Department of the Classics, Harvard University

Plato, Lucretius, and Epicurus

Author(s): Paul Shorey
Source: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 12, Goodwin Volume (1901), pp. 201-210
Published by: Department of the Classics, Harvard University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/310430
Accessed: 19/03/2009 15:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchu.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Department of the Classics, Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Harvard Studies in Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org
 PLATO, LUCRETIUS, AND EPICURUS
BY PAUL SHORKY

DID Lucretius read Plato? Having a few hitherto unnoticed

coincidences to cite, I propose to reopen the trifling question
not with the expectation of proving anything in a matter hardly admit-
ting of demonstration, but for the light which the discussion itself may
throw on some points of the Epicurean tradition, and because the most
poetic of philosophers and the most philosophic of poets present a
parallel and an antithesis that justifies this coupling of their names.
But we must first consider the possibility that Lucretius knew Plato
only through Epicurus. W\'hatLucretius may have found in the thirty-
two books of the repi fwcrews it is impossible to say. But with the aid
of 'sener's Epicrrraz, the two treatises of Plutarch, and the tenth book
of Diogenes Laertius, it is easy to enumerate the chief ascertainable
points of contact between Epicurus and Plato. To begin with, Plato's
polemic against the predecessors of Epicurus contains a full and lucid
statement of the most distinctive doctrines of the school. Nothing is
wanting to the exposition of the fundamental dogmas of materialism in
the Tizeadeetus,S,opa/ist, and Lawz. The psychology of relativity and
the dependence of all subjective ideas on sense-begetting modes of
motion are clearly set forth in the Pihi/ebus and ThEacatetus. The
'hedonistic calculus' has never been more uncompromisinglyformulated
than in the Protagoras,2 and passages in the Republic, Gorgias, and
Tizeac/etusanticipate all that Epicurus had to teach of the social coin-
pact and the derivative and conventional character of political justice.'
l Cf. especially Diog. L. to, 68-69, and Sextus EmpiricusJZatiAe,. 7, 209, with
7,eadtet. 152-154, 156-157, a.;d PhiUebus38-39.
a Cf. Prolag. 356 with Diog. L. 10, 141 (Usener) ob4ed4a i)oQVl wa' faurb xax6v,
etc., and IO, 129 d\\' b?Ttv ore troXX4si?o,sovr epI;aiwfe, oTav vXcOv i9^v i
vJJX4PJS 7K OUTrW Clr?rTaL; etc.
3 This might have been taken for granted were it not so often overlooked. Thus
Mr. Guyau, La Aforale d'tticure, p. 146, observes: "Ce furcnt E:picuredans
l'aritiquiteet Hobbes dans les temupsmiodernes,qui r&solurentles premiersla ques-
tion dans le sens utilitaire, en invoquant comme fin de la societe 1'interctde chacun
de ses membres, et conmmemoyen d'organisation Ie consentement niutuel." He
202 Paul Shlorey

And in the presentstate of the evidence Plato must be treated as the

scientific authorof these ideas. Men may have said beforePlato that
pleasureis the chief good, that matteris the only real,thatall knowledge
is relevant to the percipient,and that justice is the advantageof the
stronger. But the scientificformulationof these ebullitionsof cynicism
and scepticisminto a systematicdoctrinebelongsto him,and it is labor
lost to try to reconstructhis sources in the Sophistswith the aid of
hints from Euripidesand the parallelsin laterwriters.1 If we waivethis
largeraspect of the question,the explicit allusionsof Epicurusto Plato
are few. Epicunrus we are told felt a marvellousscornfor his teacher,
the PlatonistPamphilus,'and there are tracesof gibes at Plato'schar-
acter' and hostileallusionsto 'scholarship,'4supersubtlerefinementsof
style, and the Socraticirony.' T'heEpicurean'EpjaXoswrotea special
treatise rpos nXTaWaV, Colotes ridiculed the myth of Er, the son of
Armenios,and Philodemusattackedthe doctrineof the moralinfluence
of music. The Timareus would be especiallyrepugnantto Epicureans,
and we catch an echo of the p)olemicsdirectedagainstit in the words
of Cicero'sVelleius.? The letter to Herodotuscontainswhatseems to

forgets that the theory of the social compact as summed up by Epicurus, D. L. lo,
1 ffr@
150, rb Ts? 4<r?(* 8luov l fffo1\0ov ToG OvIJdpovro eti rb jd fX\drre&v XXi-
Xovs wrs \5TXd-trer^ua, is clea.ly set forth in Republic 358 E-359; and Epicurus'
furtherinference that the right of the stronger is the only justice that exists among
animals and tribes that entered into no such compact is distinctly implied in Protag.
322 B and Gor,. 483 D.
I I refer to the use which Duemmler, in his interesting Prolegomenato Plato's

Republic,makes of Blass de Anti:>o:te SophistaIam//licbi Auctore. These so-called

fragments of Antiphon contain nothing that is not found in Plato, with whom
lamblichuswas familiar,and it is merelyreasoning in a circle to reconstructAntiphon
out of lamblichus' text, and then treat him as the common source of Iamblichus and
Plato.
* Cicero De Nat. Deor. x, 26.
' Diog. L. io, 8 tOvwoKo6XaKat.
4 rd)a 8 xal ^T' v fjv 'Pb' 7O nwepwZ ( x a . .. 8wuvoeav says Sextus MatA.
1, I.
* Diog. L. 10, 13, Cicero Brutus 85, 292.
S De Aol. Deor. 1, 8, 18, non futtilis commenticiasyuesententias, son opijicem
aediftcatorenquemundli Platonis ate Timaco deum. For further traces of polemic
against the Timaeus cf. Proclus in P/at. Tim. p. 80, apud Usener, Epicurea, p. 257,
and frgt. 6 of the 28th book vepl <fCewf, Gompert, ZeitscArifJ. Ocs/erreick.Gym..
Vol. XVIII, p. 212 apud Munro; Usener, p. 128.
 Plato, Lucretius, and Epicurus 203
be a direct attackon Plato'stheoryof vision.? There is a characteristic
sneerat the idea of good in the wordsreportedby Plutarch,Non posse
suavifer vivi, 7, p. Io09i B: KcX aci?n v4nSo yyaeo5 atv S pGwf Mv.
&AXp. ... Kal p. KxC? rcpswcrj OpvuXv.The 37th Kvp(
wCeptdya8ov
&oa reads like a direct reply to Phlato'scondemnationof those who
make immutablejustice depend on legislativeenactment' Epicurus'
protest against the attempt to explain the simple idea of time by aay
substitutionof other terms may be a covert polemic against Plato's
'moving image of eternity."' Olympiodorusreports what seems an
attack on the Phi/ebus in the words 'Eixrovpos ovxcO?cTa guywvecu
Xr'rfv 170o0, M#o yap dya6^ TO xELXov. And the statement reported
by Philodemus that roAXLtKi7
is not a science or art is a flat contradic-
tion of a distinctivePlatonicdoctrine.
The possiblepositiveindebtednessof the Epicureanpsychologyand
ethics to Plato has already been indicatedin generalterms,and there
is no space to workout the details.4 One interestingverbalcoincidence
may be noted - the use of the term adpowosa for body, viewed not
merelyas a materialaggregateof atoms, but as a metaphysicalcomplex
of qualities.6 These instances hardly create a presumptionthat any
Diog. L. Io, 49 oS& bs5 rvwWv adcTlvwvi7 otwv Si Tore ku,sdrwv,i'
4 S)V rfpt
ih?ivaorapaycvojwv, etc. Cf. 7'ifmaeus, 45 C, TJ riO 63TwSiw(r, irr tvrO,
TOT
etc.
1 Cf. the words oud5 v iKt!vov rbv Zp6wv Tosi pJ 4^wvs x,f.uf
T^v Sfxa.wv
JaVTO6S fvyurapdrroosv d\X els vvpd'yt
A ara fiXtrouo& with Plato 7heaetet. 177D,
a &v Eras r66st 5&avTa aurj, eavoa xoIt &tSl xea ij &csU,, fufvep b Kiras.
3 Cf. Diog. L. ic, 72, with 7i:m,.37D.
4 Cf. furtherthe distinction between necessary and unnecessarydesires, Diog. L.
10, 127, 148-149, iepub/ic 558 D E; the insistence that pleasureis inseparablefrom
virtue Diog. L. 1O, 132, 140, Laws 734 A 3; vp6X\i9 as a precondition of any
enquiry o6KA &v rj7r7afuV rb {17TOL4sEY el d Tp&Tpov J7iv'jecLv avr6, Diog. L.
J0, 33, cf. MAfno80 E seq.; the use made of the Empedoclean diroppool in the theory
of sensation, Diog. L. 10, S3, Meno 76 D, Timacus 67 C; the Democritean 'yaX,5v
Phaedo84 A, Diog. L. 10, 37, 83. The moral interpretationof tk#7fve favr Corg.
522 C, Diog. L. I0, 35.
& Cf. Sextus Empiricus tatM. to, 257, Diog. L. 1o, 63, 142. Plato, Theacti.
I57B t 5i7 adpolafuars Sv0pwv6v re vI&s'rT xal XiOo,, etc. Campbell thinks the
' whole ' here is rather an aggregate of individuals in a class idea than of attributes
in a thing. But that the latter is meant appears from the passages cited above as
well as from Sextus 9, 339 and Alcinous eratywyt 4, a chapter in which the
psychology of the Theactetusis closely followed. Alcinous distinguishes (i) ux&tr77,
204 Paul S/orcy

allusionsto Plato detected in Lucretiuscame by way of Epicurus. The

more obvious parallels are cited by Munro.1 Woltjer (Lucretit Philo.
sophiatumnfontibus comparaoa)finds only one point of contact. The
dysteleology of the fine passage 5, I10-235 is directed, he thinks,
primarily not against the Stoic thesis p.S&v ctwv i yKrXtov r4 KxO-,
but againstthe optimisticteleologyof Plato's 7itnaeus. But in view of
the evidence of Epicureanpolemic against that work he finallycon-
cludes that Lucretiusis here merely followinghis master. Suchbeing
the state of the question,studentsof Plato and Lucretiusmaybe inter-
ested in the followingparallelswhethertheydemonstrateanythingor not.
The Tinimaeus from its theme takes the first place in any comparison
of Platoand Lucretius. The most noteworthyparallelis that between
Zim. 50 E and Lucret. 2, 845. Plato illustrates the thought that the
recipientof all formsand qualitiesmust itself be formlessby the follow-
ing image: &o cax iravrwv KTOF Ci&Wv c(tau pcwv To TO. IrvraT KO8CO-

CtVO ivV atrc y77, KQaOaTrcp tCpL T O0

otAXcilg/aTaOTro. a C sw7, Te(vY
IwXa r p
vpwTrov ovr9 aro/ pXov, TotovoLv 0 T& pOaWXTc1aaW6S TOa
CIotCL4O
a vypa r&a ocaifa KTrX. Nothing better exhibits the fertility of
Plato's suggestionsthan the (act that, while Aristotletook from this
passagethe hint for his argumentthat the pure reasonwhich knowsall
things must be free from admixture,2Lucretiusborrowsthe image to
enforcethe doctrine that the atomsas bearersof all secondaryqualities
are themselveswithoutany sensuousdeterminations. 2, 847 e
Siciu amaracini bandzim slactaeque liquorem i t nardi florcem, nec/ar
qui nari/'us ha/al, Cl/l facere ins//tuas, turn primis quaercre par est, |
quoad licet at possis reperire io/noltis olivi\ natura ^flu//am quac 7ittal
nafibus auran, \ quam minime t possit mix/os in to;pore o/orcs j concoc-
tosque suo contrattans pcrdere viro, \propter candent rem debentpritnor-
dia rerum\ non adhiberc suum gignund/is rebus odorcm, etc.
(2) tvb?v - (3) ,rA8& raurra Tb p ozo' sup. The lexicons, especially
L. and S., are all astray. Cf. furtherUsencr, p. 296.
I 2, 79 si/iti lampada with Laws 776B; 3, 873 sincerum sonere with Theactt.
179 D; the hypocoristic lover 4, 116o with Republic 474 D, a frequent motif of
comedy; the dissipation of the soul like smoke or vapor, 3, 456 with Phaido 70;
the comparison of our fear of death to the terrors of children in the dark, 2, 55,
Phaedoo7 E; the use of arliculat 4, 551 with that of 8irppdiparo Frotag. 322 A;
the social compact 5, I020 with Republic358-359.
' D. an. 429 a, 20.
 Plato, Lucretlius, atnd Epicurus 205

Other resemblancesare more easily felt than descnribed.Plato's

theory of matter is, as Windelbandobserves, essentiallyatomic and
Democritean,despite the half serious Pythagoreanizingmathematical
formin whichit is disguised. And, while there is no express coinci-
dence, there is a broadgeneral likeness in the languageused by Plato
and Lucretiusin describingthe relationsthat obtainbetweenthe shapes
of the elementalparticlesand the sensationswhich they cause.1
We may note further: (i) The emphasis laid upon the idea of
cause at the outset though for opposite ends.' (2) The distinction
between permanentand transitorybeing and the protest,thoughwith
differentapplication,againstconfoundingthe two by the doublemean-
ing of the verb to be.8 (3) The commonbackgroundof chaosderived
from Hesiod and the Pre-Socratics.4 For aesthetic reasons and to
save the eternity of the existing order of the world Plato entirely
absorbsthis chaos into the cosmos.6 But in Polit. 273 D he seems to
recognizeit as still subsistingoutside of the world,and he agreeswith
Lucretiusin a certainlargeway of speakingof the wholenessand com-

i Cf. on the one hand Tim. 58 B, 7A ^xpafit r v5 ry d\wv

SXdxceva Iu
&k- 58D rb Ydvotuv ivpbav &4 b rJTiXov sTvcn T7Wv La'oS
rwv 'ytvfv o0r f/LSpd
dvlawv 5vrwv KW7r7K6v, etc.,-59 B T7 f scydXa ivrbs evorv SaXldj)arat fet,v
KoL4t6epov (cf. Lucret. I, 364-367) -61 D j rip &ppv XlYosev . . . . T)V odcp-
o& xKal ro#jrv auro .. . . iv 6/vrc -62 A Kep/ rTtowLa - 665C .faLv7 da a5
ra0ra, wa,vep ot Ka. Tar4oXX, &4d OvLKpJfEwv Tf TIVWV KLI &SaKplofewv'^I'yt8ffe8u
. . . TpaX6Jrfrl r Kal XC&6T7Tv- 65 D uvvyf?zr4d<f\X4 xal &rorpalsvei, etc. -
kvTLK4 al TavTab wepl rr)v y.\Trrav dvoirXu'o'ra(cf. Lucret. 4, 249 pertcrgd) -
67 C 6#es ,vfrpa ,ubpta {xouocaz vpbs a&Oazv -67 E T.u 6<8a\XpiwvTAy 6ieo66ot
pfiL Sw0owa,v ial Ti,<oLJJav, etc. And on the other hand Lucret. 2, 385 sqq. cle/es-
tern fulminis igncm \ sup/i/em rnagis e parz;is constare Ji,uris, etc. -394 hauatis
inter se perque plicatis-40! pertorijuent ora sapor e-406 vijs rescindere :ostris
sensibus -420 yuiZ compu;:gu;:t aciem, etc. -432 dent/ta compungere sensus- 460,
469-70, 3; 185-195, -4, 249, 277 et quasi pert/rget pupil/as-344, 620, 625-7,
650-665, 660 contrac/ahiliter can/as in/rare palati -716 pupil/as interfodiunt, etc.
s Tim. 28A, Lucret. I, 150 sqq.
3 Tim. 27 D, Lucret. I, 215 sqq., Tim. 38B 76 7yeyoPbt e atws 'yryo?6r, etc.,
Lucret. I, 464 bel/oque subac/as\ Troingenas gentes cun dicunt esse videndnmst! us
forte haec per se cogant nos esse fateri. But whereas Lucretius, I, 478, regards res
gestaeas less real than bodies, Plato, Cratyl. 386 E holds that !v n< Ybos Twv tWW
dElf al vpdcts, and censures materialistsfor not recognizing this, Theactet. 155 E.
' Tim. 30A, 53A, Lucret. 5, 435.
T
Tim. 33 AC.
206 Paul Shorey

pleteness of the All.1 (4) Both describe in similar terms the disinte-
gration ultimately effected in every organic or cosmic aggregate by the
unceasing impingement of external forces,2 and the continual influx and
efflux that mark the growth and decay of the animal body.' (5) A cer-
tain periphrastic elaboration of phrase, sometimes merely a conventional
poetic diction, sometimes used especially of processes and ingenious
mechanisms of nature.4 (6) Lastly, Plato anticipates Lucretius in the
correct account of the images p)resentedby laterally concave mirrors
and in the fancy that the sun and moon taught mankind mathematics.'
But transcending all coincidences of detail is the spiritual affinity of
inmaginativeinsight and poetic temper that has associated these exposi-
tions of antithetic )hilosol)hies in the enthusiastic admiration of ages
which, like the Renascence and our own time, are repelled by the life-
less pedantry of Aristotle and the Stoics. 'I'he Timaeus and the De
RerztmnNatura were both composed under the immediate inspl)iration of
the 're-Socratic poet-pl)hilosol)hers.'They are 'Hymns of the Universe'
rather than dry inventories of pihaenomena. G;uided by a few great
thoughts, their majestic rhetoric sweeps across the entire field of knowl-
edge from the origins of the world to the diseases of the htlman body.
Both approach the investigation of nature in a spirit of glad wonder
and awe. Both thrill with a sense of the beauty of the cosmos, the
glory of the sum of things, that reflects itself in a sustained intensity of
rhythm, diction, and vivid imagery. Nothing is viewed in disconnec-
tion, lifeless and inert. Everywhere there is a sense of largeness and

1
Lucret.I, 963; 2,305; 5,361; Tim. 33 CD. Cf. Empedocles 927OUTO 5'
frau^o-5?eic.rvav ti a zal a60ev I\X6v; Cf. D. L.lo, 39.
1 Lucret. 2, 1 146 nec ldit/antia rem cwssnt extrinscus u//am corpora conficere
ft plargis infesta donare. Cf. 4, 933 sqq. Tim. 33 A Tepiurd^ivsa I$weocw aol
vpoffviToTra dxatpwsXiw --43 BC Tr4 rCiv tpocFuiwrSTT6rv vajsaro., etc.-81 A
TA 4Jv T
KT^S5
typ 5^ 7p'Cfl.r 7/a$ T7*1C<, etc.
' Tim. 43 A, dwlppvTou ojs#a, So E T4 rr7. rpos Ydara .. . drlppuia. Lucret.
2, 1112-1l45 flure, /uliitur,/Iue,,do, etc.
' E.g. Lucret. 321 natura videndi; 2, 400 natura absintMi; Tim. 45 E
I,
r;bv
r7', stfir, 75 Dr7v <fwctv ro0 vpoJwrwrou, 76E, 82 D. Lucret. 3, 255
fiXfcdpwv
per caulas Corporis on/nis, 702, 4, 620; Tim. 70 B 5?&irdvrwvrsv ffTVewvwv Cf.
also 4, 828 sqq. with 7afi'. 44 E IxTaird rqKX\a ial Ke/srTa and I>/aedo 98 D.
f Tim. 461BC; Lucret. 4, 312 stqq.
z
Lucret. 5, 1437; Tim. 47A. Cf. Epinomisg78D.
 Plato, Lucretius, and Epicirus 207

wholeness, and we are aware of nature related, moving, and alive in all
her parts and processes. And the instinct of a Giordano Bruno that
feels this deeper likeness is a sounder guide than classifications based
on oppositions of dogma.
After the Ti;nacus the greatest number of coincidences is found in
the Laws, a work more justly appreciated in antiquity than in modern
times. In Laws 660 A we have apparently the first instance of the
comparison of the poet to the Iphysicianwho conveys nauseous but
salutary drugs in sweets.1 But this, like the 'itali lampada, may well
have been a literary commonplace in Lucretius' time.2 The simile
from defective foundations that betray the superstructure 793 C is very
closely followed by Lucretius 4, 5 13, otov tCKTOVWV (V oiLo8oji^L)/aCL^
(pCtaOara c /ULCOOV VroppCovTa, ouf)x?rrT<rv CLTc(rrTOv rroZL Tc (v iravrac
Kxctera T? XXaA Tf
/ Tpuv aLrlLa T? KaQ ,a xaCXaWVOTcpov j?roLKoSoLA7y
8evra, T7V apXanV vroIreJOvTwrv. Den)liuCe Ut inl fabrica, si pravast
re'tc/a prima, ulnormaque sif/a//ax rec/is icgioni/,us exif, ae'libel/a aliqla
si cx parti eclauNical li/lurn, | omnlia mtl'eno,sefieri a/que obstipa 7lcesse est/
prazvaculbantiaprona supina atque a/snc)aZfec/a,\ jam ruere ut quaedatIn
videantlur vetle, ran/quec proita iudiciiJsfallacibus o,nnia primis, jsic
igitur ratio, etc.
An expression in Lucretius 4, 376, for which Munro cites no parallel,
quasi in i^yncn lana trahaur,; finds apt illustration in the proverbial
c2s lrvp $aiLVuv of Laws 78oC, now correctly rendered by Jowett but
mistranslated in the earlier editions. This parallel, if it be one, makes
against the sufficiently improbable view of Erasmus and Stephanus'
Thesaurus that ct ir'p fa V&LV= -ai^?y 7rXya; (Cs tvp.
Still more interesting is the coincidence in thought between the
argument in Lucretius 5, 325 sqq. and Laws 6771). Epicurus had
said oTI o!Uv8 evov (v Tr? wuvrl arroTCecZra 'rapa p To 8ir ycfyvrjpuvov
XPov?v acrCLpov.8 Lucretius infers that our particular world and civi-
lization are young because new discoveries have been made within
the last one thousand years and are still being made. Similarly in
Laws 677 C it is asked: IIs yap av, (u aprTeT, u 7C fLcv? TCaL8OLWr

1 Cf. Lucret. I, 936. There is a hint of it in Craty/us 394A.

' Lucret. 2, 79; .aws 776 B.
3 Plut. apud Euseb. Praep. E:z. I, 8, 8.
208 Paul S/horey

r &rr y6ovrXov, J a
rvv wSuucyrc, avu vc&upieri ' oreoaZ
rowv;1 Plato'sexplanationboth here and in the Timacusis that the
artsand sciencesare periodicallywiped out by cataclysmsor conflagra-
tions. And this alternative,too, Lucretiusproceeds to discussin lines
338 sqq. This coincidenceinvites a fuller comparisonof the account
of primitivelife and the firststeps in human progressin the fifth book
of Lucretiuswith Plato'streatment of the same theme. Plato himself
had been precededby the fifth centurySophists and dramatists,as we
see fromthe mythattributedto Protagoras,and the long list of parallels
to the speechof Prometheusin Aeschylus.' The chief Platonicpassages
are Laws, 3, 677 sqq.; Pro/ag. 322 sqq.; Tinmaeus23; Cntias 109-
n1o; Politcus 274 BCD.
Plato of coursediffers from Lucretiusin that he startsfroma cata-
clysm ratherthan from the absolute novi/as mundi,and that, like the
poets, he personifiesin some beneficentdeity the inventivegenius of
humanity.' But this in no wise lessensthe interestof the coincidences
in detail. T'he chief common traitsare: The terror-stricken, helpless
estate of primitiveman,4as contrastedwith animalsfor whosecomfort
and preserva/ion Natureprovides;6 his exposureto wild beasts;6 the

The sequel also should be compared with Lucretius. The text is not in order,
but there is no doubt as to the meaning which Jowett utterlymisrepresents: " and
if things had always continued as they are at prcsent ordered, how could any dis?
covery have ever been made even in the least particular."
' Cf. Plato, Repub. 522D; Aeschylus, Prom. 445 sqq.; Pa/amedes fr. 182;
Soph. Antig. 333 sqq., fr. 399; Eurip. Suppi. 201 sqq., Palamedesfr. 578; Critias,
Si^pAus, Nauck, p. 771; Moschion fr. 6, Nauck, p. 813; Adespota 470, Nauck,
p. 931; Duemmler, P'rolg. in P/at. Rep. pp. 28-29; Akadenika, 237 sqq.; Weber
in Leiptiger Sud/ten, X, I18. Weber and Duemmler class Plato with Dicaearchus
and the Stoics who held that man had sunk from a more blessed condition as against
Theophrastusand the Epicureans who thought that he had risen out of primitive
animality. But to attempt to ticket Plato in this fashion is to ignore the irony of
Po/atscu 272 C, Laws 678 B, 679 A BC and Repub.372 D.
' Laws 679 B, PoWt.274 C, Cratyl. 438 C. Lucretius,on the other hand, is care-
ful to represent man's naturalwit as the source of language 5, 1028, of the discovery
of fire 5, o09Isqq., and the arts 5, 1261; 1452.
4 Laws 678 C 1o,fos bawXot, 677 E lofp&v 4p,vFfav,Crit. 1O9 E J 4vopla.
* Lucret. 5, 222 sqq., 233 tutentur, 859 ut/taa. Pro/ag. 320 E aXX,1, v' akroZs
$t^XaT@o 6afMAV <h fcwrifpfav XT\.
* Protag. 322 A; Poait. 274 C; Laws 68x A, Lucrel. 5, 982 sqq.
 Plato, Lutcretius, and Epicurus 209

absenceof war;1 of gold; of iron and fire;' of the arts of agricul-

ture; navigation;' of luxuryand gross inequalitiesin wealth;* the
gradualdiscovery or recoveryof these things;7 the first building of
cities;' the introductionof moraland politicalideas; ' the socialcom-
pact;10 the comparativelylate appearanceof letters and trustworthy
historicaltraditions.1' Languageand religionof courseare treatedfrom
diametrically oppositepointsof view. A quaintdetail,5, 973, is curiously
explained by an etymologyof the Crafty/ s 418 D. Lucretiusdenies
that primitiveman passed the night in terror-strickenlonging for the
sunlight. He was used to recurrentdarkness. Againstwhom is this
remarkdirected? 'The Stoics,' says Munro. If so, it musthave been
the "Proto-Stoics." For Plato derives djxpa from t,ucpa . . . <
dp^riots
avSpwots TOHS fyY ja '?ro.lp<powtv i( Tov rioovs TO <>s

Outsideof the Timaacus coincidencesare sporadicand

and the Laws?c
theme was not concernedwith the logical
accidental,since ,Lucretius'
and ethicalenquiriesthatoccupythe dialogues.12There is one passage,

Lucret. 6. 999, Protlg. 322 B, Law.s678 E. Both find its origin in the growth
of wealth, Lucret. 5, 1434, Pka4do 66C, Repub. 5s86B, 373 E. But Lucretius 5,
1419 sqq. explicitly protests against Plato's half serious assertion that the simpler
goods of primitivetimes aroused no jealousy or private strife, Laws 678 E.
? Lucret 5, Il13, Laws 679 B.
3 La;ws 678 E, Protag. 321 D, Lucret. 5, Io0o sqq., 1241 sqq.
Lucret. 5, 933, Laws 680 E, 68I A.
* Lucret. 5, 1oo6, Laws 678 C.
Lucret. 5, looS, 1112 sqq., Laws 679A B.
7 Cf. U'sus5, 1452 with xpecap,Polit. 274 C.
' Lucret. 5, oI8, Pro/a;. 322 B, Laws 68X B sqq.
' Lucret. 5, 958, I020-I028, 1140-1155, Laws68ICD, Pro/ag. 322CD.
10 5, 1140-1155; cf. supra, p. 20!, na 3.
,1 5, 1446 proptrera quid sit prius actum respicere
aeas\ nostra niquit, nisi qua
ratio vestigia monstrat. Cf. Critias 1o A; 7'izaeus 23 B.
lt The treatmentof love at the close of the fourth book has touches which suggest
the Phaedrus and Symposium. Cf. 4, 1121 sqq. with Phaedr. 252 A, and 4, 1110
with Symp. 192. The comparison of the nursing woman to the earth, 5, 813-815,
remindsus of 4lPnexenus 237-238. The comparisonof the elements of the alphabet
to the elements of things, I, 197, 912; 2, 688, IOI3, is a favorite Platonic image-
Poit. 278, Tim. 48 B, Theactl. 201 E. The image in 2, 365 derivare animun for
which Munro can find no parallel is akin at least to the use of drwxeriu,wv in
Repub.485 D. The moral applicationof pertusus:: vas in 3, 1009 and 6, 20 is like
that in Corgias 493 B. Cf. further I, 263 with Phaedo71-72 and the moral senti-
210 Paul Shorey

however,that demandsspecialconsideration. hn 3, 358 sqq. Lucretius

attacksthe theorythat it is the mind which sees usihgthe eyes only as
a door for the admissionof sensations. In that case, he drylyobserves,
we ought to see better when the doors are removed,posts and all. A
similar image is found in Sextus Empiricus,Math. 7, 350 ol 8&avrrv
('v &iYvoiY) cTnu ras alra?iqc
rvTwv
ojtTv KcaOdrep &a
a&a8 V -t
rqpc'wv vpocvrrowav. Elsewhere, ibid. I30, Sextus says of Heracleitus
Jv 8 ypvjyopowr vaXt X W(r aa?jrtwv
(i T iropwv (rcp &a TLvwv
evp'wv rpoKxf'ac (sc. 6 votS). Accordingly, La Salle, Woltjer, and
Munroassume that Lucretiusis combating Heracleitus. The resem-
blance,however,is confinedto the image. There is no parallelismin
the thought. IEpicunrustaughtthat the body feels and perceivesas well
as the mind. Lucretiusis opposing the doctrine that the mind alone
feels and knowsusing the organsof sense as mere channelsand instru-
ments. 'l'hereis no traceof this idea in Heracleitus. In the passage
beforeus Heracleitusis expllaininghow the individualmind renews its
connection with the universalmind through eye-gate and ear-gate.
T'hequestionwhethersensation and perception reside in the body or
the mind has not been raised. But in Plato's Thea/eties, the sourceof
so much later psychology,attentionis called to this specific problem,
184 C: orctffc yap, dirOptolsor&pa OpcL cpGOTqxLv,@ OpWVr TOVTO cas
o5aA,Lou's, if 8i' ov OpW/lC (cf. Tim. 5I C). It seems probable then
that Lucretiusis following Epicurusin a polemic againstthis Platonic
thought. We cannot be sure that the image in Sextus goes back to
Heracleitus.1 In any case, once set in circulationit was liable to be
used for picturesqueeffect apartfromits originalcontext.

ment of 5, III8 with Laws 736 E. Note also the almost direct contradiction of
Cratyl. 400 A, where the soul holds the body, by 3, 435 sqq.; of Phaedo b09AB
by the polemic against the ,,:vdii cupido inx, 1082; and the striking coincidence of
the rhetoricalquestion in 2, 1095 yJuis r.ere i:m,,ecnsi summam . . . yuis pariter
aedoso0mnis convertere, with the like question in Epinomis 983A rs Tp6ros &vde?
TOffofrowviep4dpeci 5yxoV;etc.
1 Cf. Zeller, Phil. d. Gricchen, I, 707.