We same dense capacity which belongs to our own. Nor can these Gods be supposed to care for the world, else their happiness would be marred by the most troublesome affairs. Perfectly free from care and trouble, and absolutely regardless of the world, in eternal contemplation of their unchanging perfection they enjoy the most unalloyed happiness.3 The view which the School formed to itself of this happiness we learn from Philodemus. The Gods are exempt from sleep, sleep being a partial death, and not needed by beings who live without any exertion. And yet he believes that they require 1 Cic. N. D. ii. 23, 59; i. 18, 49; 25, 71; 26, 74; Divin. ii. 17, 40; Lucr. v. 148; Metrodor. wepl aloonTŵv, col. 7; Plut. Epicurus has, as Cicero remarks, monogrammos Deos; his Gods have only quasi corpus and quasi sanguinem. They are perlucidi and perflabiles, or, according to Lucr., tenues, so that they cannot be touched, and are indestructible. 2 Cic. Divin. ii. 17, 40; Lucr. ii. 646; iii. 18; v. 146; Sen. Epic. in Diog. 77; 97; 139; 19, 2. In the fragments of his treatise Tepl Tŷs tŵv beŵv evσTOXOVμένης διαγωγῆς, κατὰ Ζήνωνα, col. 12. CHAP. XVIII. СНАР. XVIII. nourishment, though this must, of course, be of a kind in keeping with their nature. They also need dwellings,' since every being requires some place wherein to dwell. Were powers of speech to be refused to them they would be deprived of the highest means of enjoyment-the power of conversing with their equals. Philodemus thinks it probable they use the Greek or some other language closely allied to it. In short, he imagines the Gods to be a society of Epicurean philosophers, who have everything that they can desire-everlasting life, no care, and perpetual opportunities of sweet converse. Only such Gods, the Epicureans thought,3-need not be feared. Only such Gods are free and pure, and worshipped because of this very perfection. Moreover, these Gods are innumerable. If the number of mortal beings is infinite, the law of counterpoise requires that the number of immortal beings must not be less. If we have only the idea of a limited number of Gods, it is because, owing to their being The Kλioia discussed by Hermarchus and Pythocles, col. 13, 20, had reference to these, and not to ordinary feasts. 2 Col. 14: Because Aéyovrai μὴ πολὺ διαφερούσαις κατὰ τὰς ὀρθρώσεις χρῆσθαι φωναῖς, καὶ μόνον οἴδαμεν γεγονότας θεοὺς Ελληνίδι γλώττῃ χρωμένους. The first statement seems to refer to the words of the divine language quoted by Homer; the second statement, to stories of appearances of the Gods. The sceptical question, Whether the Gods possess speech? raised by Carneades in Sext. Math. ix. 178, appears to refer to this μυθολογία ΕπιKoupov. 3 Cic. N. D. i. 20, 54; Sen. Benef. iv. 19, 1. Philodem. De Mus. iv. col. 4, says that the Gods do not need this worship, but it is natural for us to show it : μάλιστα μὲν ὁσίαις προλήψεσιν, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ τοῖς κατὰ τὸ πάτριον παραδεδομένοις ἑκάστῳ τῶν κατὰ μέρος. 5 Cic. 1. c. i. 19, 50, the sentence, et si quæ interimant, belonging, however, to Cicero only. so much alike,' we confound in our minds the innumerable pictures of the Gods which are conveyed to our souls. Agreeing in their theology with the materialistic views of the popular belief, and not hesitating in their rivalry with the Stoics to assert this agreement; outdoing, moreover, polytheism in the number of Gods, and willing to join in the services of the national religion, the Epicureans were, nevertheless, 1 Cic. N. D. i. 19, 49 : (Epicurus) docet eam esse vim et naturam Deorum ut primum non sensu sed mente cernatur: nec soliditate quadam nec ad numerum ut ea, quæ ille propter firmitatem στερέμνια appellet, sed imaginibus similitudine et transitione perceptis: cum infinita simillim marum imaginum species ex innumerabilibus individuis exstat et ad Deos affluat, cum maximis voluptatibus in eas imagines mentem intentam infixamque nostram intelligentiam capere quæ sit et beata natura et æterna. The meaning of these words appears to be, that ideas of the Gods are not formed in the same way as the ideas of other solid bodies, by a number of similar pictures from the same object striking our senses (Diog. x. 95), but by single pictures emanating from innumerable divine individuals, all so much alike, that they leave behind them the impressions of perfect happiness and immortality. The passage of Diog. x. 139, ought probably to be corrected by that in Cicero. It runs: ἐν ἄλλοις δέ φησι, τοὺς θεοὺς λόγῳ θεωρητοὺς εἶναι· οὓς μὲν κατ' ἀριθμὸν ὑφεστῶτας, οὓς δὲ κατὰ ὁμοειδίαν ἐκ τῆς συνεχούς ἐπιῤῥύσεως τῶν ὁμοίων εἴδωλον ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀποτετελεσμένους ἀνθρωποειδῶς. The similarity of language leaves no doubt that Diogenes followed the same authority as Cicero. * In Phedrus, Fragm. col. 7, 10, it is said of the Stoics: ἐπι δεικνύσθωσαν τοῖς πολλοῖς ἕνα μό νον [θεὸν] ἅπαντα λέγοντες οὐδὲ πάντας ὅσους ἡ κοινὴ φήμη παρέ δωκεν, ἡμῶν οὐ μόνον ὅσους φασὶν οἱ Πανέλληνες ἀλλὰ καὶ πλείονας εἶναι λεγόντων ἔπειθ' ὅτι τοιούτους οὐδὲ μιμήκασιν ἀπολείπειν, οἵους σέβονται πάντες καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁμολογοῦμεν. ἀνθρωποειδεῖς γὰρ ἐκεῖ νοι οὐ νομίζουσιν ἀλλὰ ἀέρα καὶ πνεύματα καὶ αἰθέρα, ὥστ ̓ ἔγωγε καὶ τεθαῤῥηκότως εἴπαιμι τούτους Διαγόρου μᾶλλον πλημμελεῖν. It then goes on to show how little the natural substances of the Stoics resemble Gods: τὰ θεῖα τοιαῦτα καταλείπουσιν & καὶ γεννητὰ καὶ φθαρτὰ φαίνεται, τοῖς δὲ πᾶσιν ἡμεῖς ἀκολούθως ἀϊδίους καφθάρτους εἶναι δογματίζομεν. We have here a phenomenon witnessed in modern times, Deists and Pantheists mutually accusing one another of atheism. CHAP. XVIII. СНАР. XVIII. not nearly so interested as the Stoics in proving themselves in harmony with the popular creed. Whilst the Stoics wildly plunged into allegory, hoping thus to accomplish their purpose, no such tendency is observed on the part of the Epicureans. Only the poet of the School gives a few allegorical interpretations of mythical ideas, and does it with more taste and skill than is usual with the Stoics.1 Otherwise the Epicureans observe towards the popular faith a negative attitude, that of opposing it by explanations; and by this attitude, without doubt, they rendered one of the most important services to humanity. 1 Lucr. ii. 598, explains the Mother of the Gods as meaning the earth. ii. 655, he allows the expressions, Neptune, Ceres, Bacchus, for the sea, corn, and wine. iii. 976, he interprets the pains of the nether-world as the qualms now brought on by superstition and folly. CHAPTER XIX. THE MORAL SCIENCE OF THE EPICUREANS. GENERAL CHAP. good. NATURAL Science is intended to overcome the prejudices which stand in the way of happiness; moral science to give positive instruction as to the nature and A. Pleameans of attaining to happiness. The theoretical sure. (1) Pleaparts of the Epicurean system have already rendered sure the familiar the idea that reality belongs only to indi- highest vidual things, and that all arrangements of a general character must be referred to the accidental harmony of individual forces. The same idea must now be indicated in the sphere of morals where individual feeling must be made the standard, and individual well-being the object of all human activity. Natural" science, beginning with external phenomena, went back to the secret principles of these phenomena, which are alone accessible to thought. It led from an apparently accidental movement of atoms to a universe of regular motions. Not otherwise was the course followed by Epicurus in moral science. That science could not rest content with human feel. ings alone, nor with selfishly referring everything to the individual taken by himself alone. In more |