Part 3 — CHAPTER XVII. THE EPICUREAN VIEWS ON NATURE.
Oswald J. (Oswald Joseph) Reichel translation
Confining his interest in nature, as Epicurus did, entirely to this general view of things, he was all the more inclined, in carrying it into details, to rely upon some older system. No system, however, appeared to correspond better with his tone of mind than that of Democritus, which, moreover, commended itself to him not only by absolutely banishing the idea of final cause, but by referring everything to matter, and by its theory of atoms. As Epicurus places in each individual thing taken by itself the ultimate end of action, so Democritus had theoretically made all that is real to consist in what is absolutely individual or in atoms. His natural science, therefore, seemed to present the most natural basis for the Epicurean Ethics. If the Stoics, in their views of nature, closely followed Heraclitus, Epicurus in his followed Democritus still more closely, and hence, with the exception of one single point, the additions made by Epicurus to the theory of this philosopher are of no philosophical importance.
Notes in this chapter
Note 1 · Epic. in Diog. 143: οὐκ ἦν τὸν φοβούμενον περὶ τῶν κυριωτάτων λύειν μὴ κατειδότα τίς ἡ τοῦ σύμπαντος φύσις ἀλλ’ ὑποπτευόμενόν τι τῶν κατὰ τοNote 2 · οὐ γὰρ δὴ ἰδιολογίας καὶ κενῆς δόξης ὁ βίος ἡμῶν ἔχει χρείαν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ ἀθορύβως ἡμᾶς ζῇν. Epic. in Diog. 87. ↑Note 3 · Diog. 27, mentions 37 books of his περὶ φύσεως, besides smaller works. ↑Note 4 · Epic. in Diog. 78: καὶ μὴν καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν κυριωτάτων αἰτίαν ἐξακριβῶσαι φυσιολογίας ἔργον εἶναι δεῖ νομίζειν καὶ τὸ μακάριον ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶNote 5 · Ibid. 87: πάντα μὲν οὖν γίνεται ἀσείστως κατὰ πάντων, κατὰ πλεοναχὸν τρόπον ἐκκαθαιρομένων συμφώνως τοῖς φαινομένοις, ὅταν τις τὸ πιθανολογοNote 6 · Epic. in Diog. 88; 92–95. Many other similar instances might be quoted. In support of the view that the sun was extinguished at setting, EpiNote 7 · The principle is thus expanded by Lucret. i. 1021:— Nam certe neque consilio primordia rerum Ordine se suo quæque sagaci mente locarunt, NecNote 8 · Lucr. i. 440:— Præterea per se quodcumque erit aut faciet quid Aut aliis fungi [πάσχειν] debebit agentibus ipsum, Aut erit, ut possint in eoNote 9 · Diog. 68; 40. Lucr. i. 449, who expresses συμβεβηκότα by conjuncta, and συμπτώματα by eventa. Among the latter Lucretius, 459, reckons time,Note 10 · Lucret. i. 358. ↑Note 11 · Lucret. l.c. and i. 329; Diog. 40 and 67; Sext. Math. vii. 213; viii. 329. Most of the remarks in Lucret. i. 346 and 532 point to the same fNote 12 · Lucr. i. 440; Diog. 39; Plut. Adv. Col 11, 5. ↑Note 13 · Body is defined by Epicurus (Sext. Math. i. 21; x. 240; 257; xi. 226) as τὸ τριχῆ διαστατὸν μετὰ ἀντιτυπίας, or as σύνοδος κατὰ ἀθροισμὸν μεNote 14 · Hence, in Diog. 69, ἄθροισμα and συμπεφορήμενον are used of bodies; in Diog. 71, all bodies are called συμπτώματα; and according to EpicurusNote 15 · Epic. in Diog. 40: τῶν σωμάτων τὰ μέν ἐστι συγκρίσεις τὰ δ’ ἐξ ὧν αἱ συγκρίσεις πεποίηνται· ταῦτα δέ ἐστιν ἄτομα καὶ ἀμετάβλητα εἴπερ μὴ μέλNote 16 · Epicurus and Lucretius, l.c. Lucr. i. 529; Sext. Math. ix. 219; x. 318; Stob. Ecl. i. 306; Plut. Pl. Phil. i. 3, 29. ↑Note 17 · Epic. in Diog. 41; Lucret. i. 528; Simpl. De Cœlo, Schol. in Arist. 484, a, 23. ↑Note 18 · Diog. 44 and 55; Lucret. i. 266, where it is proved, by many analogies, that there may be invisible bodies; Stob. l.c.; Plut. l.c.; Simpl. PNote 19 · Diog. 44; 54; Lucr. ii. 736 and 841; Plut. l.c. See page 433, 2. ↑Note 20 · Lucret. v. 235. ↑Note 21 · Diog.; Plut. Plac. i. 3, 29. The statement there made, that Democritus only allowed to atoms size and shape, and that Epicurus added weight,Note 22 · Diog. 42; Lucr. ii. 333 and 478; Plut. Plac. i. 3, 30 (where, however, it would be against the sense to substitute ἢ for μὴ as Steinhart l.cNote 23 · Lucret. i. 500. ↑Note 24 · Diog. x. 55; Lucr. ii. 381. ↑Note 25 · See the passages quoted, p. 442, 6, and 445, 5. The text of Stobæus, Ecl. i. 346, must be corrected by the aid of these passages. Plut. PlacNote 26 · Epic. in Diog. 41: ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ τὸ πᾶν ἄπειρόν ἐστι· τὸ γὰρ πεπερασμένον ἄκρον ἔχει· τὸ δ’ ἄκρον παρ’ ἕτερόν τι θεωρεῖται. ὥστε οὐκ ἔχον ἄκρNote 27 · We have but little information; but it has been already shown p. 433, 2, and follows too as a matter of course, that he referred all the proNote 28 · Diog. 43; 47; Cic. N. D. i. 20, 54. What idea Epicurus formed to himself of motion we are not told. We learn, however, from Themist. Phys. 5Note 29 · Cic. Fin. i. 6, 18; Lucret. i. 1074. ↑Note 30 · Lucr. ii. 1052 (the text being faulty); Simpl. De Cœlo, Schol. in Arist. 510, b, 30; 486, a, 7. The latter writer inaccurately groups EpicurNote 31 · As Aristotle had already done. ↑Note 32 · Diog. 60; conf. Plut. Def. Orac. 28, p. 425. ↑Note 33 · Epic. in Diog. 43; 61; Lucr. ii. 225; Plut. C. Not. 43, i. p. 1082. This objection was borrowed from Aristotle by Epicurus. ↑Note 34 · Lucr. ii. 216; 261; Cic. Fin. i. 6, 18; N. D. i. 25, 69; De Fato, 10, 22; Plut. An. Procr. 6, 9, p. 1015; Solert. Anim. 7, 2, p. 964; Plac. Note 35 · Diog. 44; conf. 62; 90; Plut. Plac. i. 12, 5; Fac. Lun. 4, 5, p. 921; Stob. i. 346; Lucret. v. 432. ↑Note 36 · Diog. 73; Lucr. i. 1021. See above, p. 437, 1; Plut. Def. Or. 19, p. 420. ↑Note 37 · Cic. Fin. i. 6, 17. See p. 444, 3. ↑Note 38 · Diog. 45; 73; Lucret. ii. 1048; Plut. Plac. ii. 1, 3. It need hardly be remarked that by worlds world-bodies are not meant. In Diog. 88, EpiNote 39 · Diog. 45; 74; 88; Plut. Plac. ii. 2, 2; 7, 3; Stob. i. 490; Cic. N. D. ii. 18, 48; Acad. ii. 40, 125. ↑Note 40 · Plut. in Eus. Pr. Ev. i. 8, 9: Epicurus says, ὅτι οὐδὲν ξένον ἀποτελεῖται ἐν τῷ παντὶ παρὰ τὸν ἤδη γεγενημένον χρόνον ἄπειρον. ↑Note 41 · Diog. 73; 89; Lucret. ii. 1105; v. 91 and 235, where the transitory character of the world is elaborately proved; Cic. Fin. i. 6, 21. Stob. Note 42 · Diog. x. 89. ↑Note 43 · v. 324, arguing that historical memory would otherwise go much further back, and arts and sciences be of much greater antiquity. ↑Note 44 · On this point see Lucret. ii. 1112. The principle that similar elements naturally congregate is there explained in this way. ↑Note 45 · Lucr. v. 416–508; Plut. Plac. i. 4. The latter view has been referred, in vol. i. 604, to the Atomists. It would now appear that it must be Note 46 · On these mœnia mundi, which, according to Lucretius, coincide with the ether or fire-belt, see Epic. in Diog. 88; Id. περὶ φύσεως, xi. (Vol.Note 47 · On this point see page 434. ↑Note 48 · See p. 437, 1. ↑Note 49 · In Diog. 77; 81; Lucret. v. 78 and 114, where the contrast is more fully brought out. By ζῷα οὐράνια, in Plut. Plac. v. 20, 2, we must by noNote 50 · Examples have already been met with, p. 436. A complete review of the Epicurean astronomy is not worth our while. It may be studied in the fNote 51 · Diog. 91; Cic. Acad. ii. 26, 82; Fin. i. 6, 20; Sen. Qu. Nat. i. 3, 10; Cleomed. Met. ii. 1; Plut. Plac. ii. 21, 4; 22, 4; Lucr. v. 564. TheNote 52 · It is still more difficult to imagine the world as stationary, which is tacitly assumed. It would then be bounded by endless space, and soonNote 53 · Lucr. v. 534. Conf. Epic. in Diog. 74, and περὶ φύσεως, xi. col. 1. In the latter passage, Epicurus appeals to the fact that the earth is eqNote 54 · Further particulars: on clouds, Diog. 99: Lucr. vi. 451; Plut. Plac. iii. 4, 3; on rain, Diog. 100; Lucret. vi. 495; on thunder, Diog. 100; Note 55 · Lucret. ii. 1157; v. 780. Otherwise, we learn that the Epicureans were as far as the Stoics from attributing to plants a soul. Plut. Plac. vNote 56 · Lucr. ii. 1155; v. 787, giving further particulars as to the origin and maintenance of living beings, and the subsequent abatement of the prNote 57 · Epic. in Diog. 74. ↑Note 58 · Anaximander, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Diogenes of Apollonia, and Democritus, all taught the procreation of living beings from earth. ↑Note 59 · Lucr. v. 834–921. ↑Note 60 · v. 922–1008. Conf. Plato, Polit. 274, B; Arist. Polit. ii. 8, 1269, a, 4; Horace, Serm. i. 3, 99, appears to have had an eye to Lucretius. ↑Note 61 · Lucr. v. 1009–1025. ↑Note 62 · Epicurus, in Diog. 75, thus sums up his views on the origin of language: τὰ ὀνόματα ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὴ θέσει γενέσθαι, ἀλλ’ αὐτὰς τὰς φύσεις τῶν ἀνNote 63 · Epic. in Diog. 75: ἀλλὰ μὴν ὑποληπτέον καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων φύσιν πολλὰ καὶ παντοῖα ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτὴν περιεστώτων πραγμάτων διδαχθῆναί τε καὶ ἀνNote 64 · Lucr. v. 1106. ↑Note 65 · Lucr. iii. 161; Diog. 67. See p. 439, 1. ↑Note 66 · Lucr. iii. 177; Diog. 63. ↑Note 67 · Diog. 63: ἡ ψυχὴ σῶμά ἐστι λεπτομερὲς παρ’ ὅλον τὸ ἄθροισμα (the body), παρεσπαρμένον· προσεμφερέστατον δὲ πνεύματι θερμοῦ τινα κρᾶσιν ἔχοντNote 68 · Lucr. iii. 231; 269; Plut. Plac. iv. 3, 5 (Stob. i. 798), conf. Alex. Aphr. De An. 127, b. ↑Note 69 · Lucr. iii. 288. ↑Note 70 · According to Plut. Plac. v. 3, 5, he considered the seed an ἀπόσπασμα ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος; and, since he believed in a feminine σπέρμα, he musNote 71 · Diog. 63; Lucret. iii. 216; 276; 323; 370. ↑Note 72 · Metrodor. περὶ αἰσθητῶν (Vol. Herc. vi.), col. 7. ↑Note 73 · Lucr. iii. 98, contradicts the assertion that the soul is the harmony of the body; Epicurus having already replied (in Philop. De An. E. 1) Note 74 · Diog. 66; Lucr. iii. 94; 136; 396; 612; Plut. Plac. iv. 4, 3. Lucretius calls the rational part animus or mens, and the irrational part animNote 75 · Diog. and Lucr. In sleep, a portion of the soul is supposed to leave the body (Lucr. iv. 913, conf. Tertull. De An. 43), whilst another partNote 76 · Epic. in Diog. 64. Lucr. iii. 417–827, gives an elaborate proof of the mortality of the soul. Other passages, Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 27, 1 Note 77 · Epic. in Diog. 124–127, for instance: τὸ φρικωδέστατον οὖν τῶν κακῶν ὁ θάνατος οὐδὲν πρὸς ἡμᾶς· ἐπειδήπερ ὅταν μὲν ἡμεῖς ὦμεν ὁ θάνατος οὐ πNote 78 · Lucr. iii. 830. ↑Note 79 · Diog. 81; 142; Lucr. iii. 37. ↑Note 80 · Lucr. ii. 991:— Denique cœlesti sumus omnes semine oriundi, &c. 999:— Cedit item retro de terra quod fuit ante In terras: et quod missum estNote 81 · Democritus, from whom Epicurus has borrowed the rest of this theory, makes them mould the air. ↑Note 82 · Epic. in Diog. 46–50; 52; and in the fragments of the second book περὶ φύσεως; Lucr. iv. 26–266; 722; vi. 921 Cic. Ad Famil. xv. 16; Plut. QNote 83 · For instance, the impressions in the minds of dreamers and madmen. Diog. 32; Lucr. iv. 730. ↑Note 84 · Plut. Def. Orac. 19, p. 420: εἰ δὲ χρὴ γελᾷν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ τὰ εἴδωλα γελαστέον τὰ κωφὰ καὶ τυφλὰ καὶ ἄψυχα, ἃ ποιμαίνουσιν [sc. οἱ ἘπικούρειοNote 85 · Lucr. l.c. ↑Note 86 · Sext. l.c.; Lucr. iv. 351. ↑Note 87 · Lucr. iv. 766–819; and on the incessant streaming forth of images, v. 141; Diog. 48. ↑Note 88 · Epic. in Diog. x. 52: τὸ δὲ διημαρτημένον οὐκ ἂν ὑπῆρχεν, εἰ μὴ ἐλαμβάνομεν καὶ ἄλλην τινὰ κίνησιν ἐν ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς συνημμένην μὲν, διάληψιν [Note 89 · As to terminology, Epicurus, according to Plut. Plac. iv. 8, 2, Diog. 32, called the faculty of sensation αἴσθησις, and sensation itself, ἐπNote 90 · Lucr. iv. 874; conf. Galen, De Hipp. et Plat. v. 2, vol. v. 367, K. ↑Note 91 · Diog. 133: τὸ δὲ παρ’ ἡμᾶς ἀδέσποτον· ᾧ καὶ τὸ μεμπτὸν καὶ τὸ ἐναντίον παρακολουθεῖν πέφυκεν. ἐπεὶ κρεῖττον ἦν τῷ περὶ θεῶν μύθῳ κατακολουθεNote 92 · Cic. N. D. i. 25, 70: [Epicurus] pertimuit, ne si concessum esset hujusmodi aliquid: aut vivet cras aut non vivet Epicurus, alterutrum fiereNote 93 · Steinhart, p. 466. ↑Note 94 · Cic. De Fato, 16, 37, at least says, referring to the above question: Nisi forte voluimus Epicureorum opinionem sequi, qui tales propositionNote 95 · (3) Atoms and empty space. With Democritus Epicurus agreed in holding that there is no other form of reality except that of bodily reality. Note 96 · Democritus had resolved the two conceptions of body and empty space into the conceptions of being and not being. True to his position, EpicuNote 97 · Not only must atoms, like all other bodies, have shape, but there must exist among them indefinitely many varieties of shape, or it would beNote 98 · B. The world. (1) The swerving aside of atoms. In deducing the origin of things from their primary causes, Epicurus, however, deviates widelNote 99 · (2) Origin of the world. The origin of our world is thus described. At a certain period of time—Lucretius43 believes at no very distant periNote 100 · (3) Arrangement of the universe. Asking, in the next place, what idea must be formed of the arrangement of the world, we are met by the two Note 101 · (4) Plants and animals. Out of the newly made earth plants at first grew,55 and afterwards animals came forth, since the latter, according tNote 102 · C. Mankind. (1) Origin of the human race. Aiming, as the Epicureans did, at explaining the origin of men and animals in a purely natural manNote 103 · (2) The soul. The apotheosis of nature, which has been apparent in Epicurus’s whole view of history, becomes specially prominent in his treaNote 104 · Allowing that many of these statements are natural consequences of the principles of Epicurus, the distinction between a rational and an irrNote 105 · (3) Sensation. Among the phenomena of the soul’s life sensation is made to harmonise with the general principles of the Epicurean view of naNote 106 · In thus explaining mental impressions, the Epicureans do not allow themselves to be disturbed by the fact that we can recall at pleasure theNote 107 · (4) Will. Impressions also give rise to will and action, the soul being set in motion by impressions, and this motion extending from the souNote 108 · Diog. x. 123: οἵους δ’ αὐτοὺς [τοὺς θεοὺς] οἱ πολλοὶ νομίζουσιν οὐκ εἰσίν· οὐ γὰρ φυλάττουσιν αὐτοὺς οἵους νομίζουσιν. ἀσεβὴς δὲ οὐχ ὁ τοὺς Note 109 · iii. 14; vi. 49; and, specially, the celebrated passage i. 62:— Humana ante oculos fœde cum vita jaceret In terris oppressa gravi sub relligNote 110 · Heraclit. Alleg. Hom. c. 4: [Ἐπίκουρος] ἅπασαν ὁμοῦ ποιητικὴν ὥσπερ ὀλέθριον μύθων δέλεαρ ἀφοσιούμενος. Ibid. c. 75. ↑Note 111 · Plut. Def. Orac. 19, p. 420: Ἐπικουρείων δὲ χλευασμοὺς καὶ γέλωτας οὔτι φοβητέον οἷς τολμῶσι χρῆσθαι καὶ κατὰ τῆς προνοίας μῦθον αὐτὴν ἀποκαNote 112 · See p. 460, 1. ↑Note 113 · Lucr. v. 196; ii. 1090; Plut. Plac. i. 7, 10. Conf. the disputation of the Stoic and Epicurean in Lucian, Jup. Trag. c. 35, and especially cNote 114 · Lucr. v. 165; conf. p. 437, 1; Plut. Plac. i. 7, 8. ↑Note 115 · Diog. 76; 97; 113; see p. 437, 1; Cic. N. D. i. 20, 52; Plut. Plac. i. 7, 7. ↑Note 116 · Cic. l.c. 54. ↑Note 117 · Plut. Def. Orac. 19; Plac. i. 83. ↑Note 118 · Conf. the captious argument of Hermarchus, in Procl. in Tim. 66, E: If prayer is necessary for everything, it is necessary for prayer, and sNote 119 · Diog. 135; Lucr. v. 379; Plut. Plac. v. 1, 2; Cic. N. D. i. 20, 55; Divin. ii. 17, 40; Tertull. De An. 46. ↑Note 120 · Lucr. v. 1159–1238; conf. iv. 33; vi. 49; Sext. Math. ix. 25; vi. 19; Diog. 98; 115. ↑Note 121 · This view is especially prominent in Lucretius. See p. 462, 2. Conf. Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 21, 10; Cic. N. D. i. 20, 54. ↑Note 122 · He drew up separate treatises περὶ θεῶν and περὶ ὁσιότητος. Diog. 27; Cic. N. D. i. 41, 115; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 21, 11. ↑Note 123 · Posidonius, in Cic. N. D. i. 44, 123; Conf. 30, 85; iii. 1, 3; Plut. l.c. ↑Note 124 · Epic. in Diog. 123: θεοὶ μὲν γάρ εἰσι· ἐναργὴς μὲν γάρ ἐστιν αὐτῶν ἡ γνῶσις. The Epicurean in Cic. N. D. i. 16, 43: Solus enim [Epicurus] viNote 125 · In support of this view, see Cic. N. D. i. 18, 46. It is there said of the form of the Gods: A natura habemus omnes omnium gentium speciem nNote 126 · Diog. 121. Cic. N. D. i. 17, 45: Si nihil aliud quæreremus, nisi ut Deos pie coleremus et ut superstitione liberaremur, satis erat dictum: nNote 127 · Cic. N. D. i. 18, 46; Divin. ii. 17, 40; Sext. Pyrrh. iii. 218; Plut. Pl. Phil. i. 7, 18 (Stob. i. 66); Phædr. (Philodem.) Fragm. col. 7; MeNote 128 · Cic. N. D. i. 34, 95. ↑Note 129 · Epic. in Diog. 123: πρῶτον μὲν τὸν θεὸν ζῷον ἄφθαρτον καὶ μακάριον νομίζων … μηδὲν μήτε τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀλλότριον μήτε τῆς μακαριότητος ἀνοίκεNote 130 · Cic. N. D. ii. 23, 59; i. 18, 49; 25, 71; 26, 74; Divin. ii. 17, 40; Lucr. v. 148; Metrodor. περὶ αἰσθητῶν, col. 7; Plut. l.c. Epicurus has,Note 131 · Cic. Divin. ii. 17, 40; Lucr. ii. 646; iii. 18; v. 146; Sen. Benef. iv. 19, 2. ↑Note 132 · Epic. in Diog. 77; 97; 139; Cic. N. D. i. 19, 51 (amongst other things: nos autem beatam vitam in animi securitate et in omnium vacatione muNote 133 · In the fragments of his treatise περὶ τῆς τῶν θεῶν εὐστοχουμένης διαγωγῆς, κατὰ Ζήνωνα, col. 12. ↑Note 134 · The κλίσια discussed by Hermarchus and Pythocles, col. 13, 20, had reference to these, and not to ordinary feasts. ↑Note 135 · Col. 14: The reason being assigned that λέγονται μὴ πολὺ διαφερούσαις κατὰ τὰς ἀρθρώσεις χρῆσθαι φωναῖς, καὶ μόνον οἴδαμεν γεγονότας θεοὺς ἙNote 136 · Cic. N. D. i. 20, 54; Sen. Benef. iv. 19, 1. ↑Note 137 · Philodem. De Mus. iv. (V. Herc. i.) col. 4, says that the Gods do not need this worship, but it is natural for us to show it: μάλιστα μὲν ὁσNote 138 · Cic. l.c. i. 19, 50, the sentence, et si quæ interimant, belonging, however, to Cicero only. For Epicurus cannot have described his ease-takNote 139 · Cic. N. D. i. 19, 49: (Epicurus) docet eam esse vim et naturam Deorum ut primum non sensu sed mente cernatur: nec soliditate quadam nec ad nNote 140 · In Phædrus (Philodem. περὶ εὐσεβείας), Fragm. col. 7 (10) it is said in answer to the Stoics: ἐπιδεικνύσθωσαν τοῖς πολλοῖς ἕνα μόνον [θεὸν] Note 141 · See p. 469, 1. ↑Note 142 · Lucr. ii. 598, explains the Mother of the Gods as meaning the earth. ii. 655, he allows the expressions, Neptune, Ceres, Bacchus, for the seNote 143 · A. Criticism of the gods and the popular faith. Satisfied with the results of his own enquiries into nature, Epicurus hoped by his view of tNote 144 · B. The gods according to Epicurus. (1) Reasons for his belief. With the denial of the popular Gods, the denial of demons,10 of course, goes Note 145 · For all that, Epicurus was unwilling to renounce belief in the Gods,15 nor is it credible that this unwillingness was simply a yielding to pNote 146 · (2) Nature of the Epicurean gods. The two essential characteristics of the Gods, according to Epicurus, are immortality and perfect happinesNote 147 · Nor can these Gods be supposed to care for the world and the affairs of men, else their happiness would be marred by the most distressing ocNote 148 · Priding themselves, in contrast to the Stoics, on their agreement by means of this theology with the anthropomorphic views of the popular be