BOOK I CH. XXXIII § 93, 201

This was at Rome about B.c. 88, but in 79 C. in company with Atticus attended lectures at Athens by Zeno and Phaedrus, Yin. 1 16 eos cum Attico nostro frequenter audivi, cum miraretur ile quidem utrumque, Phaedrum autem etiam amaret, cf. Fin. v 3, Leg. 1 50, and see Introduction. cum—Aristotelem vexarit: ‘and yet Epic. attacked A.’; cf. Roby §§ 1730, 1732. We find vevo similarly used in § 78 and Juse. v 25 vexatur Theophrastus et libris et scholis omnium philosophorum. Diog. L. gives speci- mens of the abusive language which, he says, was falsely imputed to Ep. (uepnvace Sé ovro. X 9); Plato and his friends he styled AvovucrokoAakas, Aristotle dowrov, Democritus Anpoxpirov, &c. x 8 ; cf. Plut. Jf. 1086 (speak- ing of Ep. and Metr.) ra ev dvOpéras aicyiocta pnyata, Bapodoxias, AnKku- Oiopovs, ddaoveias,...cvvayayovtes, Aptotorédovs kat Swxparovs kai lv8ayopou kal Ipwrayopov kat Geoppacrov kal “Hpakdeidou kai ‘Immdpyxov, kat tivos yap ovxt tév emiavev xateckédacay ; similarly Plut. (Jf, 1108) describes the treatise of Colotes, entitled mept rod dru xara ta tadv hiiocdder Sdypara ovde (hv éotiv, aS a rrivaka Tepatoy, Consisting of parts of sentences wrested from their natural signification and spiced with rudeness and buffoonery. Even C., though far from mealy-mouthed, makes a protest against the abusiveness of Greek controversy, /%n. 11 80 sit ista in Graecorum levitate perversitas, qui maledictis insectantur eos a quibus de veritate dissentiant. Phaedoni—male dixerit: Ph. was a well-born native of Elis, taken prisoner and sold as a slave in Athens B.c. 401, where he attracted the notice of Socrates and was ransomed by one of his disciples. He was present whilst Soc. uttered the famous discourse on immortality which is known to us as the Phaedo. Some time after his master’s death he returned to Elis, and founded the Elean school of philosophy, which appears to have been closely allied with those of Eretria and Megaris. We read of a treatise of Epicurus which bore the name of Ssaropiat rpés tovs Meyapixovs, and it is possible that Phaedo may have been criticized in this. The epithet twrpissime refers, we may suppose, to the degradation he underwent as a slave, as Diog. (11 105) tells us of another opponent who taunted him with this misfortune, cf. Zeller, Socrates p. 279 tr. Timocratem : a disciple of Ep. described as fickle (Diog. x 6) and hot- tempered (Philod. De Jra Gomp. p. 48), who left him in consequence of a difference of opinion as to the grounds of happiness, cf. § 113. Duening (Metrodorus p. 23) thinks that the quotations there given are from a treatise by his brother Metrodorus wept rod peifova eivar tiv map’ pas airiav mpds evdatpoviay THs ek TOY mpaypzdrev, and that Metr. is not there contrasting bodily and mental pleasure, but pleasure which originates ab intra with that which originates ab extra, but see Hirzel p. 165 foll. Other grounds of quarrel are mentioned by Duening p. 24. After this breach Timoc. seems to have used every effort to injure his former associates, charging them with debauchery of every kind in his Huphranta, as well as inveighing against them in public, cf. Alciph. Hp. 11 210 ri moueis, "Emixoupe ; ovk oicba bret Stakop@dei oe Tiyoxparns emi rovros év rais éxkAnaias, év Tois
202 BOOK I CH. XXXIII § 93.
Oedrpo.s, mapa Tots adAos goduarais; To these attacks Ep. and Metr. pub- lished replies (Diog. L. x 24, 27, 136 and Plut. Col. p. 1126). The Timo- crates mentioned by Ep. in his will is probably a distinct person, Zeller Stoves, tr. p. 387, Duen. p. 25.
conciderit ; exactly answering to our ‘cut him up’.
in Democritum—ingratus: see above on Aristotelem, and §§ 29, 69, 73, Plut. M1101 F, also A%n. 121 Democritum, laudatum a ceteris, ab hoc qui eum unum secutus esset, nollem vituperatum. Both Metr. and Ep. wrote against Democ. but this was probably to make it evident where their system differed from his, as opponents charged them with being mere plagiarists (Duen. p. 36). Plutarch, in reporting the charges brought against Democr. by Colotes, mentions that Epicurus long called himself a follower of Democr., and that Leonteus, one of his most distinguished disciples, rywacOae gynoi tov Anpoxpiroy vd ’Emxovpov, while Metr. dvrexpus etpnxev ws ef a) mpoxaOnynoato Anu. ovK av mpondOev *Emi- koupos eis THY codiay.
Nausiphanem—male acceperit: cf. § 73 n. and Epicurus’ own words recorded by Sext. Emp. Math. I p. 216 rovnpos avOpwmos nv Kat emirn- Sevkas trovaita €€ ov ov Suvarov eis codiav édGciv. I agree with Kiihner in rejecting Pearce’s addition of non before nihil. Epic. spoke of the Pyrrhonist Naus. just as Vell. speaks of the Academic Philo in § 17, where seen. Nothing could be more inane than non nihil, which adds nothing to magistrum, and in fact rather suggests an excuse for the slighting terms in which Ep. speaks of his master. According to the true reading, C. ironi- cally repeats the words of Ep.
tam male acceperit: ‘treated so badly’, a colloquial expression fre- quent in the comic poets.
Ch. xxxiv. Apollodorum. It is doubtful who is meant, but it is more likely to be Apollodorus the Stoic mentioned in Diog. L. vir 39, than Zeno’s own teacher, 6 xknrotvpavvos, on whom see § 89 n.
Silum. The reading is very doubtful. In Diog. lc. the name Ap. is followed by 6”EqduAAos, corrected by the edd. into kai SvAXos from this passage. Heind. on the contrary supposes some corruption of a nomen gentile here, but ceteros comes in more naturally after the mention of two distinct persons, as it is often used to close a list, cf. § 92. Krische’s suggestion ‘Syronem’, the name of an Epicurean contemporary of C. and Virgil, is far from plausible.
scurram Atticum. Cf. Brut. 292, where Ep. is said to have found fault with the irony of Socrates. Zeno, in addressing his Roman pupils, seems to have used the more expressive Latin for the Gk. yedwrorovds, cf. Kr. pp. 25, 26. Colotes, who was reputed to surpass all other disciples of Epicurus in his powers of abuse, copd7 StayeAa kai pdravpicer Tov Swxparny in the treatise (6400 mpos dmavras as Plutarch styles it) in which he endeavoured to show that ovdé (qv éotw on any other system than the Epicurean, cf. Plut. Col. p. 1118.