436 SIffLER. 



These phenomena, according to Epicurus, according- to their 

 very nature, are unattainable to our positive knowledge ; many 

 explanations are possible for each of them as a rule, one is as 

 good as the other ; their knowledge is a mere inferior corollary 

 to the system of atomism proper, "fj yvr^acoc, (puaioloyta (Diog. L. 

 lO. 85). The aim of this acreoXoylais not scientific precision, nor 

 the satisfaction of the craving for accurate knowledge ; no, here 

 too it is (§85) drapa^ta ; these themes belong to an entirely dif- 

 ferent category from the (§ 86) zcou dlhov <puacxc7)v 7ifJo[^XrjadTcov 

 Hddapac:^, e. g., that the universe is material and intangible (dvaiprj^C) 

 as to its fundamental substance (i. e., as to the atoms), and that 

 the atoms are the material principle, principles which are in abso- 

 lute harmony with phenomena ; not so, however, with pzikcopa ; 

 ^alh). raJjzd ys TJ.zovayjiV ly^a xal rr^z, yzvkauoz ah'iav xal tyj^ ohaia^i 

 raj'c o.cadrjazac GUfupcovov 'Aarrjyopiav. 



The main point is not to adopt and persist in any ojie explana- 

 tion, but give equal authority to them all as long as none of 

 them is in hisharmony with parallel or analogous processes from 

 the spheres of our actual empirical perception and observation 



{ivapyrjpaza^g2>)--' 



In one passage § 94 he refers to the adoption of the single 



or exclusive as ''being smitten" with it — cf §98 (y-arayajzav) 

 as a folly of him who knows not the (§ 113) limits of human 

 survey. And so — a brief illustration must suffice — e. g., he 

 gives four explanations of the changes of sun and moon, and 

 speaks with scorn of the computations of professional astrono- 

 mers as (§ 93) r«c o.'^dpaKodcodec^ ^o.azpokoycov zzyytzz'taq. . . . 

 of the decline and increase of the moon he offers not less than 

 six ; explanations, of clouds (§ 99), four ; of rain, four ; of 

 thunder, 7^7^^ (§ 100); of lightning § 101-102, seven; of earth- 

 quakes, three ; with a fourth collective which recurs frequently. 

 It would be mere iteration to go through the whole list. 



This easy eclectic attitude towards the real solution of these 

 phenomena, this absolutely unscientific, nay childish, position as 

 over against exact science, naturally brought Epicurus and his 

 school into very glaring contrast as over against the positive 

 attainments of the Peripatetic and Stoic schools. 



