BOOK I CH. XXVI § 72. 173

artibus, quas qui tenent eruditi appellantur) aut ne deterruisset alios a studits, with Madv.’s n. and 7b. 72 where Torquatus defends his master’s neglect of puerile studies ; also Zeller Stoics tr. p. 397 foll., and Diining Metrodorus p. 64 foll. on the esteem in which the Epicureans held the poets. Gassendi in his treatise De vita et moribus Epicuri examines at length the charges here made against Ep. and endeavours to show that they are mere slanders of rival philosophers. In dealing with such a question, there are two points which should be borne in mind, (1) that knowledge which has been systematized and authoritatively taught is liable to a sort of ossification in the hands of formalists and pedants, and (2) that, as each fresh advance in knowledge bears more or less the character of a revolt against knowledge established and authoritative, a certain amount of self-confidence and want of appreciation for previous knowledge is not unusual in reformers or dis- coverers. So Hobbes ‘boasted of the smallness of his acquaintance with preceding writers, declaring that if he had read as much as other men he should kave been as dull of wit as they were’, Whewell Lect. on Mor. Phil. p. 43. We may therefore excuse Ep. if he condemned too severely the artificial poetry, the frivolous rhetoric, and the hair-splitting logic of his time. If he spoke contemptuously of these as of no use for life, he has done no more than the Stoic Seneca in his 88th epistle, unum studium vere liberale est quod liberum facit: cetera pusilla et puerilia sunt; and again, quid quod ista liberalium artium consectatio molestos, verbosos, intempestivos, sibi placentes facit, et ideo non discentes necessaria quia supervacua didice- runt? as he shows in detail in the same epistle. That the ‘liberal arts’ were not entirely neglected by the followers of Epicurus appears from the large number of treatises on rhetoric, music, poetry and dialectic, which have been found among the Herculanean papyri. But Philodemus, to whom most of them are assigned, shares his master’s contempt for a pro- fession of universal knowledge (such as was made by Hippias), comparing the ‘polyhistors’ of his time to the Homeric Margites, see his De Vitiis x col. 20 Ussing p. 55, Rhetorica Gros p. 52, See more under inscitia loquendi § 85, dialecticorum—novit § 89.
Xenocraten: see § 34 n. and Zeller lc. p. 383. C. always speaks in the highest terms of him, cf. Zuse. v 51 Xen. illum gravissimum philo- sophorum, exaggerantem tanto opere virtutem, extenuantem cetera, R. P.13 nobilem in primis philosophum.
credo plus nemini. On this use of plus (=magis) see Madv. Fin. 1 5.
agripeta: ‘settler’, one of the cAnpodxyor sent from Athens after the conquest of Samos by Timotheus 366 B.c. cf. Grote ch. LXxIx vol. x p. 406, Boeckh Publ. Econ. of Athens, Bk. m1 ch. 18. The word is apparently peculiar to C., who uses it (Att. xv 29, xvi 1) of the soldiers of Caesar to whom lands were assigned in Epirus after the Civil War.
ludi magister fuit: ‘turned schoolmaster’. I do not remember any other instance of this particular use of fuzt, but it may be compared with such cases as Att. x 16 commodum ad te dederam litteras, cum ad me bene
174 BOOK I CH, XXVI § 72.
mane Dionysius fuit, and the somewhat doubtful esse tr potestatem, for which see Roby § 1962 n. Does not Timon’s epithet for Epicurus ypappo- diSackanriSns (Diog. L. x 3) refer to the calling of the father, not of the son only (as the lexicons and translations take it), ‘a pedagogue by descent?’?! [Weissenborn (Lat. Gr. § 182 n. 2) quotes, for fut=‘ich bin geworden’, Liv. XXXIV 21 locupletior indies provincia fuit, Sall. Cat. 20 § 7 volgus fuimus sine gratia, and compares the Fut. Perf. in Ham. x1v 7 fundo Arpinati bene poteris uti st annona carior fuerit. This use of fuz has been most com- monly discussed in connexion with the past participle. Madvig (Opuse. 11 p- 218) denies that latus fui=latus sum except in Plautus, &c. Neue (vol. 1 p. 352 ed. 2) has a discussion on the same point; and Brix on Jf. Glor. 102 legatus furt, quotes exx. where the sense would be naturally expressed by the Eng. ‘became’. But in reality fuz merely denotes past time ab- solutely, and the notions of attainment, continuance, completion, &c. are only developed from the context, cf. my Gr. §§ 1451 and 1454, 2. We may compare the use of ¢BaviNevoa ‘I became king’; I doubt however whether it would be possible to find Marcus consul fuit similarly used. R.]
§ 73. in Nausiphane tenetur: ‘he is convicted (cannot free himself) in the case of N’ Sch. quotes Caecin. c. 2 facile honestissimis testibus in re perspicua teneretur : when thus used, ten. is often followed by a Gen. of the crime. Some explained Ep.’s depreciation of education by his dislike for Naus. woddobs yap Tov vewy cuvetye, Kal TOY paOnpatwv oTovdaiws émepeE- Aeiro, pddtora S€ pytopiKijs’ yevouevos ovv tovtov pabytns o Er. Unép Tov Soxeiv avrodidaxtos etvat Kai avtopuns hiiocodos, npveito ek mavTds Tporov, Thy TE Tept avtou dnpuny eEareipew earmevde, TOUS TE eyiveto TOV paOnuaTwv katnyopos, Sext. Emp. Jfath. 1p. 216. It was also asserted that the ‘canon’ of Ep. was copied from the ‘ Tripod’ of Naus. Diog. L. x 14.
Democriteo. Elsewhere (Diog. L. 1x 64, 69, Sext. Emp. ].c.) he is called a disciple of Pyrrho, who was however himself reckoned among the followers of Dem.
vexat contumeliis: cf. Diog. L. x 8 mXevpova (famollusc’, Plat. Philech. 21 C) adrov éxadet kal dypaupatov Kat dmareava Kal mopvoy, also § 7 and Sext. Emp. Ll. c.
si—non audisset, quid audierat: ‘supposing he had not heard these lectures, what other teaching had he received’ (to make him so well ac- quainted with the doctrines of Dem.)? The connexion of thought is very much broken. Heind. following Davies proposed to improve this by reading enim after quid. Hermippus, ap. Diog. x 2, says that his philosophical interest was aroused, not by hearing the lectures of Naus. (haec Democritia), but by reading the actual books of Dem. mepiruxdvra trois Any. BuBdios emi procopiar ai~a. See below, § 93 n.
quibus—continetur : ‘which form the subject-matter of natural philo- sophy’ (§ 29).
1 So Hirzel p. 110 n.