit- 
 am in animi securitate et in omnium vacaiione munerum ponimus." 
 
 We have already seen how necessary to the happiness of the gods 
 Lucretius regards their total exemption from the cares of government. 
 
 nil, 18-24. 
 
 '^ Dio^ems Lac'rfius. X. 77. 
 
 ♦/^.."97- 
 
 '^ Dc- iVatiit'ti Deoriim. I. 52. 53. 
 
I08 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 But the providence of the gods is a doctrine to which the Stoics 
 adhered with extraordinary tenacity. It was esteemed fundamental 
 in their system of philosophy. 
 
 Tov 8t] K6<r\iov 8ioiKci<r6ai Kara vovv Kal irpovoiav. ... els dirav airov (i^pos 
 8iir]KOVTOs TOW vov, KaOdircp l<|>* r\\i<av rr\s ^^X^S. . • . ovtw 8t] Kal tov oXov K6<r- 
 |jiov X,(aov ovxa Kal e|i\|/vxov Kal Xo-yiKov €X€iv t]'Y€K'Ovik6v \ikv tov al6cpa, k. t. X.' 
 
 Xe-yei "yovv Xpvo-iiriros toiK^vai tw \uv dv8pwiru> tov Aia Kal tov Kocrjiov, t]] 8c 
 ^^Xfi ""1^ irpdvoiav orav ovv CK-n-vpwo-is "y€'vT]Ta«., (lovov a<{>6apT0v ovTa tov A£a 
 T»v Oediv dvaxopctv lirl tt^v irpovoiav, dra. ouoC -ycvofACvovs lirl (iias xf^s tov alQi- 
 pos ovo-ias 8iaT€Xciv dp,<{>OTcpovs.''' 
 
 The Stoic Balbus presents the arguments of his school in defence 
 of the doctrine of the providence of the gods in a three-fold arrange- 
 ment, as follows: First, if we admit the existence of gods, we must 
 grant that they govern the world, otherwise they would not deserve 
 the title of deities; for the very conception of gods implies that they 
 are independent of all power other than their own, and that they 
 work together harmoniously and wisely for the noblest end, which is 
 nothing less than the government of the world. Second, the order 
 and unity of the universe mdicate that all its parts are under the 
 control of a force working intelligently and skillfully, which we de- 
 nominate Nature. But it is impossible for a thinking man to exam- 
 ine this orderly course of the world without being convinced that it 
 is under the direction of a wise mind. Third, the regularity, har- 
 mony and beauty of the heavenly bodies; the constitution, endow- 
 ments and wondrous adaptations of plants and animals; antl the 
 various productions of the earth, suited so remarkably to the need 
 of living creatures, all unite to confirm the wise man in his belief in 
 a divine providence." Based on the most reliable extant authorities, 
 Zeller has formulated the Stoic arguments for this doctrine in this 
 order: (i) From the general conviction of mankind. (2) From the 
 perfection of God. (3) From the theory of necessity. (4) From 
 the foreknowledge of God. (5) From the existence of dixiniation.* 
 
 ' Diogenes Laertius, VII, 138, 139. 
 
 ■^ Plutarch, De Comm. iVofif..- T^b. 5. p. 1077. in Ritter et Preller. 401 li. 
 
 " De Nati.ra Dear urn, 11. 75-15 '• 
 
 * Stoics. Epicureans and Sceptics, pp. 173-75. 
 
THE STOICS. 109 
 
 Perhaps the finest expression of the Stoic belief in the guidance of 
 God which has been preserved for us is contained in the famous 
 Hymn to Zeus by Cleanthes, a portion of which we quote. 
 
 KvSko-r' dOavdrwv, iroXv(0W|ji€, Tra-yKpaTcs aUC, 
 Zcv, (|>v(r€(i)S dp\T]'Y^, v6|JLOv {jLc'ra iravra Kv^cpvuv, 
 Xaip€' (re "ydp irdvTeo-o-i 6^p.is 0vi^Tot<ri irpo(rav8dv. 
 €K cov ^dp -ycvos ecrfiev, \.r\% p.i(iT]fjLa Xa\6vTcs 
 (jLOvvoi, o<ra ^wti t€ Kal Ipirci 0viqT* €irl 'yaiav. 
 TtJ 0-6 KadvfiVTJo-b), Kal (Tov Kpdros aUv dcCo-cD. 
 (Tol 8t) irds bSc K6<r(JLOS, eXio-o-OfJicvos ircpl ^aiav 
 irckOcrai rf k€v d-yris Kal Ik«1»v viro creio Kparckrai. 
 Toiov \yji\.% viro€p-y6v dKiv^TOts €vl xepcriv, 
 dfi(}>^KT], irupoevra, del Jwovra Kcpavvdv, 
 TOV -ydp viro ttXii'ytJs <j)v<r€«s irdvT* e^pi-ycKTiv. 
 
 ovSc Ti -yC-YvcTai cp-yov lirl x^ov^ o'ov Stxc^i Satfiov, 
 ovT€ Kar' alO^piov Ociov iroXov, out' cirl irbyTw. 
 trXT^v 6ir6o-a pe^ovo-i KaKol o-<t>€WpTjo-iv dvoiais. 
 dXXd v^} Kal Td irtpio-o-d €irio-Tao-ai dpTia Ocivai, 
 Kal Koo-p,€is Td dKoo-|jLa, Kal ov (|>iXa crol <f>iXa Io-tCv. 
 w8€ -ydp €ls «v diravTa o-vv-^p|jLOKas €o-6Xd KaKoto-iv, 
 W0-9 ' €va -Yi-yvco-Oai trdvTwv Xd^ov aUv Iovtu.* 
 
 The whole teaching of these noble verses is utterly repugnant to 
 the theology of the Epicureans, who not only deem the labor of rul- 
 ing the world incompatible with the unquestioned happiness of the 
 gods, but who profess to see nothing in the adjustments of nature or 
 the experience of men to justify a belief in the providence of the 
 gods. One of the chief reasons for the Stoic confidence in the ex- 
 istence and guardianship of the gods lies in the perfection of the 
 world which they allege, but which the Epicureans strenuously 
 deny. 
 
 Quid autem est ifiscitius quam eajn naturam, quae omnis res sit con- 
 plexa, non optumam did. . . . Neque enim est quicquam aliud 
 praeter nuindum, cui nihil absit, quodque undique aptum atque perfectum 
 expletumque sit omnibus suis numeris et partibus.^ 
 
 ^ Stobaeus Eclogue.^ I, p. 30. 
 
 ^ Cicero, De Natura Deorum, II, 36, 37. 
 
no CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 Lucretius can discover no warrant in nature for such a view. On 
 the contrary, he finds such palpable imperfections in creation that if 
 he were totally ignorant of the true philosophy of the universe he 
 would still never hesitate to condemn the notion that the world was 
 constructed by divine power. 
 
 Nam quamvis rerum igttorem primordia quae sint, 
 Hoc tamen ex ipsis caeli raiionibus ausim 
 Confirmare aliisque ex rebus reddere viulits, 
 Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse creatam 
 Naturam mundi: ianta stat praedita culpa} 
 
 The argument by which Lucretius sustains his opinion is inter- 
 esting, if not convincing. The defect of nature is apparent in the im- 
 mense waste of the world as compared with its productive portions. 
 Even where tillage is possible with almost incredible labor, the toil 
 of the husbandman is frequently thrown away, for thorns infest the 
 soil, and burning heat, chilling blasts and destructive hurricanes de- 
 feat the projects of the farmer. Again, man himself is beset with 
 constant perils. Ferocious beasts roam abroad. Disease and death 
 walk in the train of the seasons. Helpless infancy is dependent on 
 the care of elders, while the young of animals flourish attended only 
 by the bounty of nature.^ 
 
 There is an uncertainty and capriciousness also about the opera- 
 tion of some of the forces of nature, not to speak of the impossibil- 
 ity that any personal agency should control these forms of energy, 
 which prevents him from believing the gods maintain any active in- 
 terest in the progress of human affairs. 
 
 Quae bene cogniia si teneas, natura videiur 
 Libera continuo, dominis privaia superbis, 
 Ipsa sua per se sponte omnia dis agere expers. 
 Nam pro, sancta deiim tranquilla pectora pace 
 Quae placidum degunt aevom viiamque serenam, 
 Quis regere immensi surnmam, quis habere prof imdi 
 Indu manu validas potis est moderanter habenas, 
 
 ^11, 177-81. 
 
 2V, 195-234. 
 
THE STOICS. Ill 
 
 Quis pariier caelos omnis convertere et omnis 
 Ignibus aetheriis terras suffire feracis. 
 Omnibus inve locis esse 07?mi tempore praesto, 
 Nubibus ut tenebras faciat caelique serena 
 Concutiat sonitu, turn fulmina mittat et aedis 
 Saepe suas disturbet et in deserta recedens 
 Saeviat, exercens teliim, quod saepe nocentes 
 Praeterit exanimatqtie indignos inqiie merentes P^ 
 
 The real animus of the Epicurean eagerness to disprove the prov- 
 idence of the gods lies, of course, in the purpose to deliver men 
 from the fear of deity, which Lucretius and his school felt to be in- 
 cident to a belief in this doctrine. 
 
 Nam et praestans deorum natura hominum pietate coleretur, cum et 
 aeterna esset et beatissima {habet enim venerationem iustam, quicquid ex- 
 cellit), et metus omnis a vi atque ira deorum pulsus esset; i?itellegitur 
 enim a beata injuortalique natura et iram et gratiam segregari; quibus re- 
 motis nullos a superis impendere metus.'^ 
 
 The supreme inspiration of Lucretius' philosophical inquiries is the 
 desire to deliver men from the dread of divine malevolence. His 
 passion for the redemption of mankind from irrational terrors is ex- 
 ceedingly impressive. He bewails the puerile credulity of the race. 
 
 Nam veluti pueri trepidant atque omnia caecis 
 In tenebris metuunt, sic nos in luce timemus 
 Interdum, nilo quae sunt metuenda magis quam 
 Quae pueri in tenebris pavitant finguntque futura} 
 
 He would dispel such groundless forebodings by means of the rev- 
 elations of true science. 
 
 Hunc igitur terrorem animi tenebrasque necessest 
 Non radii solis neque lucida tela diei 
 Discutiant, sed naturae species ratioque. * 
 
 ni, 1090-1104. 
 
 '^ De Natura Deoruvi, I, 45. 
 
 =« 11, 55-58. 
 
 *V, 1211-17. 
 
ri2 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 It is lack of knowledge which betrays men into misinterpretations 
 of the phenomena of nature, and impels them to cringe before the 
 gods as if they were the relentless enemies of mankind. We ob- 
 serve the wondrous movements of the celestial bodies, and are in- 
 capable of solving the problems of their regularity and persistence, 
 and profound misgivings are awakened. 
 
 Temptat enim dubiam me tit em rationis egesias, 
 Ecquaenam fuerit mundi genitalis origo, 
 Et simul ecquae sit finis, quoad moenia mundi 
 Solliciti motus hunc possint /erre laborem, 
 An divinitus aeterna donata salute 
 Pei'petuo possifit aevi labentia tractu 
 Immensi validas aevi contemnere viris. * 
 
 The vivid lightnings and the noisy thunder terrify monarchs and 
 people with the expectation of merited retribution. The tempestu- 
 ous sea mocks the skill and defies the prayers of the mariner. The 
 mysterious earthquake tumbles down the proudest works of man, 
 while he, unable to account for these disasters on natural grounds, at- 
 tributes them to the wrath of the godg.'' 
 
 O genus infelix humanuvi, talia divis 
 Cum tribuit facta atque iras adiunxit acerhas! 
 Quantos turn gemitus ipsi sibi, quantaque nobis 
 Volnera, quas lacrimas peperere minoribu nostris!^ 
 
 A better philosophy, Lucretius believes, would emancipate human- 
 ity from the grasp of such a foolish trepidation; and with this in 
 view he devotes the entire sixth book of his poem to the consider- 
 ation of the physical phenomena which appall the senses. When 
 men, for the want of the true reason of things, assign fear-inducing 
 operations of nature to the activity of the gods, Lucretius feels that 
 they are stultifying both themselves and the deities whom they seek 
 to propitiate. 
 
 IV, 1211-17. 
 «V, 1218-40. 
 =»V, 1194-97. 
 
THE STOICS. 
 
 113 
 
 Nam bene qui didicere deos sectirum agere aevo?fi, 
 Si iamen inter eamira?iiur qua ra/ione 
 Quaeque geri possint, praesertim rebus in illis 
 Quae supera caput aetheriis cernuntur ift oris, 
 Rursus in antiquas re/eruntur religiofiis, 
 Et doniinos acris adsciscunt, omnia posse 
 Quos niiseri credunt, ignari quid queat esse. 
 Quid fiequeat, finita potestas denique cuique 
 Quanam sit ratione atque alte termitius haerens; 
 Quo magis err antes caeca ratione feruntur. 
 Quae nisi respuis ex animo iongeque remittis 
 Dis indigna putare alienaque pads eorum, 
 Delibata deum per te tibi fiumina sancta 
 Saepe oberunt; non quo violari summa deum vis 
 Possit, ut ex ira poenas peter e inbibat acris, 
 Sed quia tute tibi placida cum pace quietos 
 Constitues magnos irarum volvere fluctus, 
 Nee delubra deum placido cum pectore adibis. 
 Nee de cor pore quae sane to simulacra feruntur 
 In mentes homitium divinae nuntia formae, 
 Suseipere haec animi tranquilla pace valebis. 
 Inde videre licet qualis iam vita sequatur. ' 
 
 Almost the only occasion for scientific study which Lucretius 
 would deem legitimate is the necessity of showing by this kind of 
 research that the things which terrify man in the external universe 
 have a natural rather than a divine origin. And this is the reason 
 which Epicurus himself gives for his investigations in the realm of 
 physics. Men can never realize even approximate happiness until 
 their bondage to superstition has been broken, a result which an 
 inquiry into the processes of nature will achieve. 
 
 cl fiT|6cv T]p.ds ai Twv ^CT6(opci)v vito^lax TJv(0\Xovv Kal ai ircpl Oavdrov, ^'i\ irorc 
 irpos T|fjids TJ Tt, €Ti T€ TO fii] KaTttvociv Tovs opous T«v aX-ytiSovcuv Kal T«V €iri6v|jii- 
 «v, ovK dv 7rpocrc8e6(i€da 4>v<rio\o-yias." 
 
 It is characteristic of Lucretius that after a lengthy disquisition on 
 1 VI, 56-74. 
 
 '^ Diogenes La er tins. X. 142. 
 
114 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 the natural philosophy of thunderbolts he should turn with vehe- 
 mence upon the traditional mode of accounting for the ravages of 
 lightning, and endeavor to reduce the theory to utter absurdity. It is 
 folly, he says, to consult the Tuscan rolls to ascertain the will of the 
 gods in the thunderbolt's erratic course. If Jupiter controls the 
 lightning why does he frequently smite the innocent instead of the 
 guilty.^ Why does he direct his fiery bolts at solitary places on the 
 earth.'' Why fling them into the sea.'' Why does he not warn us if 
 he wishes us to escape the destructive agent.? Why does he thunder 
 if he wishes to take us off our guard.? How can he hurl his shafts in 
 so many different places at one time.? Why does he thunder only 
 when the sky is overclouded.? Above all, why does Jupiter dash 
 down his own sanctuaries and the cunningly wrought idols of the 
 gods, and why does he aim chiefly at lofty summits.?^ 
 
 In arguing for the existence and providence of the gods, the 
 Stoics placed much reliance on their doctrine of final causes. The 
 subordination of means to ends was to them an obvious fact in all 
 the minute details of the world's career. Cleanthes supported his 
 argument lor the existence of the gods by this form of proof, the 
 most significant of his utterances on this subject being: 
 
 67, si quis in domum aliquam aut in gy'mnasium aut in foiiun veneriL 
 cum videat omnium rerum rationem, modum, disciplifuwi, mm possil ea 
 sine causa fieri iudicare, sed esse aliquem iniellegat, qui praesit et cui 
 pareatur, multo magis in taniis motionibus tantisque vicissitudinibus, tain 
 multarum rerum atque tantarum ordinibus, in quibus nihil umquam in- 
 mensa et infinita vetustas men tit a sit, statuat nee esse est ab aliqua ?nente 
 tantos naturae motus gubernari. ^ 
 
 The argument for providence is as pertinent as that for the exist- 
 ence of the gods: 
 
 Namque alii naturam esse censent vim quandam sine ratione cientem 
 motus in corporibus necessarios, alii autem vim participem rationis atque 
 ordinis tamquam via progredientem declaranteinque, quid cuius que rei causa 
 efficiat, quid sequatur, cuius sollertiam nulla ars, nulla manus, nejno op- 
 ifex consequi possit imitando; seminis enim vim esse tanta?n, ut id, 
 
 ^ VI, 379-422. 
 
 'Cicero, De Natiira Deormu. II, 5, 15. 
 
THE STOICS. 115 
 
 quamquam sit perexiguum, iamen, si inciderit in concipientem conprefi- 
 dentemque nahiram nanctumque sit materiam, qua ali augerique possit, 
 ita fingat et efficiat in suo quidque genere. ^ 
 
 With the Stoics the adapting of means to ends signified that every- 
 thing had been created for something higher, except man and the 
 gods, who existed for their own society: 
 
 Scite enirn Chrysippus, ut clipei causa involucrum, vaginam autem 
 gladii, sic praeter mundum cetera omnia aliorum causa esse generata, ut 
 eas fruges atque fructus, quos terra gignit, animantium causa, animan- 
 tes autem hominum, ut equum vehendi causa, arandi bovem, venandi et 
 custodiendi canem. Ipse autem homo ortus est ad mundiun contejuplan- 
 dum et imitandum, nullo modo perfectus, sed est quaedam particula per- 
 fecti.^ Praeclare enim Chrysippus, cetera nata esse hominum causa et 
 deorum, eos autem comniunitatis et societatis suae. ' 
 
 Naturally a system of philosophy which refers all phenomena to 
 accidental causes would spurn any teleological theory. Accordingly 
 we find Lucretius saying: 
 
 Dicer e porro hominum causa voluisse parare 
 Praeclaram inundi fiaturam proptereaque 
 Adlaudabile opus divom laudare decere 
 Aeternumque putare atque immortate futurum 
 Nee fas esse, deum quod sit ratione vetusta 
 Gentibus humanis fundatum perpetuo aevo, 
 Soticitare suis ulla vi ex sedibus umqua?n 
 Nee verbis vexare et ab imo evertere summa. 
 Cetera de genere hoc adfingere et addere, Mennui, 
 Desiperest. * 
 
 Cicero's Epicurean expositor presents what he evidently regards an 
 insoluble dilemma: 
 
 ' De Xatura Deorum. II. 32, 81, 82. 
 
 2//;., 14, 37- 
 
 ' De Finibus, III, 20. 67. 
 
 *V, 156-165. 
 
Il6 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 An haec, ut fere dicilis, hominum causa a deo constituta suntp Sap- 
 ieniiumque? Pi'opter paucos igitur tanla est facta rerum molitio. An 
 stultorum? At primtim causa non /uit, cur de inprobis bene mereretur^ 
 etc^ 
 
 To impose upon the gods, moreover, the premeditation involved 
 in adapting the processes of nature to definite ends would be incom- 
 patible with their happiness. What could induce them to assume 
 such burdens.? What injury should we have suffered if we had never 
 been born.? Whence did the gods derive their conception of man in 
 order to create him.?^ These are questions which Lucretius answers 
 by denying the participation of the gods in mundane affairs, and by 
 re-asserting his favorite thesis of the fortuitous concourse of atoms. 
 
 Namque ita multa modi's multis primordia rerum 
 Ex infinito tarn tempore percita plagis 
 Ponder ibusque sui's consuerunt concita ferri 
 Omnimodisque coire atque omnia pertemptare, 
 Quaecumque inter se possent congressa creare, 
 Ut 7ton sit mirum, si in talis disposituras 
 Decider tint quoque et in talis venere meatus, 
 Qualibus haec rerum geritur nunc su?}ima novando.'^ 
 
 Again, he asserts in the most unequivocal language his hostility to 
 the doctrine that the functions of the body were originally created 
 for the uses to which they have been placed. Experience, on the 
 contrary, taught the use of these organs long after they had been 
 constructed. Appliances of war and peace were invented for defin- 
 ite purposes, but the senses and limbs of the human body, unlike 
 swords, shields, cups and beds, were created without any final 
 cause. * 
 
 Nil ideo quoniam natumst i7t corpore ut uii 
 Possemus, sed quod natumst id procreat usum.^ 
 
 ^ De Natura Deoritm, I, 23. 
 «V, 166-86. 
 3//;., 187-194. 
 * IV, 823-57. 
 
THE STOICS. 117 
 
 But while the Epicureans denounced the doctrine of divine prov- 
 idence, they were not averse to a dispassionate veneration of the 
 gods. The existence of deities they could not deny without being 
 false, as we have seen, to their principle that every impression of the 
 soul has its origin in objective reality. Deficient of any power to 
 interfere in the affairs of men, the gods were nevertheless to be adored 
 as beings of purity, holiness and eternal peace. Epicurus himself is 
 praised for his piety. 
 
 TT]s \iiv ■yap irpos Oeovs 6<ri6Tr]Tos Kal irpos TrarptSa <t>i\(as ciXcktos t) 8id6€(ris.^ 
 
 His followers did not disdain to engage in religious ceremonies, 
 and Cicero declares that, while Epicureans were hostile to traditional 
 religion in theory, they were in repeated instances distinctly super- 
 stitious. 
 
 Aovt ego Epicureos omnia sigilla venerantes; quamquam video non 
 nuUis videri Epicurtwi, tie in offensionem Atheniensium caderet, verbis 
 reliqtiisse deos, re sus/u/isse. ^ 
 
 In the elaborate and truly poetic phrasing of the myth of Kybele 
 Lucretius appears to lend some countenance to the popular religion. 
 But he is not a sincere expositor of the theology of the people, but 
 a satirist, parodying the mode of accommodating physical facts to 
 the traditional mythology of the ancient Greeks adopted by the 
 Stoics. This is apparent from the declaration at the end of the 
 passage : 
 
 1 Diogenes Laertins, X, 10. 
 
 2 De N^ahira Deoruni, I, 85. We have trustworthy evidence that Cicero, who 
 has so fully presented the Epicurean case against the Stoics, derived his materials 
 directly from Philodemus. From the legible remnants of this teacher found in the 
 Volutnina Herculaiumsia, it becomes quite apparent 'that Cicero took the body of 
 4»iXo8-njiOv ircpl €vo-cP€ias, and appropriated it to his own uses. Mayor {De Natttra 
 Deonini. Introduction, pp. XLIII, LIII, ) has given a strong putting of the case, 
 from which we abridge the following points of resemblance between Cicero and 
 Philodemus: i. Particular citations from the writings ot opponents, such as Xen- 
 ophon, Antisthenes, Aristotle, Chrysippus, Diogenes of Babylon. 2. Divisions 
 of the two documents, [a) Criticism of popular mythology, ib) Criticism of the 
 older philosophers, ic) Exposition of Epicurean theology. 3. Similar lists in 
 Cicero and Philodemus of philosophers, following much the same order. These 
 are arrange! in parallel columns by Diels DoxograpJii Graeci, pp. SS^So), and 
 afford a striking confirmation of the theory that Cicero used Philodemus freely. 
 
Il8 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 Hie siquis mare Neptunum Cereremque voeare 
 Constituit friiges et Baechi nomine almti 
 Mavolt quavi laticis proprium prof err e vocamen, 
 Concedamus ut hie terrarum dictitet orbem 
 Esse deum matrem, dum vera re tamen ipse 
 Religione ajiimum turpi contingere par cat. ^ 
 
 The true animus of Lucretius is seen in the lines immediately pre- 
 ceding, in which he proclaims the doctrine of the happiness and 
 supreme repose of the gods, who rest in blissful security unmoved by 
 /the prayers and miseries of mankind.'^ The absurd length to which 
 the Stoics carried their method of allegorical interpretation, an am- 
 ple illustration of which we have in Cicero's exposition of the sub- 
 ject,' justified the warmth of Lucretius' satire. For with an elasticity, 
 which to a man as earnest as Lucretius seemed insincerity, the Stoics 
 in a derivative sense invested with the prerogatives of deity stars, 
 years, months, seasons, air, earth, fire, water, fruits, wine, etc., 
 then great heroes, and finally the very qualities which dignify spirit- 
 ual beings, hope, truth, freedom, honor, virtue, justice, love, etc. 
 With marvellous facility, therefore, Stoicism could assimilate to itself 
 the conceptions of conventional polytheism. The Epicurean, on 
 the other hand, was willing to give a poetic interpretation to the an- 
 thropomorphic ideas of the people, and by reason of his assumption of 
 innumerable gods, was*able to bring himself into sympathetic rela- 
 tions with persons adhering, to the traditional cult, while at the same 
 time he successfully undermined the whole scheme of the popular 
 religion by his rationalistic explanations. Lucretius consents to call 
 the earth the mother of the gods, and, as we have seen, permits the 
 names Neptune, Ceres, Bacchus, to be employed for the sea, corn 
 and wine. But h& emphatically asserts that Epicurus, whose philos- 
 ophy emancipates men from superstition, is more deserving of divine 
 honors than Ceres, Liber and Hercules, the last mentioned being 
 especially revered by the Stoics.* 
 
 Ill, 652-7. 
 
 211, 646-51. 
 
 ^ De Natura Dcorum, 11, 40-44 ; 59-70. 
 
 *V. 1-54. 
 
THE STOICS. I 19 
 
 The popular faith was supported by the Stoics on account of its 
 practical value. It constituted in their judgment an effective check 
 to the evil passions of humanity. But Epicureans regarded the tra- 
 ditional religion as vicious in its influence upon character. The 
 pernicious ethical results of the prevalent superstition touching the 
 gods evoked the bitterest hostility of Lucretius. The cowardice, 
 sycophancy and crime which the fear of deity engendered were suf- 
 ficient, he felt, to condemn the accepted theology. With a passion- 
 ate earnestness which is born of his enthusiasm for humanity he 
 smites with terrific energy the false-hearted zeal which would destroy 
 innocent life to appease the wrath of jealous gods. The tragic story 
 of the sacrifice of Iphigeneia rouses him to a fury of denunciation.^ 
 It is impossible not to sympathize with his hatred of a religion that 
 could engender such wrongs. Impiety does not consist, as he de- 
 clares, in rejecting but in respecting such a faith. 
 
 Nee pietas ullast velalum saepe videi'i 
 Vertier ad lapidem atque omnis accedere ad aras. 
 Nee prociunhere humi prostratuni et pandere palmas 
 Ante deum dehibra, nee aj'as sanguine multo 
 Spargere quadrupedum, nee votis neetere vota, 
 Sed mage paeaia posse omnia mente tueri. ^ 
 
 And this sentiment Epicurus expresses with great clearness: 
 
 do-ePT]s 8€ ovx 6 tovs twv ttoXXuv Ocovs dvaiptov, dW 6 rds twv iroXXwv 86|as 
 6eots irpoo-diTTwv.-^ 
 
 It may not be amiss, however, to observe that the invocation of 
 a popular deity at the beginning of his poem* by one who so fiercely 
 assails conventional religion is an apparent incongruity, to explain 
 which has taxed the ingenuity of the acutest critics. 
 
 The ethical purpose of the Stoic was practically identical with 
 that of the Epicurean. Consequently Lucretius finds little occasion of 
 conflict with his chief philosophic rivals on this score. He does, 
 
 1 1, 80-101. 
 
 2V, II96-'20I. ' 
 
 '^ Diogetu's Laertius, X. 123. 
 ♦ I. 1-40. 
 
I20 CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS IN LUCRETIUS. 
 
 however, arraign the followers of Zeno somewhat sharply on the 
 ground of their doctrine of the apathy .of the wise man. Stoicism 
 required the utter suppression of the emotions for the attainment of 
 virtue. Ideally the wise man is devoid of anger, fear, envy, shame, 
 care, pity; he is exempt from all passions, appetites, enthusiasms. 
 Emotions are perturbations of mental equilibrium. If permitted to 
 continue they finally develop into incurable diseases of the soul.* 
 The wise man, therefore, must be simply emotionless. Virtue is 
 apathy. «j>acrl Si Kal diraOfi €tvai tov a-o^ov, 8id to dvc'niTTajTOv.^ Right 
 reason, which is another name for philosophy, will enable men 
 to reach this estate. With such teaching Lucretius takes issue. 
 Reason, he admits, will achieve much, but it will never altogether 
 obliterate a man's distinctive characteristics. 
 
 Sic homintun genus esi. Quamvis doctrina poliios 
 Constituai pariter quosdam, tainen ilia reli7iquii 
 Naturae cuiusque animi vestigia prima. 
 Nee radicitus evelli mala posse putandumst, 
 Quin proclivius hie iras decurrat ad aeris, 
 Ille metu citius paulo temptetur, at ille 
 Tertius accipiat quaedam cle??ientius aequo. 
 Inque aliis rebus multis differe necessest 
 Naturas hominum varias moresque sequacis; 
 Quorum ego nunc nequeo caecas exponere causas. 
 Nee r e per ir e figur alum tot nomina quot sunt 
 Principiis, unde haec oritur variantia rerum.^ 
 
 At the same time a life truly god-like is possible to the philos- 
 opher. So taught P2picurus, the master. 
 
 TavTtt ovv Kttl TO, TOVTOts <ru"YY6VTj |j,e\^Ta irpos ccavTov T]|X6pas Kal vvktos irpos 
 [t€] tov op.oiov o-€avTu), Kal ouSe'iroTC ou0* virap ovt' ovap 8iaTapa)(^0TJ<rT), ^i^<r€is 
 8e ci>s Oeos ev dvOpwirois. ovOcv "ydp eoiK€ 9vt]T(u ^b>a> ^uv dvOpcoTros kv dOavdrois 
 d-yaOois.* 
 
 ^ Diogenes Laertius^ VII, 1 1 
 
 2/^., 117. 
 
 3111,307-18. 
 
 * Diogenes La ertins, X, 135. 
 
THE STOICS. 12 I 
 
 So believed Lucretius the disciple. 
 
 Illud in his rebus. videor firniare potesse. 
 Usque adeo naiurai'utn vestigia liiKjui 
 Parvola, quae nequeat ratio depellere nobis, 
 Ut nil inpediat dignavi dis degere vitam. ' 
 
 THE END. 
 
 Ill, 319-22. 
 
YC 31499 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 BERKELEY 
 
 Return to desk from which borrowed. 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 7Jan'52WKA 
 90ec'5lLU 
 
 i} 
 
 ^^ 
 
 <,%\X 
 
 •55^^^ 
 
 %-^VA5 
 
 .^'SlVi* 
 
 '^ 
 
 20Apr'59A; 
 REC'D LD 
 •PR 17 1959 
 
 UBRARYUSE 
 
 JUN 1 1 19S0 
 
 REC'D LD 
 
 FEB 1 8 1952 
 
 REC'D t-D 
 
 DEC 19 197f; 
 RECCitt QIC? 13^9 
 
 LD 21-95TO-11/50 (2877816)476