90 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



his inclination : 6 yap Ao'yos ^Ss fipei, he says of himself 43 in apol- 

 ogizing for expelling Homer from the ideal state of the philosopher- 

 king. 



In the Epicurean Epistle to Pythocles 44 a distinction is drawn be- 

 tween such phenomena as admit of but one rational explanation and 

 such as admit of several explanations equally consonant with the data 

 of sense. In the former, the conclusion must be categorically affirmed ; 

 in regard to the latter, one must suspend judgment : "for one must 

 conduct investigations into the operations of nature, not in accordance 

 with vain dogmas and ex-cathedra pronouncements, but according as the 

 phenomena demand. . . . But when one fails to state one possible ex- 

 planation and rejects another that is equally consonant with the data 

 of sense, it is evident that one falls wholly outside the breastworks of 

 science and lapses into fxvOos." 45 



From the first 4>vcnoXoyia or la-Topia Trepi ^t'crews is characterized by 

 the fact that it wholly disregards religious authority 46 (i'o/xo6Wia of 



43 Repub. 607 B. Following the load of the argument is a commonplace in Plato : 

 cp. Euthyph. 14 C, Theact. 172 D, Gory. 527 E, Phaed. 82 D, 115 B, Repub. 365 D, 

 394 D, 415 D, Lego. 667 A. 



44 Diog. Laert. x. 86-87. 



45 The fear of p.C6os was ever-present to Epicurus and his followers. See my 

 Epicurea (American Journal of Philology, xxm. p. 194) and compare Kvpiai A6ifat, 

 XI.-XIII. and Lucretius I. 68 foil., 102 foil., 151 foil., V. 1183 foil. See also Zeller, 

 Phil, der Gricchen, III. (a), 397, n. 2. Epicurus was, however, herein only following 

 Democritus, fr. 297 (Diels) : Zvioi OvrjTrjs (pvcrews di&Xvcriv ouk eidirts dvOpwiroi, avveidTjcrei 

 5e T7js iv tS (3iu> Ka.KOTrpay,u.o<rvv7)s, tov t?)s j3iorrjs XP?> V0V & rapaxals Kal 0o/3ots raXanru}- 

 peovai, xpevdea irepl tov fj.era rrjv TeXevrrjv p.vOoTrXacrTt'ovTes xpovov. Rohde, Psyche, II. 

 171, n. cast suspicion on the genuineness of this fragment ; but it has been well 

 discussed by Nestle, Philol. 67, 548. Epicurus required that one judge concerning 

 what cannot be seen (to &orp\a) on the analogy of that which is visible. In this also he 

 followed the pre-Socratics. See Sext. Emp., vn. 140 Ai6Tip.os de rpia kclt avrbv (i. e. 

 Democritus) iXeyev tlvai KpiT-qpia ' ttJs pev tuv dorjXwv KaraAiji/'eajs ra <pa.iv6fj.eva " " tixf/is 

 yap tCiv ddr)\wv to. rpaivopeva," i!is (prjaiv 'Ava^aySpas (fr. 21 a, Diels), 6v enl tovtu} A-q- 

 fiSKpiTos iiraLveT. The same injunction was given to the physician ; see Hippocrates, 

 II. Stair?;? ; 1. 12 (6, 488 Littre). Epicurus was ridiculed for offering explanations which 

 were foolish : cp. the delectable skit in Usener's Epicurea, p. 354, 27 foil., where he is 

 taunted with believing a p.v0aplLp ypawdei. But the charge was disingenuous, since the 

 explanation in question was only one of several among which he allowed his followers 

 to choose, since the matter was not one of which strict account was recpiired of the 

 faithful. 



46 It would be impossible to prove this without showing in detail — what is easy 

 but requires more space than can be allotted to it here — how the conclusions of phi- 

 losophers ran from the first counter to the fundamental assumptions of the received 

 theology. The philosophers therefore came to be regarded as a godless crew : cp. 

 Plato, Apol. 18 BC, 19 B, 23 D ; Xen. Mem. I. 2, 31 ; Plut. Pericles, c. 32 (law of 

 Diopithes, 432 B. a). 



