In 1660, Thomas Stanley published “A History of Philosophy,” Volume Three of Which Contained “Epicurus, His Life And Doctrine” Written By Petrus Gassendus.”  This is of interest for many reasons, not the least of which is that this version would likely have been prime reference material for Thomas Jefferson and others of their age in their study of Epicurus.

I have been looking for this for quite some time, and today was able to obtain an electronic copy of the version on file with the British Museum.  I have posted a copy here at Archive.org.  If you get that version and the download is not bookmarked, try this link instead.

I have only had a brief opportunity to scan through this to prepare the table of contents, but it looks very interesting.  Keep in mind that this is an English translation of a Latin original, and Gassendi himself is often writing his own commentary, which is subject to error.   Below the images that follow is a transcribed “Table of Contents.”  This was written, as I understand it, before the discovery of the Vatican Sayings, and the texts of Philodemus at Herculaneaum, and presumably even before the face of Epicurus was confirmed.  Thus the book contains the etching below which is clearly NOT the face of Epicurus. At any rate, I hope you enjoy access to this copy!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. The Doctrine of Epicurus – Of Philosophy In General………… 31Epicurus – His Life And Doctrine – Written By Petrus Gassendus……………. 7
   1. Epicurus – His Country, Parents, Brothers.. 7
   2. The Time of His Birth……… 8
   3. Where He Lived In His Younger Time……… 9
   4. His Masters……… 10
   5. When, and Upon What Occasion, He Addicted Himself to Philosophy, and Instituted a Sect…… 11
   6. His School………. 12
   7. How He Lived With His Friends 12
   8. His Friends And Disciples….. 13
   9. How Much He Wrote… 16
   10. What Writings of His Are, Particularly, Mentioned By Authors….. 17
   11. His Will……….. 21
   12. The Manner of His Death…… 22
   13. The Time of His Death…….. 23
   14. How Dear His Memory Was To His Followers.. 24
   15. With What Constancy, And Unanimity, the Succession of His School Flourished… 25
   16. The Successors and Followers of Epicurus.. 27
   17. Laertius, His Vindication of Epicurus….. 27

1. 1. The First Part of Philosophy – Canonick, of the Criteries.. 33
      1. Of Truth and Its Criteries 33
      2. Canons of Sense – The First Criterie… 34
         1. Canon 1 – Sense is Never Deceived, and therefore every sensation, and every perception of an appearance, is true.
         2. Canon 2 – Opinion Follows Upon Sense, and is Superadded to Sensation, and Capable of Truth or Falsehood.
         3. Canon 3 – All Opinion Attested, or not contradicted by the evidence of sense, is true.. 37
         4. Canon 4 – An Opinion, Contradicted or Not Attested by Evidence of Sense, is False…… 38
      3. Canons of Praenotion or anticipation, the Second Criteria….. 39
         1. Canon 1 – All Anticipation or Praenotion which is in the mind depends on the senses, either by Incursion, or Proportion, or Similitude, or Composition 39
         2. Canon 2 – Anticipation is the very notion, and (as it were) definition of the thing, without which, we cannot enquire, doubt, think, nor so much as name any thing……….. 39
         3. Canon 3 – Anticipation is the principle in all discourse, as being that to which we have regard, when we infer that one is the same or diverse, conjoyned or disjoyned from another……. 40
         4. Canon 4 – That which is manifest ought to be demonstrated out of the anticipation of a thing manifest 40
      4. Canons of Affection of Passion; the Third Criteria.. 41
         1. Canon 1 – All Pleasure which hath no pain joined with it is to be embraced 41
         2. Canon 2 -All Pain, which hath no pleasure joined with it, is to be shunned 41
         3. Canon 3 – All Pleasure, which either hindreth a greater Pleasure, or Procureth a Greater Pain, is to be Shunned… 41
         4. Canon 4 – All Pain, which either putteth away a greater pain, or procureth a greater Pleasure, is to be embraced.. 41
      5. Canons Concerning the Use of Words….. 42
         1. Canon 1 – When thou speakest, make use of words common and perspicuous, lest either thy meaning not be known, or unnecessarily waste time in explication…….. 42
         2. Canon 2 – When though hearest, endeavor to comprehend the power and meaning of the words, lest either their obscurity keep thee in ignorance, or their ambiguity lead thee into error….. 42
   2. The Second Part of Philosophy – Physick , or, of Nature…. 43
      1. Sect. 1 – Of the Universe, or the Nature of Things….. 45
         1. 1 – That the Universe Consists of Boday and Vacuum, or Place. 45
         2. 2 – That the Universe is Infinite, Immoveable, and Immutable. 46
         3. 3 – Of the Divine Nature in the Universe……….. 48
         4.  4 – Of First Matter, Or, Of the Principles of Compound Things in the Universe………. 50
         5.  5 – That there are Atoms in Nature, Which are the Principles of Compound Bodies…….. 51
         6.  6 – Of the Properties of Atoms, And First, of their Magnitudes………… 52
         7.  7 – Of the Figure of Atoms………… 53
         8.  8 – Of the Gravity (or Weight) and Manifold Motions of Atoms. 54
         9.  9 – That Atoms (Not the Vulgar Elements or Homoiomeras) Are the First Principles of Things……….. 56
         10.  10 – Of the First, And Radical Cause of Compounds, That Is, Of the Agent, Or Efficient. 57
         11.  11 – Of Motion, Which is the Same With Action, Or Effection; And of Fortune, Fate, End, and Sympathetical and Antipathetical Causes…… 58
         12. 12 – Of the Qualities of Compound Things In General 60
         13. 13 – Qualities from Atoms Considered, According to their Substance, and Interception of Vacuum……. 61
         14. 14 – Qualities Springing from Atoms, Considered According to the Properties Peculiar to Each……… 62
         15. 15 – Qualities from Atoms, Considered According to their Properties, Taken Together…. 63
         16. 16 – Of Those Qualities Which Are Esteemed the Accidents of Things; and Particularly, of Time…….. 65
         17. 17 – Of the Generation and Corruption of Compounds. 66
         18. 18 – Whence it Comes, That A Generated Body Is in a Certain Kind of Things, And Distinguished From Other Things… 68
      1. Sect. 2 – Of the World……. 69
         1. 1 – Of the Form and Figure of the World………… 70
         2. 2 – Of the Late Beginning of the World 71
         3. 3 – Of the Cause of the World……… 72
         4. 4 – Of the Generation of the World…. 73
         5. 5 – Of the Vicissitudes In the World.. 75
         6. 6 – A Digression, Concerning Genii or Daemons…… 76
         7. 7 – Of the End or Corruption of the World………. 77
         8. 8 – Of Infinite Worlds… 79
      2. Sect. 3 – Of Inferior Terrestrial Things.. 80
         1. 1 – Of the Earth Situate In The Middle of the World 80
         2. 2 – Of Earthquakes, and the Flames of Aetna…….. 82
         3. 3- Of the Sea, Rivers, Fountains, and the Overflowing of the Nile……… 83
         4. 4 – Of the Properties of Some Waters and of Ice…. 84
         5. 5- Of things Terrestrial Inanimate…. 85
         6. 6 – Of the Loadstone in Particular…. 87
         7. 7 – Of the Generation of Animals…… 88
         8. 8 – Of The Use of Parts In Animals…. 90
         9. 9 – Of the Soul, The Intrinsical Form of Animals… 91
         10. 10 – Of Sense in General, Which is the Soul (as it were) of the Soul…… 92
         11. 11 – Of Sight, And of the Images Which Glide Into It……… 94
         12. 12 – That Seeing is Performed By Means of Those Images……. 96
         13. 13 – Of Hearing 97
         14. 14 – Of Smelling……… 99
         15. 15 – Of Tasting100
         16. 16 – Of Touching………100
         17. 17 – Of the Intellect, Mind, or Reason, and its Seat………101
         18. 18 – That the Soul Thinketh By Images, Which Glide Into It…102
         19. 19 – Of the Affections or Passions of the Soul…..103
         20. 20 – Of Voluntary Motion, and Particularly, of Speaking and Imposition of Names……..105
         21. 21 – Of Sleep and Dreams.107
         22. 22 – Of Death..108
      3. Sect. 4 – Of Superior Things, As Well Celestial As Aerial……..110
         1. 1 – Of the Substance and Variety of the Stars……112
         2. 2 – Of the Magnitude and Figure of the Stars…….113
         3. 3 – How the Stars Move, Out-Run one Another, and Are Turned Around……..114
         4. 4- Of the Rising and Setting of the Stars, and of the Alternate length of Days and Nights…………115
         5. 5 -Of the Light of the Stars and Of the Changes and Spots in the Moon…..117
         6. 6 – Of the Eclipses of the Stars and Their Set Periods…….118
         7. 7 – Of the Presignifications of the Stars……….119
         8. 8 – Of Comets, And those whic hare called Falling Stars……119
         9. 9 – Of Clouds..120
         10. 10 – Of the Wind And of Presters……121
         11. 11 – Of Thunder121
         12. 12 – Of Lightning and Thunder-Claps…123
         13. 13 – Of Rain and Dew…..124
         14. 14 – Of Hail, Snow, and Frost………124
         15. 15 – Of the Rainbow and Halos………125
         16. 16 – Of Avernall Places..126
         17. 17 – Of Pestilence…….126
   3. The Third Part of Philosophy – Ethick or Morals…………127
      1. 1 – Of Felicity, Or the End of Good as Far As Man Is Capable of It…………129
      2. 2 – That Pleasure, Without Which there is no notion of Felicity, Is in Its Own Nature Good.130
      3. 3 – That Felicity Consists Generally in Pleasure…….131
      4. 4- That the Pleasure Wherein Consists Felicity Is Indolence of Body and Tranquility of Mind133
      5. 5 – Of the Means To Procure this Felicity, and of Virtues the Chief………..135
      6. 6 – Of Right Reason and Free Will From Which The Virtues Have All Their Praise136
      7. 7 – Of the Virtues In General137
      8. 8 – Of Prudence in General…139
      9. 9 – Private Prudence………140
      10. 10 – Domestic Prudence…….141
      11. 11 – Civil Prudence143
      12. 12 – Of Temperance in General144
      13. 13 – Of Sobriety Opposite to Gluttony…..145
      14. 14 – Of Continence, Opposite to Lust……148
      15. 15 – Of Meekness, Opposite to Anger…….150
      16. 16 – Of Modesty, Opposite to Ambition…..151
      17. 17 – Of Moderation, Opposite to Avarice…152
      18. 18 – Of Mediocrity, Betwixt Hope and Despair of the Future…….154
      19. 19 – Of Fortitude In General.156
      20. 20 – Of Fortitude As To Fear Of the Gods..157
      21. 21 – Of Fortitude As to Fear of Death…..158
      22. 22 – Of Fortitude Against Corporeal Pain..160
      23. 23 – Of Fortitude Against Discontent of Mind………..162
      24. 24 – Of Justice In General…163
      25. 25 – Of Jus (Right) or Just, Whence Justice Is Denominated…….165
      26. 26 – Of The Original of Right And Just….166
      27. 27 – Between Whom Right And Justice Is To Be Exercised.169
      28. 28 – With What Right Justice Is To Be Exercised……..171
      29. 29 – Of Beneficence, Gratitude, Piety, Observance……173
      30. 30 – Of Friendship.175
      31. 31 – Wherein Epicurus, Asserting Pleasure To Be The Ultimate Good, Differs From The Cyrenaicks………..177

 

 

Epicurus – His Life And Doctrine – Written By Petrus Gassendus

The Life of Epicurus

Chap 1. Epicurus – His Country, Parents, Brethren

Epicurus is by some considered to be a Samian; for Timon (in ^[1] Laertius) saith, He was the last of the Natural Philosophers that came out of Samos.  And ^[2] Constantinus Porphyrageneta conceives that he derived his originall from Samos, as well as Pythagoras.  But the occasion of this was, for that he passed the first part of his younger years at Samos, with his father and brethren; for thither came his father, Agripeta, as ^[3] Cicero terms him, (that is, one who claimeth a portion in the division of lands.)  Upon the like ground ^[4] Strabo conceives him a Lampsacene, for he lived at Lampsacum, and conversed with the chief personages there.  But Epicurus indeed was by country an Athenian, as ^[5] Laertius, ^[6] Suidas, and infinite other Writers affirm; whence ^[7] Laertius, about to praise him, begins thus.

First Ceres-gifts to human indigence,
Renowned Athens did long since dispence,
And mens disordered waies by Laws redrest,
And firsbour  life with greatest comfort blest,
When it produc’d a person of such worth,
Whose breast contain’d, whose lips allerush brought forth.

Now forasmuch as the Athenian people, being distinguished by Tribes, were dispersed into τδς οιμυας , the adjacent Towns, which were made free Corporations, even from the time of Theseus; Epicurus was born at Gargettus, a Town (as ^[8] Helschius and Phavorinus describe it) belonging to the Ægean Tribe, where Theseus (saith ^[9] Plutarch) overcame the Pallantide, who conspired against him and Ægeus; and where Eurystheus, (as ^[10] Stephanus relates) was buried. For this reason; he is said, by ^[11] Laertius to have been σιμυον Γαργεττισ; by ^[12] Stecius termed, the Gargettick Author, and the Gargettick old man; by ^[13] Cicero, ^[14] Ælian, and others, simply the Gargettian.

^[15] Laertius (out of Metrodorus, in his Treatise of Nobility) writes, that Epicurus was of the family of the Philaiad; the Philaide were denominated from Phileus, the second son of Ajax, who dwelt in Melite, and is mentioned by ^[16] Plutaroh; who addes, that Pisistraius also was of the Philaidae. Of this family was the father of Epicurus, (according to ^[17] Laertius and others) named Neocles, his mother Chaerestrasa. He is also frequently cited, after the Greek-fashion, Epicurus Neoclis, sometimes simply termed Neoclides, as when compared by ^[18] Menander with Themistocles, whose father was Neocles also. I omit, that his father was (according to ^[19] Strabo) one of the two thousand Citizens, whom the Athenians sent to Samus, to share the land by lots, whither they had before sent Pericles and Sophocles, who strictly besieged the revolted Samians. I omit also, that he was a School-Master, which (besides Strabo) ^[20] Cicero observes, when proceeding to reproach him, But his little Farm, saith he, not being sufficient to maintain him, as I conceive, he became a School-master.

^[21] Suidas mentions onely two brethren of Epicurus, Neocles and Cheredemus; but ^[22] Laertius (out of Philodemus the Epicurean) adds a third, Aristobulus, whom ^[23] Plutarch sometimes seems to call Agathobulus. By what care and benevolence Epicurus gained their reverence and affection, is excellently declared by ^[24] Plutach, who conceives it worthy admiration, how he came so to win them, and they to be won. That all these died before Epicurus, may be inferred from his Will, wherein he ordereth nothing, either to them, or of them, as alive; but onely appointed a day to be celebrated for his brethren in the Month Posideon. And though of Cheredemus there is no further testimony, yet of Aristobulus it is more apparent from ^[25] Plutarch, who writes, that Epicurus was wholly taken up about Metrodorus, Polyemus, and Aristobulus, tending them in their sicknesse, and mourning for them when they died. But of Neocles it is most manifest, from the same ^[26] Plutarch, relating, that Epicurus broke forth into a kind of joy, mixt with tears, upon the remembrance of the last words of Neocles. Of how great and painfull sicknesses they dyed, is sufficiently aggravated by ^[27] Plutarch and ^[28] Suidas.

Chap 2. The Time of His Birth (page 8)

Epicurus was born (as ^[29] Laertius relates out of the Chronology of Apollodorus) in the 3rd year of the 109th Olympiad, the 7th day of the month Gamelion; at whose birth, ^[30] Pliny saith, the Moon was twenty daies old. Hecatombeon (the first month) this year falling in the Summer of the year 4372. of the Julian Period, (now used by Chronologers) it is manifest, that Gamelion the same year, being the 7th month from Hecatombeon, fell upon the beginning of the year 4373, which was before the ordinary computation from Christ 341 compleat years. Now forasmuch as in January, in which month the beginning of Gamelion is observ’d to have fallen, there happened a new Moon in the Attick Horizon, by the Tables of Celestiall Motions, the fourth day, in the morning, (or the third day, according to the Athenians, who as ^[31] Censorinus saith, reckon their day from Sun-set to Sun-set) and therefore the twentieth day of the Moon is co-incident with the three and twentieth of January; it will follow, that Epicurus was born on the 23rd of January, if we suppose the same form of the year extended from the time of Cefar, upwards. And this in the old style, according to which the cycle of the Sun, or of the Dominical letters for that year, (it being Biffextile) was BA, whence the 23rd day of January must have been Sunday. But if we suit it with the Gregorian account, which is ten daies earlier, (now in use with us we shall find, that Epicurus was born on the 2nd of February, which was Sunday, (for the Dominicall Letters must have been ED.) in the year before Christ, or the Christian computation, 341. and consequently in the 1974th year, compleat, before the beginning of February this year, which is from Christ 1634. Some things here must not be passed by.

First, that ^[32] Laertius observes Sosigenes to have been Archon the same year, wherein Epicurs was born, and that it was the 7th year from the death of Plato. Moreover, it was the 16th of Alexander, for it was, as the same ^[33] Laertius affirms, the year immediately following that, in which Aristotle was sent for to come to him, then 15 years old.

Secondly, that ^[34] Eusebius can hardly be excused from a mistake, making Epicurus to flourish in the 112th Olympiad; for at that time, Epicurus scarce had pass’d his childhood, and Aristotle began but to flourish in the Lyceum, being returned the foregoing Olympiad out of Macedonia, as appears from ^[35] Laertius.

Thirdly, that the error which is crept into ^[36] Suidas, and hath deceived his Interpreter, is not to be allowed, who reports Epicurus born in the 79th Olympiad. I need not take notice, how much this is inconsistent, not onely with other relations, but even with that which followeth in Suidas, where he extends his life to Antigonus Gonotas: I shall onely observe, that, for the number of Olympiads, Suidas having doubtlesse set down ςθ, which denote the 109th Olympiad, the end of the ς was easily defaced in the Manuscript, so as there remained onely ο, by which means of οθ, was made the 79th Olympiad.

Fourthly, that it matters not that the Chronicon Alexandrinum, Georgius Sincellus, and others, speak too largely of the time wherein Epicurus flourished, and that we heed not the errous of some person, otherwise very learned, who make Aristippus later then Epicurus, and something of the like kind. Let us onely observe what ^[37] St. Hierom cites out of Cicero pro Gallio; a Poet is there mentioned, making Epicurus and Socrates discoursing together, Whose times, saith Cicero, we know were disjoyned, not by years, but ages.

Fifthly, that the birth-day of Epicurus, taken from Laertius and Pliny, seems to argue, that amongst the Athenians of old, the Civill months and the Lunary had different beginnings. This indeed will seem strange, unlesse we should imagine it may be collected, that the month Gamelion began onely from the full Moon that went before it; for, if we account the 14th day of the Moon to be the first of the month, the first of the Moon will fall upon the 7th of the month. Not to mention, that Epicurus seems in his Will to appoint his birth to be celebrated on the first Decad of the dayes of the month Gamelion, because he was born in one of them; and then ordaineth something more particular concerning the 20th of the Moon, for that it was his birth-day, as we shall relate hereafter. Unlesse you think it fit to follow the ^[38] anonymous Writer, who affirms, Epicurus was born on the 20th day of Gamelion; but I know not whether his authority should out-weigh Laertius. Certainly, many errours, and those very great, have been observed in him, particularly by Meurfius. I shall not take notice, that the XXXX  of Gamelion might perhaps be understood of the 20th of the Moon, happening within the month Gamelion, from Cicero, whose words we shall cite hereafter. But this by the way.

Chap. 3. Where He Lived In His Younger Time (page 9)

^[39] Laertius, out of Heracles, in his Epitome of Sotion, relates, that a Colony being sent by the Athenians to Samos, Epicurus was bred up there till the 18th year of his age, in which he went to Athens; Xenocrates living in the Academy, Aristotle at Chalcis. ^[40] Strabo adds, that being first brought up, partly at Samos, partly at Teos, he spent the first part of his youth at Athens, growing up together with Menander, the Comick Poet. ^[41] Laertius further relates, that Alexander dying, and the Athenians being opprest by Perdiccas, he went to Colophon to his father, (about the 23rd year of his age) and that he lived a while there. And adds afterwards out of Apollodorus, that from the 32nd year of his age to the 37th he lived partly at Mitylene, partly at Lampsacum, (whither he made a dangerous voyage, as ^[42] Plutarch observes. ^[43] Suidas sets down, how much time he bestowed in each of these places, one year at Mitylene, four at Lamsacum. Laertius adds, that he returned to Athens, when Anaxicrates was Archon. Now forasmuch as Anaxicrates (who succeeded Charinus, in the year of whose Magistracy, as ^[44] Seneca notes, Epicurus writ to Polyaenus) was Archon in the 2nd year of the 118th Olympiad, and consequently the 36th of Epicurus’s age, there must necessarily be here a metachronism of one year.

Hitherto of the places where Epicurus lived in his younger times, partly learning, partly teaching, before he setled at Athens, where he instituted a Sect.

Chap 4. His Masters (page 10)

As for the Masters which he had, we read in ^[45] Laertius, that some relate, Epicurus was Auditor of Pamphilus the Platonick; ^[46] Suidas saith the same; ^[47] Cicero also mentions Epicurus, himself acknowledging, that he heard him at Samus, but exceedingly fleighted his doctrin. Others also report the same.

Moreover, ^[48] Clemens Alexandrinus and others, report Nausiphanes the Pythagorean, disciple of Pyrrho, to have been his Master, though ^[49] Sextus Empiricus writes, that he himself deny’d he had been disciple to Nausiphanes. Apollodorus, in his Chronology, reports that Epicurus heard Lyciphanes and Praxiphanes; but this, saith ^[50] Laertius, he doth not himself acknowledge, in his Epistle to Euridicus.

He might indeed have heard Xenocrates, and some there are (saith ^[51] Cicero) who think, he did hear him, (as Demetrius the Magnefian in Laertius) but Epicurus himself will not allow it.

I would mention Democrates, with whom, ^[52] Plutarch saith, Epicurus contested about Syllables and Accents; but that I suspect Democrates to be falsly read instead of Democritus, even from this, that Plutarch adds, that Epicurus stole all his opinions from him, which was the common objection concerning Democritus, as shall be shewn hereafter.

I should mention also Metrodorus, whom ^[53] Stobaeus calls, καταγλτην, his Interpreter; Doctorem, the Master of Epicurus; and should suspect he were the same with him, whom ^[54] Solinus makes contemporary with Diogenes the Cynick; did not the opinion, attributed to him of the infinity of Worlds, and of Atoms, argue, that this was Metrodorus the Chian, disciple of Democritus, whom Epicurus might have, not as Doctorem, a Teacher by word of mouth; but as Ductorem, a Leader, by writing.

Thus also is Lucian to be taken, when he saith sportingly, that Epicurus was disciple to Democritus, making him to be disciple of Aristippus also, by reason of his opinion of Pleasure, wherein yet there was great difference between them, as we shall show in its due place. But notwhitstanding all we have alledged, ^[55] Cicero, Plutarch, Empericus, and others, write, that Epicurus used to boast, that the never had any Master, but was αυτοδιδαμτσ, his own Teacher, and attained Philosophy by his own wit and industry. And though they seem to mention this, not without some disparagement of him, yet it will easily be granted, that he found out many things of himself, since this was that wherein he too most delight at his last end; and withall, seeing he writ so many books, filled onely with his own sayings, as we shall show hereafter. And indeed ^[56] Athenaus, delivering in an Epigram an excellent sentence of his, concludes, as if Epicurus learnt it not from any other, than from the Muses and Apollo. Hither also conduce these commendations of Laertius:

Dispencing gifts acquir’d by his own breast.

And,

He rous’d his soul to break the narrow bonds,
Which fetter Nature.

And others of the same kind.

As for those whom Epicurus particularly esteem’d, ^[57] Laertius (citing Diocles) affirms, he was chiefly addicted to Anaxagoras, (though in some things he contradicted him) and Archelaus, who was master to Socrates. Of Democritus we shall speak hereafter. I onely add, that Epicurus much admiring the conversation of Pyrrho, continually question’d his disciple Nausiphanes concerning; as ^[58] Laertius saith, in the life of Pyrrho.

Chap 5. When, and upon what occasion, he addicted himself to Philosophy, and instituted a Sect (page 11)

^[59] Suidas saith, that he began to apply himself to Philosophy in the 12th year of his age, which is confirmed by others, who wrote his life, as ^[60] Laertius relates. But Epicurus himself (alledged by the same ^[61] Laertius) attesteth, that he did not addict himself to Philosophy till he was fourteen years old. Hermippus (in ^[62] Laertius) saith, that, lighting accidentally upon the books of Democritus, he betook himself to Philosophy; but Apollodorus the Epicurean, in the first book of the life of Epicurus, affirms, he applied himself to Philosophy upon dislike of the Sophists and Grammarians, for that they could not explain what Hesiod meant by Chaos. ^[63] Sextus Empiricus having related this more fully, it will not be amiss to transcribe his words. Having proposed some doubts concerning these Verses of Hesiod,

First, Chaos, next broad-breasted Earth was made,
The seat of all
PPPP

he addes, and some affirm, that this was the occasion of Epicurus’s sudden applying himself to Philosophy; for being yet very young, he asked a Grammarian, who read to him [Chaos was first made]: Of what was Chaos made, if it was first made? The other answering that it did not belong to him to teach such things, but to those who were called Philosophers. Then, saith Epicurus, I must goe to those, for they are the persons that know the truth of Beings.

To omit, what some affirm, that he was, as Hermippus (^[64] in Laertius) relates, before he addicted himselfe to Philosophy, a School-master: and though the ^[65] Stoicks, who were much his enemies, reproached him that with his Father he taught Boyes for a small stipend, and that with his Mother he went from house to house reading expiatory praiers; I observe that after he had applyed himself to Philosophy, he instituted a School, being thirty two years old, as ^[66] Laertius relates, and this first at Mitylene afterwards at Lampsacum, as may be collected from the relation of Suidas, but had Disciples also from Colophon, as ^[67] Laertius relates.

Returning to Athens in the 36 or 37th yeare of his age, he awhile discours’d (saith ^[68] Laertius) of Philosophy in publick with others, but afterwards instituted a Sect in private dominated by him. At first indeed, admiring the doctrine of Democritus, he professed himselfe a Democritian as ^[69] Plutarch relates; but afterwards, for that he changed or added many things, his followers were from him called Epicureans.

Chap 6. His School (Page 12)

Whereas other Professors of Sects made choice of particular places in Athens, as the Academy, the Lycaeum, and the like, he purchased a very pleasant Garden, for fourscore Minae, where he lived with his friends and disciples, and taught Philosophy. Thus, amongst others, ^[70] Laertius citing Apollodorus. ^[71] Pliny writes, that Epicurus first brought into Athens the custome of having under the name of Hortus a garden, the delight of fields and Country-mansions within the citty it felt, whereas, untill his time, ’twas not the fashion to have those kinds of mansions (rura) in townes.

Hence we may conjecture that this was the place which ^[72] Pausanias reports to have been called, even in his time, the Gardens, adding that there was in it a Statue of Venus made by Alcamenes, one of the most eminent things in Athens, (as may be gathered also from ^[73] Lucian) and that the Temple of Venus, with the statue of caelestiall Venus, did joyn to it. This Garden is often mentioned in the Plurall number by ^[74] Cicero, ^[75] Juvenal, and others, and sometimes diminutively, Hortulus, as Virgil; but howsoever it be us’d, it is commonly taken for the Sect or Doctrine delivered in that place by Epicurus and his Schollers. Whence Sextus Empiricus calls the Epicureans, the Philosophers of the Gardens (as the Stoicks, the Philosophers of the Stoa or cloister), and Apollodorus, being in his time the Master of the Gardens, was, as Laertius affirms, called υηποτυζαννσ , the Garden King.

Besides this Garden, which, with houses belonging to it, joyned upon the City, Epicurus had a house in Melite, which was a Town of the Cecropian Tribe, as ^[76] Suidas affirms, inhabited by Philaeus, one of the Ancestors of Epicurus, as was formerly said, having (according to Phavorinus) a famous temple dedicated to Hercules. Hither Epicurus sometimes retired with his Disciples, and at last bequeathed it to his Successors, as we shall declare hereafter . ^[77]

Chap 7. How He Lived With His Friends 12

Epicurus after his return to Athens, at what time Anaxicrates was Archon, went onely twice or thrice to Ionia, to visit his friends, but lived all the rest of his time at Athens, unmarried, nor would never forsake his Country, though at that time reduc’d to great extremities, as ^[78] Laertius observes. The worst of which was when Demetrius besieged Athens, about the 44th year of Epicurus’s age. How great a famine at that time oppress’d the Citty is described by ^[79] Plutarch. But it is observable, that having related a story of the contest between a Father & his Son about a dead mouse which had fallen from the top of a house, he adds, They say that Epicurus the Philosopher sustain’d his friends with Beans which he shared equally amongst them.

Epicurus therefore lived all the rest of his time at Athens, together with so many friends and Disciples whom he conversed with and instructed, as that whole Cities were not sufficient to contain them (they are the words of ^[80] Laertius) who resorted to him, not onely from Greece but all other parts, and lived with him in his gardens, as he cites out of Apollodorus; but especially from Asia, and particularly from Lampsacum, and from AEgypt as may be collected out of ^[81] Plutarch. Of the temperance and frugality of his diet we shall speak hereafter. As to his living with his friends, it is remarkable what Diocles, in Laertius, and others, relate. That Epicurus did not, as Pythagoras, who said the goods of Friends ought to be in common, appoint them to put their estates into one joynt-Stock, (for that imply’d a distrust, not a friendship) but that any one upon occasion should be freely supply’d by the rest. This will appeare more manifest hereafter. In the mean time, we must not omit an eminent place of ^[82] Cicero; Neither (saith he) did Epicurus approve friendship in discourse onely, but much more by life, actions, and manners, which how great a thing it is, the fables of the Ancients declare. For amongst the many various stories repeated from utmost antiquity, there are hardly found three paire of Friends, from Theseus his time down to Orestes. But how many great companies of friends, and how unanimously-loving did Epicurus keep in one house, and that very little? which is done even unto this day by the Epicureans. Thus Cicero.

Amongst the rest of his friends, ^[83] Laertius mentions Polystratus, who seems to be the same, of whom together with Hippoclides another Epicurean ^[84] Valerius Maximus gives a strange account. I shall insert the words of Valerius, the rather because they will serve to illustrate part of Epicurus’s Will hereafter concerning communication of the goods of his Disciples: they are these. Hither may aptly be referred Polystratus & Hippoclides, Philosophers, who, born the same day, followers of the sect of the same Master, Epicurus, joyned together in the common possession of estate and maintenance of that School, died very old, in the same moment of time. So equall a society of fortune and friendship, who thinks not have been begotten, bred, and ended, in the bosome of celestiall Concord? Thus hee.

Chap 8. His Friends And Disciples 13

Being now to give a Catalogue of the chiefest of his Friends and Disciples, we must not in the first place passe-by the three Brethren of Epicurus,

P pppa

mention’d in the beginning, for they by his advice studied Philosophy with him, as Philodemus (in ^[85] Laertius) affirms. ^[86] Plutarch addes, that they took-in the Philosophy of their Brother, as greedily as if they had been divinely inspired, believing and professing from their first youth, that there was not any man wiser than Epicurus. The most eminent of the the three was Neocles: hee declaring from a boy, that his Brother was the wisest of Mortalls, added, as a wonder, that his Mother could contain so many and so great atome, as, by their convention, made up such a wise man; as ^[87] Plutarch relates. Hence it appearing that Neocles followed not any Philosophy of his own, but that of his Brother, I know not why ^[88] some affirme that he introduced a Sect like that of his Brother, unlesse perhaps they ground it upon that place of ^[89] Suidas, where he saith that Neocles writ concerning his Sect: but who sees not, it may be understood, that he writ concerning the Sect which he himselfe professed, but was instituted by another, especially for that there is nothing said any where of the Sect of the Neoclidae.

Observe by the way, that this saying λαθε βιωσαζ, Live closly (which ^[90] Plutarch, oppugnes, and is brought in ^[91] amongst the proverbial speeches) did belong to this neocles, as the same ^[92] Suidas affirmeth.

To his three Brethren, may be added those three Friends, who, (as we read in ^[93] Seneca) became great persons, through the conversation of Epicurus.

Metrodorus is to be first nam’d; for he was, as ^[94] Cicero saith, almost another Epicurus. ^[95] Strabo plainly declareth, he was of Lampsacum. For whereas Laertius seems to say he was an Athenian, the place is very corrupt; especially seeing it is manifest he was not an Athenian, from this Antithesis of ^[96] Cicero, How much was Epicurus happier for being in his Country, than Metrodorus for being at Athens; because Athens was not the Country of Metrodorus: the text of ^[97] Laertius is this, He had many Disciples but the most eminent were Metrodorus Αθηναιον, and Timocrates, and Sandes a Lampsacene, who from his first acquaintance with the man never left him, etc. For my part I am of opinion, that these words Αθηναιον ξ Τιμοψρατεσ ξ Σανδεσ should be quite expunged, for if you take them away, the rest joyns together very well; if you admit them, they will not hang together: for it was Metrodorus that was indeed a Lampsacene, and with whom all the rest that followes agreeth, not Sandes, whom, besides other things, it is false that Epicurus shoulc mention in his Will. And though ^[98] Casaubon conceaves, that Αθηναιον may be the proper name of a Man, yet is it strange that we heare nothing elsewhere, as well of Athenaeus as of Sandes, as Epicureans; since Laertius in this place reckons up his most eminent disciples: but taking these away, the three viz; Metrodorus, Polyaenus, and Hermarchus are described in a continued series; who, as we said, are put together by Seneca, as most eminent. As for Timocrates, he is mentioned afterwards by the way, when he comes to name Metrodorus as his Brother, and seems here to be inserted amisse. The occasion upon which these names crept into the Text I suspect to be, that, perhaps, some Transcriber had noted in the margent that what is delivered in the Text was confirmed also by Athenaus (author of the Deipnosophistae; for in him there is something concerning the Epicureans) and by Timocrates (for he also is cited by Laertius), and by one Sandes (perhaps Suidas or some other). That many things have hererofore been inserted out of the margents into the texts themselves by carelesslesse of the Transcribers, is most manifest.

Metrodorus therefore was by country a Lampsacene (not the same with that friend of Anaxagoras, whom ^[99] Laertius mentions of the same name) born in the 12th year of Epicurus’s age; for, dying in the 53rd year of his age, (the coherence of the words and sense makes me think it should be read XXXXXXXXX XXXXX ) and that being the 7th before the death of Epicurus, who lived to the 72nd year, it is evident, that the year of his birth must fall upon the 12th of Epicurus’s. From the first time that Metrodorus became acquainted with Epicurus, (which might happen in the 22nd year of his age, at which time Epicurus lived at Lampsacum) he never (as we began to say out of Laertius) parted from him, but one six months, in which time he was absent at home, and thence returned to Epicurus. He had a sister, Batis, whom he married to Idomeneus, and a concubine named Leontium. He had children, whom Epicurus recommended in his Will, and in the Epistle which he writ dying; and particularly a son, named Epicurus. He was a very good man, undaunted with troubles, or death itself, as Epicurus himself, in Laertius, attests. He had the Dropsie; ^[100] for Cornelius Celsus writes, that whilst he was sick of that disease, and could no longer abstain, as was convenient, from drinking; he used, after he had forborn a great while, to drink, and cast it up again. But whether it was of this disease, or of some other, that he dyed; is not certain. The books which he writ are, by Laertius, reckoned to be these; Against Physicians III. Of the Senses, to Timocrates. Of Magnanimity. Of the Infirmity of Epicurus. Against the Dialecticks. Against the Sophists IX. Of the way to Wisdom. Of Alteration. Of Riches. Against Democritus. Of Nobility. Besides which, ^[101] Plutarch cites his Books, Of Philosophy. Of the Poets. Against Timarchus. Likewise ^[102] Clemens Alexandrinus cites a Treatise, That the cause of felicity which comes from our selves is greater, than that which comes from other things. But of Metrodorus, enough.

Polyaenus was son of Athenodorus, a Lampsacene also. He was a great Mathematician, ^[103] to use the words of Cicero, and (to comprise much in little) modest and amiable, as Philodemus (in ^[104] Laertius) saith.

Hermarchus was son of Agemarchus, a Mitylean, his father of mean quality. At first he studied Rhetorick, but afterwards became so knowing in Philosophy, that Epicurus dying, committed the government of the School to him. He dyed at Lysias. There is a great mention of him in Epicurus’s Will. His Writings, which Laertius commends for excellent, these. Epistolicks, concerning Empedocles, XXII. Of Disciplines, (for Casaubone well reads not Μαδητων, but Μαδυατων) two Books. Against Plato. Against Aristotle.

To these must be added ^[105] Leontius, a Lampsacene, whom Plutarch calleth, one of the most eminent disciples of Epicurus; adding that this was he who writ to Lycophron, that Epicurus honoured Democritus.

Moreover, Colotes and Idomeneus, Lampsacenes also. Of the former we shal have occasion to speak oftner, especially because of the two Books which Plutarch writ against him. ^[106] Laertius elsewhere writes that Menedeamus the Cynick was his disciple, (unlesse perhaps there were some other Colotes of Lampsacum). The same Colotes it is, who, cited by ^[107] Macrobius, argues, that Plato ought not to have invented the fable of Erus, because no kind of fiction agreeth with the professor of truth. The latter, Idomeneus, Epicurus design’d to make famous by his Letters, as indeed he did, which appears from ^[108] Seneca: I will alledge, saith he, Epicurus for an example, who writing to Idomeneus, (the a minister of State, employ’d in great affairs) to persuade him, from a specious kind of life, to true setled glory. “If, saith he, “you affect glory, my Epistles will make you more famous, than all those things” which you esteem, and for which you are esteemed. Who would have known Idomeneus, if Epicurus had not graved his name in his Letters? All those Magistrates and Princes, even the King himself, from whom Idomeneus derived his Title, are now suppressed by a deep oblivion. Thus he, And these (saith Laertius) were the more eminent disciples.

But to these may be added two out of Valerius, already mentioned, Polystratus and Hippoclides; especially seeing Laertius reckons Polystratus as successor to Hermarchus; unless the Polystratus who is joyned to Hippoclides, were not the same with him that succeeded Hermarchus.

We might adde Timocrates of Lampsacum, Brother of Metrodorus; but he seems to have fallen off, not brooking the reprehensions of his Brother. We shall therefore rather joyn to these Mus, the servant of Epicurus, who, as Laertius affirms, became an eminent Philosopher, not omitted by ^[109] Agellius, and ^[110] Macrobius, in reckoning up those, who, of servants, became famous for Philosophy.

To omit Apelles, somewhere derided by Plutarch, we must here mention three Women, who together with others of the same sex, learnt Philosophy of Epicurus. One, Leontium, who studied Philosophy under Epicurus, as ^[111] Athenaus recites, and may also be collected from ^[112] Cicero, who saith, she wrote a Book against Theophrastus, in an elegant style, and in the Attick dialect. The second, Themista, Daughter of Zoilus, a Lampsacene, Wife of the forementioned Leontius. Of he, besides the testimonies which we shall hereafter alledge, ^[113] Clemens Alexandrinus taketh expresse notice. The third, Philenis, whom ^[114] Athenaeus affirms to have written many things; adding that the obscene books ascribed to her, were put forth under her Name, by Polycrates the Sophist, to discredit the Woman.

To these may be added Herodotus, to whom Epicurus writ a little Epitome of Physick, extant in Laertius, writ a book of the youth of Epicurus.

Pithocles, to whom Epicurus writ of Superiour things, extant in Laertius, and who affirmed, that when he was 18 years old, he had not his equall for ingenuity in all Greece, as Plutarch relates.

Menaeceus, to whom Epicurus writ that Epistle concerning Morality, which is extant in Laertius, its beginning recited also by Clemens Alexandrinus.

Timocrates, son of Demetrius, a Potamian, and Amynomachus, son of Philocrates of Bate, whom Epicurus made the Executors of his Will.

Nicanor, whom Epicurus recommended to the care of the said Executors.

Eurydicus, on the those to whom, as Laertius saith, he writ Epistles.

Dositheus, and his Sons Pyrrho, and Hegefianax, to whom Epicurus wrote wrote a consolatory letter, upon the death of their Father, as we find in Plutarch.

I omit Polymedes, Antidorus, and others, to be mentioned hereafter in treating of his Books.

Chap 9. How Much He Wrote 16

Neither did Epicurus, spend the time in giving his Disciples only Oral Instructions, but bestowed much pains in composing severall books. But to understand how much he laubour’d herein, by comparison with other Philosophers, hear but Laertius in his ^[115] preface; Many things, saith he, Zeno writ; more, Xenophanes; more, Democritus; more, Aristotle; more, Epicurus; more, Chrysippus. Where we see that Epicurus, as to multitude of writing came short onely of Chrysippus. But observe, that elsewhere ^[116] Laertius; to show, he may be thought to have exceeded Chrysippus herein; cites Apollodorus the Athenian, who, saith he, to show that what Epicurus writ of himselfe, not borrowed from any other, did far exceed the books of Chrysippus, saith expresly thus: If a man should take out of the books of Chrysippus, the things which he hath burrowed of others, the paper will be left blank. But that his may not seem strange, the same ^[117] Laertius elsewhere relates that Chrysippus for his emulation of Epicurus in writing much, was called by Carneades, the Parasite of his books, because, if Epicurus writ any thing, (read γωξζαι not γωξζας ) he would affect to write as much. Whence it came to passe, that he often wrote the same things over again, and whatsoever came next to hand, and presently thrust it in for haste, without correction; and brought in so many testimonies of other Writers, that his books were filled up onely with them, as may be found in Zeno also, and Aristotle. Thus Laertius, of Chrysippus, but of Epicurus not so: for ^[118] he relates that his volumes amounted to three hundred, in which, saith he, there is no testimony of any other Author, but the are all the very words of Epicurus. Which I observe to show (seeing Epicurus wrote so many things, ^[119] a great Writer, as he termes him, and exceeding for multitude of Books, so as ^[120] Origen charging Celsus with temerity, objects as a thing he conceives impossible, There is not any of us, who, saith he, knowes all that Epicurus writ) his fluent vein, and how he was chiefly employ’d.

Cha 10. What Writings of His Are, Particularly, Mentioned By Authors 17

Here it is fit, we give a kind of Catalogue of his Books, not of all he wrote, but of those whose Titles are extant in other Authors. I say their Titles, for the books themselves have so miscarried by the injury of time, that besides some few compendiums preserv’d by Laertius, and some fragments scatter’d up and down amongst severall Writers, there is not any thing of them remaining, at least, as yet known to us.

To begin with those, which Laertius accounts the best, they are ranked thus.

Of Nature, XXXVII. They are sometimes cited simply, Of Nature, sometimes with the number of the Books, as when Laertius hereafter in his Life, cites the I. the XI. XII. XIIII. XV. ^[121] Galen also mentions the Title and number of the Books.

Of Atoms, and Vacuum, so usually cited, ^[122] Cleomenes seemeth to mean the same under another name, Of the Principles of all things.

Of Love.

An Epitome of things appertaining to Naturall Philosophers. This Epitome was twofold, great and little; both are cited by Laertius; the lesser, that which is written to Herodotus.

Against the Megarick (or Dialectick) Philosophers, Doubts. These Doubts, seem chiefly to have concerned certain Moral Arguments, as concerning Justice, Marriage, and Dower: for this seems to be the same which, and ^[123] Plutarch, cite under the name of Doubts, without adding, To the Megaricks.

Κυριαι δοχαι, Maxims, or, as ^[124] Cicero interprets, Maxime rata Sententiae, because, saith he, they are sentences briefly expressed, which conduce exceedingly to living happily. He ^[125] elsewhere calls them select, and short Sentences. ^[126] Sextus seems to call them Memorable Sayings. Laertius hath put them at the end, and ^[127] Lucian some where commends them, as ^[128] Cicero the Book of Crantor, which is, saith he, not great indeed, but golden, and, as Panaetius advised Tubero, to be gotten by heart. He was in opinion different from Suidas, who calls them Wicked notions.

Πεςι αιζεσεων, Of Elections, so I conceive it ought rather to be rendered, then Of Sects; because in this book Epicurus, seems not to design a History of Sects, but Morall Institutution, which is conversant about the choice of things, as Laertius declares at the end of Epicurus’s Epistle to Menaeceus. Not to mention, that the teacheth the Ethick kind to consist onely of election and avoidance. For which reason, the Book, which is ordinarily and next to this cited,

Περι φυτων, Of Plants, ought rather be entituled, Περι φευητων, Of things to be avoided; as well for coherence of the title, as for that Epicurus, almost wholly taken up with Morall Philosophy, scarce treated of any particular subject in Physick, unless they were such as conduced to take away vain terrours from the minds of men; of which kind, this of Plants could not be. Moreover, because in Manuscripts, this title is connected to the former by the conjunction υαι, we may conjecture, that the Inscription was, Περι αιρησεων, ιη φυγων; Of Election and Avoidance. Yet might the Inscription have been in the plurall number, forasmuch as it is afterwards said, Elections and avoidance are dijudicated from pleasure and grief.

Of the End; So this Book is generally cited, as, amongst others, by ^[129] Plutarch. Neither doth Cicero seem to mean any other, though he cite a Book Of the Ends of Good and Evill.

Of the Criterie, or the Canon; or, as ^[130] Cicero translates it, Of the Rule, and of Judgement. But if instead of Judgment we render it Judicatory, the force of the word will be more fully express’d.

Chaeredemus; or Of the Gods. This is one of those Books, which Epicurus entituled by the names of his brethren and friends, that, being dead, their names might not be forgotten, as ^[131] Plutarch observes.

Of Sanctity, or Hegesianax. This perhaps is he, whom ^[132] Plutarch terms Hegetoanax, concerning whose death, Epicurus wrote to his Parents; unless perhaps it were he who wrote Histories, and Troica, cited by ^[133] Athenaeus; for he was of Alexandria, and Epicurus had friends out of AEgypt.

Of Lives IV, which is all one as if the Inscription had been, Of Life and Manners. Neither doth Epicurus seem in these Books to relate the story of some eminent persons, as Plutarch and Laertius have done in their Books of Lives; but to give rules, whereby to lead a quiet life, as may plainly enough be collected from the catalogue of the Morall Treatises, and the places cited out of this by Laertius. The word Lives seems here to be taken in the same sense, as with ^[134] Plutarch, when he speaketh of The Difference of Lives and Politicks, which the Interpreter well renders, Of Manners and Publick Institutes. Of these Books, are hereafter cited by Laertius, the first and second.

Of Just Action.

Neocles to Themista. This seems to have been that Neocles who was brother to Epicurus, not his father; for in like manner he called other of his books after the names of his brothers.

The Banquet, cited by ^[135] Plutarch, ^[136] Athenaeus, and others. ^[137] Plutarch mentions Questions handled in it, concerning the heat of Wine, the time of Coition. Laertius, concerning troubles about Marriage, &c.

Eurylochus to Metrodorus. I guess, that this Eurylochus was the same with that Eurydicus, to whom, as we said formerly, Epicurus writ; but the thing is uncertain.

Of Seeing.

Of the Angle which is in the Atome.

Of Touching; or perhaps, Of the tangibility of Atoms: for ^[138] Epicurus called Vacuum το ανοαφες, that which cannot be touched.

Of Fate.

Of Passions. Sentences to Timocrates.

Πεογνωςιμον, Praecognitorium; so I render it, because he seemeth in this to have discoursed of the Praecognitive faculty.

Protreptick, (exhortatory) that is, Discourse; for so Isocrates and Clemens, expresly.

Of Images, ειδωλα, simulacra, imagines, species, formae, spectra; so several persons variously interpret them, which are now commonly tearmed Intentionall species.

Of Phantasie, or the impression thereof, which appeareth in the knowing faculty; for neither did Epicurus, nor most of the ancient Philosophers, understand by this word, as we now for the most part do, the faculty is felt.

Aristobulus; this book bears the name of Epicurus’s third brother.

Of Musick; viz. as it conduceth to Manners; for this may be collected from ^[139] Plutarch and ^[140] Empiricus.

Of Gifts and Gratitude, mentioned by ^[141] Empiricus, who cites something Grammaticall out of it.

Polynaedes; he seems to have been some friend or disciple of Epicurus.

Timocrates, III. Whether meaning the brother of Metrodorus, or the Executor of his Will, or some other. Hence I should believe, that by Laertius was cited the third book of Timocrates, or written by Timocrates; but that instead of Τιμοψρατες, I suspect it should be written Τιμοψρατει, relating to the third book, which, by Epicurus, was so entituled. This text seems to confirm.

Metrodorus V. That this was the same Metrodorus, of whom we have spoken formerly, cannot be doubted. From the first book, cited by Laertius, may be collected, that Epicurus related the story of Metrodorus’s life.

Antidorus II. This Antidorus is mentioned by ^[142] Plutarch, and perhaps by ^[143] Laertius also, in the life of Heraclides, if we there read Antidorus for Autodorus.

Περι νοτων δοξαι πρας Μιθρμν, Of the South-winds, Sentences, to Mithres. But perhaps the Title ought rather to be read, περι νοσων, Of Diseases, as well for the reasons alledged about the Title, περι φυτων, as for that these Sentences seem not to have been severall opinions, concerning some particular Winds, as Morall Sentences to moderate the pain of diseases. This seems to be the same Mithres a Syrian, whom Metrodorus relieved, as ^[144] Plutarch hath severall times delivered; and the same whom ^[145] Laertius relates to have been the Steward of Lysimachus’s house; adding, that Mithres saying to Theodorus, Thou seemest not onely not to acknowledge gods, but Kings also. Theodorus repli’d, How can I but acknowledge gods, who think thee an enemy to the gods?

Callistolas; who, it may be presumed, was some friend of Epicurus’s.

Of a Kingdom, mentioned by ^[146] Plutarch.

Anaximenes; perhaps the same Lampsacene who is mentioned by ^[147] Strabo, and whom both ^[148] Plutarch, and ^[149] seem to mean; for though he were one of Alexander’s Masters, yet did he survive him, (for he wrote his actions) and was, according to Suidas, disciple to Diogenes the Cynick, and consequently younger than he; whereas Diogenes died in

Qqqq

the eighteeth year of Epicurus’s age, viz. in the beginning of the 114th Olympiad.

Epistles. Of these, four are extant in Laertius; one, to Herodotus, which was, as we said, the lesser Epitome, and under that name cited by ^[150] Achilles Tatius; Of Naturall Things. The second, to Pythocles, Of Meteors, or superiour things, as well Celestiall, as all others above the earth. The third, to Menaeceus, Of Manners. The last is very short, which he writ dying, to Idomeneus. That, besides these, he writ innumerable others, may be collected from ^[151] Plutarch, ^[152] Laertius, and others. For Plutarch, for example, cites an Epistle of his, To Anaxarchus; ^[153] Laertius his Epistle, To Aristobulus; also an Epistle, To his friends at Mytilene. This seems to be the same with that, which ^[154] Sextus Empiricus cites thus, To the Philosophers at Mitylene. But Laertius implyeth, there were more which bore that inscription, εν ταις πρδς τους Μιτυλμνμ φιλοσυφος; so as there might be one of them suppositious. In the same ranck may be reckoned his Epistles, concerning severall institutions of life, hinted by ^[155] Laertius, cited by ^[156] Athenaeus and ^[157] Eusebius. I omit, that the same ^[158] Athenaeus mentions his Epistles to Hermarchus; and, not to enquire after any more, the highest in repute were those written to Idomeneus, as we may understand from ^[159] Seneca, who also citeth something excellent out of his Epistles to Polyaenus. Amongst those to Idomeneus was that, out of which ^[160] Michael Apostolius, cites a fragment, containing the originall of the Proverb, These shall be to thee both Pythian and Delian, apply’d to those that shall dye within a short time; though Erasmus affirms, the Proverb it self to be cited out of Menander.

As to the Epistles, we shall by the way observe, that Epicurus used to write, by way of salutation in the beginning of his Epistles, sometimes χαιρειν, joy; sometimes , well to do; sometimes , sometimes , well to life; sometimes , Health . For that which we read in ^[161] Laertius, , is defective, there seems some word wanting to the sentence; neither doth the word X seem to belong to the form of salutation. And besides these words, X, exclude X from the Epicurean form of Salutation; whereas his word is not onely put before his Epistles, extant in Laertius, but it is rendred by ^[162] Cicero also, when he alledgeth that which he wrote at his death. For this reason, when heretofore I would, in the room of these two words, have put X, (as a lesse alteration, than if I should have substituted X X, or the like) the learned Puteanus approved it; but withall conceive X ought to be retained; but the excellent Menagius was of opinion, that since a word is wanting, for X should be read X, used on the like occasion by Laertius; but that X X ought to be retainded, forasmuch as Epicurus seemeth not to have used the word X, it being mentioned as proper to Cleon, both by ^[163] Lucian and ^[164] Laertius himself. Or whether instead of X might we not put X, or, with the least alteration, X, signifying, that for salutation, he was best pleased with those words, X X, and X X; or might not X X be retained, implying, that he did not quite cast aside the word X, but instead of it sometimes used the other two, as if X were either wanting or imply’d. Indeed, ^[165] Lucian seems not-obscurely to hint as much, when relating, that Epicurus was exreanly delighted with the word X, he addes, that sometimes he used other words, and that sometimes in his more accurate and profound Epistles, (which yet he saith were not many) or when he writ to his most intimate friends, he chiefly used X. Laertius therefore attributing the word X to him, may as well be thought to have intended X, as used by him; since, attributing X X to him also, he makes X X as peculiar to Plato, as X to Cleon.

This Catalogue of his Books is compiled by Laertius; but besides these, there are others, cited both by Laertius himself, and other Writers. Laertius formerly cited his Book, Of Rhetorick, mentioned also by the Scholiast of Hermogenes. But that which is cited, Of Perspicuity requisite to Discourse, belongs to Canonick, which he substituted in the room of Dialectick.

He likewise seems to cite his X, Antecedentia, or Praecipua; things precedent or preferred, in the sense of the Stoicks. I should think it meant of some of the Books before cited, if amongst them there were any, wherein that which is alledged were written by Epicurus.

There are cited also Staecheioses, Institutions or Elements, XII.

There seems also to be cited, Of Worlds, XII. For, describing severall Worlds, he is said to have done it in the XIIth. X, or, as the Manuscripts, X X, upon this very subject; the rather, because it seems not meant of those XXXVII which are constantly cited, Of Nature.

I should add his Physicall Problemes, and Ethicall Doctrines; but that under these names may be comprised, all that Epicurus wrote concerning Nature and Morality.

Moreover, ^[166] Cicero cites his Book, Of the Chief Good; unlesse it be the same with that, Of the End, already mentioned.

By the ^[167] same also is cited his Book, Of Pleasure; this perhaps Laertius meant, when he said, It was objected by some against Epicurus, that he usurped the Treatise of Aristippus concerning Pleasure, as if it had been his own.

Besides these, ^[168] Cicero cites his Book, Of Piety towards the Gods, distinct, as it seems, from that, Of Sanctity, reckoned by Laertius. Of Sanctity, saith he, Of piety towards the gods, he wrote Books.

Again, Plutarch declares, that he wrote Books against Theophrastus: for, the second of them, he saith, contained a discourse concerning Colours. Hitherto of his Books.

 

^[1] lib. 10

^[2] lib. 1. de themat.

^[3] de nat. deor. lib 1.

^[4] lib. 13.

^[5] loc cit.

^[6] in voce Epicurus

^[7] lib. 6.

^[8] in Lemide.

^[9] in Thesee.

^[10] de urb.

^[11] loc. cit.

^[12] Silv. lib 1 & 2

^[13] lib. 15. cp. 16

^[14] var. hist, 4.

^[15] lib. 10.

^[16] in Solone.

^[17] loc. cit.

^[18] in Anthol. lib. 3.

^[19] lib. 14.

^[20] de nat.deor. lib. 1.

^[21] in voc. Epicur.

^[22] loc. cit.

^[23] adv. Colot. lib. 2

^[24] de amor. Frat.

^[25] adv. Col. 2.

^[26] ibid.

^[27] ibid.

^[28] loc. cit.

^[29] lib. 10.

^[30] lib. 35. cap. 2.

^[31] de die nat.

^[32] lib. 10.

^[33] lib. 5.

^[34] in Chron.

^[35] loc. cit.

^[36] in voc. Epis.

^[37] de vi. Cler.

^[38] This anonymous Writer is no other than Scaliger, whose mistakes, for the most part, Meurfius hath unhappily followed, and taken pains to confute the rest, conceiving him some ancient Author.

^[39] lib 10.

^[40] lib. 14.

^[41] loc. cit.

^[42] adv. Col. iib.2

^[43] in Epic.

^[44] Epist. 18

^[45] lib. 10

^[46] in Epic.

^[47] de nat. deor. 1.

^[48] Stroim. lib. 1.

^[49] adv. nath. 1.

^[50] loc. cit.

^[51] de nat. deor.

^[52] adv. Col. 1.a.

^[53] Ecl. Phyf.

^[54] cap: 1.

^[55] locis citatis.

^[56] apud Laert. lib. 10.

^[57] loc. cit.

^[58] lib. 9.

^[59] in Epic.

^[60] lib. 10.

^[61] ibid.

^[62] ibid

^[63] adv. Phys. lib. 2.

^[64] loc. cit.

^[65] ibid.

^[66] ibid.

^[67] ibid.

^[68] lib. 1.

^[69] adv. Col: 1.

^[70] loc. cit.

^[71] lib. 19, cap. 4.

^[72] in Attic.

^[73] in Imag.

^[74] ad Attic: ep: 2.14.

^[75] Sat. 14.

^[76] in lexic.

^[77] in lexic.

^[78] lib. 10.

^[79] in demetr.

^[80] loc. cit.

^[81] de occ. viv

^[82] de fin. lib?

^[83] loc. cit. cap 8.

^[84] lib. 1. cap. 8.

^[85] lib. 10

^[86] de amor. fra.

^[87] adv. Col. 2

^[88] as Genebr. lib: 2. Chronol.

^[89] in Epic.

^[90] lib: de co.

^[91] Erasm: Chil: 2. Centur: 10.

^[92] in Neocl.

^[93] Epist. 6.

^[94] de din: lib. 2.

^[95] lib. 13.

^[96] loc. cit.

^[97] lib. 10.

^[98] in Not: ad Laert.

^[99] lib. 2.

^[100] lib. 3. cap 21.

^[101] adv. Col.

^[102] Strom. 2.

^[103] Acad. 2?

^[104] lib. 10.

^[105] adv. Col 1. x.

^[106] lib. 6.

^[107] in Somn. Scip. lib. 1.

^[108] Epist. 21.

^[109] lib. 1. cap. 12

^[110] Saturn. I. II.

^[111] lib. 13.

^[112] de Nat. deor.

^[113] Strom. lib. 4.

^[114] lib. 8. and 10.

^[115] lib. 1.

^[116] lib. 19.

^[117] lib. 10.

^[118] ibid.

^[119] ibid.

^[120] adv. Celf. lib. 7.

^[121] Comment in 1. lib. Hipp. de nat. hum.

^[122] lib. 2. cap. 1.

^[123] adv. Col lib. 1.

^[124] de din. lib. 2.

^[125] de nat. deor. 2.

^[126] adv. Phys. lib. 2.

^[127] in Pseudom.

^[128] lib. 4. Acad.

^[129] adv. Col. 2.

^[130] de nat. deor. 1.

^[131] de occ. viv.

^[132] adv. Col. 2.

^[133] lib. 3 & 9.

^[134] in Lycurgo.

^[135] Symp. quaest. 1. 1.

^[136] deipn. 5.

^[137] adv. Col. 1. Symp. quaest. 3. 3.

^[138] apud Laert.

^[139] adv. Col. 3.

^[140] adv. Math.

^[141] adv. Gram.

^[142] adv. Col. 1.

^[143] lib. 5.

^[144] adv. Col.

^[145] lib. 10.

^[146] adv. Col. 2.

^[147] lib. 14.

^[148] in Pub.

^[149] lib. 2.

^[150] in Phaen. Arat.

^[151] adv. Col. 1.

^[152] lib. 7.

^[153] lib. 10.

^[154] adv. Math. 1.

^[155] in Protag. lib. 9.

^[156] deipn. 8.

^[157]  de Praepar. lib. 15.

^[158] deipn. 13.

^[159] Epist. 13.

^[160] Cent. 16. Paraem. 95.

^[161] lib. 10.

^[162] de fin. 2.

^[163] de Iaps. in salut.

^[164] lib. 3.

^[165] ibid.

^[166] Tusc. 3.

^[167] de devin. 2.

^[168] de nat. deor. 1.

 

I can’t really read this word…

 

source is smudged…

unreadable

unclear

this footnote has no anchor in the original text.

greek text unreadable

guessing the greek here…

too many greek bits, some unreadable

name unreadable

there is no visible anchor in the text, but I think this is the correct place.

name unreadable

No anchor in the text, but I think this is the correct place.

word unreadable in original

original smudged

original unclear…

 

 

 

 

unclear

 

this footnote has no anchor in the original text.

 

greek text unreadable

 

guessing the greek here…

 

too many greek bits, some unreadable