Chap. XVII.—He Passes from Philosophy to the Philosophers, Beginning with Epicurus; And How He Regarded Leucippus and Democritus as Authors of Error.

I have spoken on the subject of philosophy itself as briefly as I could; now let us come to the philosophers, not that we may contend with these, who cannot maintain their ground, but that we may pursue those who are in flight and driven from our battle-field. The system of Epicurus was much more generally followed than those of the others; not because it brings forward any truth, but because the attractive name of pleasure invites many.411    [See Plato’s remark upon what he calls this disease, De Leg., x., finely expounded in Plato cont. Atheos (note ix. p. 114) by Tayler Lewis.]   For every one is naturally inclined to vices. Moreover, for the purpose of drawing the multitude to himself, he speaks that which is specially adapted to each character separately. He forbids the idle to apply himself to learning; he releases the covetous man from giving largesses to the people; he prohibits the inactive man from undertaking the business of the state, the sluggish from bodily exercise, the timid from military service. The irreligious is told that the gods pay no attention to the conduct of men; the man who is unfeeling and selfish is ordered to give nothing to any one, for that the wise man does everything on his own account. To a man who avoids the crowd, solitude is praised. One who is too sparing, learns that life can be sustained on water and meal. If a man hates his wife, the blessings of celibacy are enumerated to him; to one who has bad children, the happiness of those who are without children is proclaimed; against unnatural412    There is another reading, “adversus parentes impio,” “to the son whose conduct to his parents is unnatural.”   parents it is said that there is no bond of nature. To the man who is delicate and incapable of endurance, it is said that pain is the greatest of all evils; to the man of fortitude, it is said that the wise man is happy even under tortures. The man who devotes himself to the pursuit of influence and distinction is enjoined to pay court to kings; he who cannot endure annoyance is enjoined to shun the abode of kings. Thus the crafty man collects an assembly from various and differing characters; and while he lays himself out to please all, he is more at variance with himself than they all are with one another. But we must explain from what source the whole of this system is derived, and what origin it has.  

Epicurus saw that the good are always subject to adversities, poverty, labours, exile, loss of dear friends. On the contrary, he saw that the wicked were happy; that they were exalted with influence, and loaded with honours; he saw that innocence was unprotected, that crimes were committed with impunity: he saw that death raged without any regard to character, without any arrangement or discrimination of age; but that some arrived at old age, while others were carried off in their infancy; that some died when they were now robust and vigorous, that others were cut off by an untimely death in the first flower of youth; that in wars the better men were especially overcome and slain. But that which especially moved him, was the fact that religious men were especially visited with weightier evils, whereas he saw that less evils or none at all fell upon those who altogether neglected the gods, or worshipped them in an impious manner; and that even the very temples themselves were often set on fire by lightning. And of this Lucretius complains,413    Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, ii. 1101, Munro.   when he says respecting the god:—  

But if he had been able to collect even a small particle of truth, he would never say that the god throws down his own temples, when he throws them down on this account, because they are not his. The Capitol, which is the chief seat of the Roman city and religion, was struck with lightning and set on fire not once only, but frequently. But what was the opinion of clever men respecting this is evident from the saying of Cicero, who says that the flame came from heaven, not to destroy that earthly dwelling-place of Jupiter, but to demand a loftier and more magnificent abode. Concerning which transaction, in the books respecting his consulship, he speaks to the same purport as Lucretius:—  

In the obstinacy of their folly, therefore, they not only did not understand the power and majesty of the true God, but they even increased the impiety of their error, in endeavouring against all divine law to restore a temple so often condemned by the judgment of Heaven.  

Therefore, when Epicurus reflected on these things, induced as it were by the injustice of these matters (for thus it appeared to him in his ignorance of the cause and subject), he thought that there was no providence.414    [This age is favoured with a reproduction of these absurdities; and what has happened in consequence before, will be repeated now.]   And having persuaded himself of this, he undertook also to defend it, and thus he entangled himself in inextricable errors. For if there is no providence, how is it that the world was made with such order and arrangement? He says: There is no arrangement, for many things are made in a different manner from that in which they ought to have been made. And the divine man found subjects of censure. Now, if I had leisure to refute these things separately, I could easily show that this man was neither wise nor of sound mind. Also, if there is no providence, how is it that the bodies of animals are arranged with such foresight, that the various members, being disposed in a wonderful manner, discharge their own offices individually? The system of providence, he says, contrived nothing in the production of animals; for neither were the eyes made for seeing, nor the ears for hearing, nor the tongue for speaking, nor the feet for walking; inasmuch as these were produced before it was possible to speak, to hear, to see, and to walk. Therefore these were not produced for use; but use was produced from them. If there is no providence, why do rains fall, fruits spring up, and trees put forth leaves? These things, he says, are not always done for the sake of living creatures, inasmuch as they are of no benefit to providence; but all things must be produced of their own accord. From what source, therefore, do they arise,415    See Lucretius, book ii.   or how are all things which are carried on brought about? There is no need, he says, of supposing a providence; for there are seeds floating through the empty void, and from these, collected together without order, all things are produced and take their form. Why, then, do we not perceive or distinguish them? Because, he says, they have neither any colour, nor warmth, nor smell; they are also without flavour and moisture; and they are so minute, that they cannot be cut and divided.  

Thus, because he had taken up a false principle at the commencement, the necessity of the subjects which followed led him to absurdities. For where or from whence are these atoms? Why did no one dream of them besides Leucippus only? from whom Democritus,416    [See vol. ii. p. 465, the whole of 14th chapter.]   having received instructions, left to Epicurus the inheritance of his folly. And if these are minute bodies, and indeed solid, as they say, they certainly are able to fall under the notice of the eyes. If the nature of all things is the same, how is it that they compose various objects? They meet together, he says, in varied order and position as the letters which, though few in number, by variety of arrangement make up innumerable words. But it is urged the letters have a variety of forms. And so, he says, have these first principles; for they are rough, they are furnished with hooks, they are smooth. Therefore they can be cut and divided, if there is in them any part which projects. But if they are smooth and without hooks, they cannot cohere. They ought therefore to he hooked, that they may be linked together one with another. But since they are said to be so minute that they cannot be cut asunder by the edge of any weapon, how is it that they have hooks or angles? For it must be possible for these to be torn asunder, since they project. In the next place, by what mutual compact, by what discernment, do they meet together, so that anything may be constructed out of them? If they are without intelligence, they cannot come together in such order and arrangement; for nothing but reason can bring to accomplishment anything in accordance with reason. With how many arguments can this trifling be refuted! But I must proceed with my subject. This is he  

Which verses I am never able to read without laughter. For this was not said respecting Socrates or Plato, who are esteemed as kings of philosophers, but concerning a man who, though of sound mind and vigorous health, raved more senselessly than any one diseased. And thus the most vain poet, I do not say adorned, but overwhelmed and crushed, the mouse with the praises of the lion. But the same man also releases us from the fear of death, respecting which these are his own exact words:—  

How cleverly he has deceived us! As though it were death now completed which is an object of fear, by which sensation has been already taken away, and not the very act of dying, by which sensation is being taken from us. For there is a time in which we ourselves even yet418    The reading of the text, which appears to be the true one, is “quo nos etiamnum sumus.” There is another reading, “quo et nos jam non sumus.” This latter reading would be in accordance with the sentiment of Epicurus, which is totally opposed to the view taken by Lactantius.   exist, and death does not yet exist; and that very time appears to be miserable, because death is beginning to exist, and we are ceasing to exist.  

Nor is it said without reason that death is not miserable. The approach of death is miserable; that is, to waste away by disease, to endure the thrust, to receive the weapon in the body, to be burnt with fire, to be torn by the teeth of beasts. These are the things which are feared, not because they bring death, but because they bring great pain. But rather make out that pain is not an evil. He says it is the greatest of all evils. How therefore can I fail to fear, if that which precedes or brings about death is an evil? Why should I say that the argument is false, inasmuch as souls do not perish? But, he says, souls do perish; for that which is born with the body must perish with the body. I have already stated that I prefer to put off the discussion of this subject, and to reserve it for the last part of my work, that I may refute this persuasion of Epicurus, whether it was that of Democritus or Dicæarchus, both by arguments and divine testimonies. But perhaps he promised himself impunity in the indulgence of his vices; for he was an advocate of most disgraceful pleasure, and said that man was born for its enjoyment.419    [For his pious talk, however, see T. Lewis, Plato, etc., p. 258.]   Who, when he hears this affirmed, would abstain from the practice of vice and wickedness? For; if the soul is doomed to perish, let us eagerly pursue riches, that we may be able to enjoy all kinds of indulgence; and if these are wanting to us, let us take them away from those who have them by stealth, by stratagem, or by force, especially if there is no God who regards the actions of men: as long as the hope of impunity shall favour us, let us plunder and put to death.420    [These operations of the unbelieving mind have appeared in our day in the Communisme of Paris. They already threaten the American Republic, the mass of the population being undisciplined in moral principle, and our lawgivers as well.]   For it is the part of the wise man to do evil, if it is advantageous to him, and safe; since, if there is a God in heaven, He is not angry with any one. It is also equally the part of the foolish man to do good; because, as he is not excited with anger, so he is not influenced by favour. Therefore let us live in the indulgence of pleasures in every possible way; for in a short time we shall not exist at all. Therefore let us suffer no day, in short, no moment of time, to pass away from us without pleasure; lest, since we ourselves are doomed to perish, the life which we have already spent should itself also perish.  

Although he does not say this in word, yet he teaches it in fact. For when he maintains that the wise man does everything for his own sake, he refers all things which he does to his own advantage. And thus he who hears these disgraceful things, will neither think that any good thing ought to be done, since the conferring of benefits has reference to the advantage of another; nor that he ought to abstain from guilt, because the doing of evil is attended with gain. If any chieftain of pirates or leader of robbers were exhorting his men to acts of violence, what other language could he employ than to say the same things which Epicurus says: that the gods take no notice; that they are not affected with anger nor kind feeling; that the punishment of a future state is not to be dreaded, because souls die after death, and that there is no future state of punishment at all; that pleasure is the greatest good; that there is no society among men; that every one consults for his own interest; that there is no one who loves another, unless it be for his own sake; that death is not to be feared by a brave man, nor any pain; for that he, even if he should be tortured or burnt, should say that he does not regard it. There is evidently sufficient cause why any one should regard this as the expression of a wise man, since it can most fittingly be applied to robbers!  

0398A CAPUT XVII. A Philosophia ad philosophos transit, initio ab Epicuro sumpto; et quomodo Leucippum et Democritum habuerit auctores erroris.

Dixi de philosophia ipsa quam breviter potui: nunc ad philosophos veniamus; non ut cum his decertemus, qui stare non possunt, sed ut eos fugientes atque dejectos nostro campo insequamur. Epicuri disciplina multo celebrior semper fuit, quam caeterorum; non quia veri aliquid afferat, sed quia multos populare nomen voluptatis invitat. Nemo enim non in vitia pronus est. Praeterea, ut ad se multitudinem contrahat, 0398B apposita singulis quibusque moribus loquitur. Desidiosum vetat litteras discere, avarum populari largitione liberat, ignavum prohibet accedere ad rempublicam, pigrum exerceri, timidum militare. Irreligiosus audit deos nihil curare; inhumanus, et suis commodis serviens jubetur nihil cuiquam tribuere; omnia enim sua causa facere sapientem. Fugienti turbam solitudo laudatur. Qui nimium parcus est, discit aqua et polenta vitam posse tolerari. Qui 0399A odit uxorem, 0399A huic enumerantur coelibatus bona: habenti malos liberos orbitas praedicatur; adversus impios parentes nullum esse vinculum naturae. Impatienti ac delicato dolorem esse omnium malorum maximum dicitur: forti, etiam in tormentis beatum esse sapientem. Qui claritati ac potentiae studet, huic praecipitur reges colere: qui molestiam ferre non potest, huic regiam fugere. Ita homo astutus ex variis diversisque moribus circulum cogit, et dum studet placere omnibus, majore discordia secum ipse pugnavit, quam inter se universi. Unde autem disciplina ejus tota descendat, quam originem habeat, explicandum est.

Videbat Epicurus bonis adversa semper accidere, paupertatem, labores, exilia, charorum amissiones; 0399B malos contra beatos esse, augeri potentia, honoribus affici: videbat innocentiam minus tutam, scelera impune committi: videbat, sine delectu morum, sine ordine ac discrimine annorum saevire mortem: sed alios ad senectutem pervenire, alios infantes rapi, alios jam robustos interire, alios in primo adolescentiae flore immaturis funeribus extingui, in bellis potius 0400A meliores, et vinci, et perire. Maxime autem commovebat, homines in primis religiosos gravioribus malis affici: iis autem, qui aut deos omnino negligerent, aut non pie colerent, vel minora incommoda evenire vel nulla: ipsa etiam saepe templa fulminibus conflagrare. Quod Lucretius queritur (lib. II, de Natura rerum), cum dicit de Deo: Tum fulmina mittat, et aedes Ipse suas disturbet; et in deserta recedens, Saeviat exercens telum, quod saepe nocentes Praeterit, exanimatque indignos, inque merentes.Quod si vel exiguam veritatis auram colligere potuisset, numquam diceret, aedes illum suas disturbare; cum ideo disturbet, quod non sunt suae. Capitolium, quod est Romanae urbis et religionis caput summum, 0400B non semel, sed saepius fulmine ictum conflagravit. Homines autem ingeniosi quid de hoc existimaverint, ex dicto Ciceronis apparet, qui ait, divinitus extitisse illam flammam, non quae terrestre illud domicilium Jovis deleret, sed quae sublimius magnificentiusque deposceret. Qua de re etiam in libris Consulatus sui eadem dixit quae Lucretius: 0401A Nam pater altitonans stellanti nixus Olympo, Ipse 0401A suas arces, atque inclyta templa petivit, Et Capitolinis injecit sedibus ignes.Pertinaci ergo stultitia non modo vim majestatemque veri Dei non intellexerunt: sed etiam impietatem sui erroris auxerunt, qui templum coelesti judicio saepe damnatum restituere contra fas omne contenderint.

Cum haec igitur cogitaret Epicurus, earum rerum velut iniquitate inductus (sic enim causam rationemque ignoranti videbatur) existimavit nullam esse providentiam. Quod cum sibi persuasisset, suscepit etiam defendendum: sic in errores inextricabiles se ipse conclusit. Si enim providentia nulla est, quomodo tam ordinate, tam disposite mundus effectus est? Nulla, inquit, dispositio est; multa enim facta 0401B sunt aliter, quam fieri debuerunt. Et invenit homo divinus, quae reprehenderet. Quae singula si vacaret refellere, facile ostenderem, nec sapientem hunc fuisse, nec sanum. Item si nulla providentia est, quomodo animalium corpora tam providenter ordinata sunt, ut singula quaeque membra mirabili ratione disposita sua officia conservent? Nihil, inquit, in procreandis animalibus providentiae ratio molita est; nam neque oculi facti sunt ad videndum, neque aures ad audiendum, neque lingua ad loquendum, neque pedes sd ambulandum: quoniam prius haec nata sunt quam esset loqui, audire, videre, ambulare. Itaque non haec ad usum nata sunt: sed usus ex illis natus est. Si nulla providentia est, cur imbres cadunt, fruges oriuntur, arbusta frondescunt? Non, 0401C inquit, semper causa animantium ista fiunt, quoniam providentiae nihil prosunt: sed omnia sua sponte fieri necesse est. Unde ergo nascuntur (Vide Lucret., lib. II) aut quomodo fiunt omnia quae geruntur? Non est, 0402A inquit, providentiae opus; sunt enim semina per inane volitantia, quibus inter se temere conglobatis, universa gignuntur atque concrescunt. Cur igitur illa non sentimus aut cernimus? Quia nec colorem habent, inquit, nec calorem ullum, nec odorem; saporis quoque et humoris expertia sunt, et tam minuta, ut secari ac dividi nequeant.

Sic eum, quia in principio falsum susceperat, consequentium rerum necessitas ad deliramenta perduxit. Ubi enim sunt, aut unde ista corpuscula? Cur illa nemo praeter unum Leucippum somniavit? a quo Democritus eruditus haereditatem stultitiae reliquit Epicuro. Quae si sunt corpuscula, et quidem solida, ut dicunt, sub oculos certe venire possunt. Si eadem est natura omnium, quomodo res varias efficiunt? 0402B Vario, inquit, ordine ac positione conveniunt: sicut litterae, quae cum sint paucae, varie tamen collocatae, innumerabilia verba conficiunt. At litterae varias formas habent. Ita, inquit, et haec ipsa primordia; nam sunt aspera, sunt hamata, sunt laevia. Secari ergo et dividi possunt, si aliquid inest illis quod emineat. Si autem laevia sunt et hamis indigent, cohaerere non possunt. Hamata igitur esse oportet, ut possint invicem concatenari. Cum vero tam minuta esse dicantur, ut nulla ferri acie dissici valeant, quomodo hamos, aut angulos habent? Quos, quia extant, necesse est posse divelli. Deinde quo foedere inter se, qua mente conveniunt, ut ex his aliquid construatur? Si sensu carent, nec coire tam disposite possunt; quia non potest quidquam rationale perficere, nisi ratio. 0402C Quam multis coargui haec vanitas potest! sed properat oratio. Hic est ille, Qui genus humanum ingenio superavit, et omnes Praestinxit stellas, exortus uti aetherius sol.

0403A Quos equidem versus numquam sine risu legere possum. Non enim de Socrate, aut Platone hoc saltem dicebat, qui velut reges habentur philosophorum: sed de homine, quo sano et vigente, nullus aeger ineptius deliravit. Itaque poeta inanissimus leonis laudibus murem non ornavit, sed obruit et obtrivit. At idem nos metu liberat mortis, de qua haec ipsius verba sunt expressa: «Quando nos sumus, mors non est: quando mors est, nos non sumus; 0403A mors ergo nihil ad nos.» Quam argute nos fefellit! quasi vero transacta mors timeatur, qua jam sensus ereptus est, ac non ipsum mori, quo sensus eripitur. Est enim tempus aliquod, quo nos etiamnum sumus, et mors tamen nondum est; idque ipsum videtur miserum esse, cum et mors esse incipit, et nos esse desinimus.

0403B Nec frustra dictum est: Mors misera non est. Aditus ad mortem est miser: hoc est, morbo tabescere, ictum perpeti, ferrum corpore excipere, ardere igni, dentibus bestiarum laniari. Haec sunt quae timentur, non quia mortem afferunt, sed quia dolorem magnum. Quin potius effice ne dolor malum sit. Omnium, inquit, malorum maximum est. Qui ergo non possum non timere, si id, quod mortem antecedit, aut efficit, malum est? Quid, quod totum illud argumentum falsum est? quia non intereunt animae. Animae vero, inquit, intereunt. Nam quod cum corpore nascitur, cum corpore intereat necesse est. Jam superius dixi, differre me hunc locum melius, et operi ultimo reservare. ut hanc Epicuri persuasionem, sive 0403C illa Democriti, sive Dicaearchi fuit, et argumentis, et divinis testimoniis redarguam. Verum ille fortasse impunitatem 0404A vitiis suis spopondit; fuit enim turpissimae voluptatis assertor, cujus capiendae causa, nasci hominem putavit. Quis, cum hoc affirmari audiat, vitiis et sceleribus abstineat? Nam si periturae sunt animae, appetamus divitias, ut omnes suavitates capere possimus: quae si nobis desunt, ab iis qui habent, auferamus clam, dolo, vi; eo magis, si humanas res Deus nullus curat, quandocumque spes impunitatis arriserit, rapiamus, necemus. Sapientis est enim malefacere, si et utile sit, et tutum; quoniam si quis in coelo Deus est, non irascitur cuiquam. Aeque stulti est et benefacere; quia sicut ira non commovetur, ita nec gratia tangitur. Voluptatibus igitur, quoquo modo possumus, serviamus. Brevi enim tempore nulli erimus omnino. Ergo nullum diem, nullum denique 0404B temporis punctum fluere nobis sine voluptate patiamur; ne, quia ipsi quandoque perituri sumus, id ipsum quod viximus pereat.

Hoc ille tametsi non dicit verbo, re tamen ipsa docet. Nam cum disputat, omnia sapientem sua causa facere, ad utilitatem suam refert omnia quae agit. Ita qui audit haec flagitia, nec boni quidquam faciendum putabit, quoniam benefacere ad utilitatem spectat alienam, nec a scelere abstinendum, quia maleficio praeda conjuncta est. Archipyrata quisquam, vel latronum ductor, si suos ad grassandum cohortetur; quo alio sermone uti potest, quam ut eadem dicat, quae dicit Epicurus? Deos nihil curare; non ira, non gratia tangi; inferorum poenas non esse metuendas, 0404C quod animae post mortem occidant, nec ulli omnino sint inferi; voluptatem esse maximum bonum; nullam 0405A esse humanam societatem; sibi quemque consulere; neminem esse qui alterum diligat, nisi sua causa; 0405A mortem non esse metuendam forti viro, nec ullum dolorem, qui etiamsi torqueatur, si uratur, nihil curare se dicat. Est plane, cur quisquam putet, hanc vocem viri esse sapientis, quae potest latronibus aptissime commodari?