« 前へ次へ »
Prooem.) The manual (Enchiridion) and commentaries of Arrian, together with the explanations of Simplicius to the former, and some later paraphrases, have been edited by Schweighaüser, who has added the notes of Upton, his own, and those of some other commentators. (Epicteteae Philosophiae Monumenta, post J. Uptoni aliorumque curas, edidit et illustravit J. Schweighaiiser, Lipsiae, 1799, 1800, 6 vols. 8vo.) We may apply to Epictetus himself what he says of his Stoic master, viz. that he spoke so impressively, and so plainly described the wickedness of the individual, that every one felt struck, as though he himself had been spoken to personally. (Dissert. iii. 23, 29, comp. c. 15, i. 9.) Being deeply impressed with his vocation as a teacher, he aimed in his discourses at nothing else but winning the minds of his hearers to that which was good, and no one was able to resist the impression which they produced. (Arrian, Ep. ad L. Gell. i. p. 4.) Far from any contempt of knowledge, he knows how to value the theory of forming conclusions and the like. (Dissert. i. 7, 1, &c., comp. i. 8, 1, &c., i. 17, ii. 23, 25.) He only desired that logical exercises, the study of books and of eloquence, should not lead persons away from that of which they were merely the means, and that they should not minister to pride, haughtiness, and avarice. (i. 8. 6, &c., 29. 55, ii. 4. 11, 9. 17, 16. 34, 17. 34, 21. 20, iii. 2. 23, 17. 28, 24. 78.) He never devotes any time to disquisitions which do not, either directly or indirectly, contribute towards awakening, animating, and purifying man's moral conduct. (i. 17. 15, 29. 58, ii. 19. 10; comp. iv. 8. 24, 6. 24.) The true Cynic—and he is the same as the Stoic, the philosopher, is in the opinion of Epictetus a messenger of Zeus, sent to men to deliver them from their erroneous motions about good and evil, and about happiness and unhappiness (iii. 22. 23), and to lead them back into themselves. (ib. 39.) For this purpose he requires natural gracefulness and acuteness of intellect (ib. 90), for his words are to produce a lively impression. The beginning of philosophy, according to him, is the perception of one's own weakness and of one's inability to do that which is needful. (ii. 11. l; comp. iii. 23. 34, ii. 17. 1.) Along with this perception we become aware of the contest which is going on among men, and we grow anxious to ascertain the cause of it, and consequently to discover a standard by which we may give our decision (ii. 11. 13, &c.): to meditate upon this and to dwell upon it, is called philosophizing. (ib. 24; comp. iii. 10. 6.) The things which are to be measured are conceptions, which form the material; the work which is to be constructed out of them, is their just and natural application, and a control over them. (iii. 22. 20, 23.42.) This just choice of conceptions and our consent to or decision in their favour (Tpoatpea is, ovykatáðegis), constitute the nature of good. (ii. 1. 4, 19. 32.) Only that which is subject to our choice or decision is good or evil; all the rest is neither good nor evil; it concerns us not, it is beyond our reach (i. 13. 9, 25. 1, ii. 5.4); it is something external, merely a subject for our choice (i. 29. 1, ii. 16. 1, 19.32, iv. 10. 26): in itself it is indifferent, but its application is not indifferent (ii. 5. 1, 6. 1), and its application is either consistent with or contrary to nature. (ii. 5. 24.) The choice, and consequently
our opinion upon it, are in our power (i. 12. 371;
in our choice we are free (i. 12. 9, 17.28, 19. 9); nothing that is external of us, not even Zeus, can overcome our choice: it alone can control itself. (i. 29. 12, ii. J. 22, iv. 1, ii. 2. 3, iii. 3. 10, i. 1. 23, iv. l. 69.) Our choice, however, is determined by our reason, which of all our faculties sees and tests itself and everything else. (i. 1. 4, i. 20.: Reason is our guide (tò joymuovuków), and capable of conquering all powers which are not subject to. freedom (ii. 1. 39; comp. iii. 3); it is the governing power given to man (tò kvptetov, i. 1. 7, 17. 21); hence only that which is irrational cannot be endured by it. (i. 2.) It is by his reason alone that. man is distinguished from the brute (ii. 9. 2, iii. 1. 25): he who renounces his reason and allows: himself to be guided by external things, is like a man who has forgotten his own face (i. 2. 14); and he who desires or repudiates that which is beyond his power, is not free. (i. 4. 19.) That which is in accordance with reason coincides with that which is in accordance with nature and pleasing to God. (i. 12.9, 26. 2, iii. 20. 13, ii. 10.4, i. 12. 8.) Our resemblance to God (i. 12. 27), or our relationship to the Deity (i. 9. 1, 11), and the coincidence of our own will with the will of God (ii. 17. 22, comp. 19. 26, iii. 24. 95, iv. 1, 89. 103, 4. 39), consist in our acting in accordance with reason and in freedom. Through reason our souls are as closely connected and mixed: up with the Deity, as though they were parts of him (i. 14. 6, ii. 8. 11, 13, 17.33); for mind. knowledge, and reason, constitute the essence of God, and are identical with the essence of good. (ii.8. l, &c.) Let us therefore invoke God's assistance in our strife after the good (ii. 18. 29, comp. i. 6. 21). let us emulate him (ii. 14. 13), let us purify that which is our guide within us (iii. 22. 19), and let us be pure with the pure within us, and with the Deity 1 (ii. 18. 19.) The prophet within us, who announces to us the nature of good and evil (ii. 7. 2), is the daemon, the divine part of every one, his never-resting and’ incorruptible guardian. (i. 14.12.) He manifests himself in our opinions, which have something common with one another and are agreeing with one another (i. 22. 1); for they are the things which are self-evident, and which we feel obliged to car into action, though we may combat them. (ii. 20. l.) That which is good we must recognize as such a thing: wherever it appears, it draws us towards itself, and it is impossible to reject the conception of good. (iii. 3. 4, comp. i. 4. 1.) The opinions just described are the helps which nature has given to every one for discovering that which is true. (iv. l. 51.) Wherever they are not recognized, as is the case with the followers of the New Academy, our mind and modesty become petrified. (i. 5. 3.) To investigate this criticism of what is in accordance with nature, and to master it in its application to individual things, is the object of all our scientific endeavours (i. 11. 15), and ths mastery is obtained only by the cultiva tion of our mind and by education. (Tatóeta; i. 2. 6, 22.9, ii. 17. 7.) The practice in theory is the easier part ; the application in life is the more dif. ficult one, and is the object of all theory. (i. 26.3, 29. 35.) We find that as far as practical application is concerned, many men are Epicureans and effeminate Peripatetics, though they profess the doctrines of the Stoics and Cynics, (ii. 19. 20, 12.
* 18. 26, iii. 26. 13, iv. 1. 138, 4. 14.43, 6.15.) Tn order to obtain a mastery in the application of moral principles to life, a continued practice is required; but this practice is first and chiefly to be directed towards a control of our conceptions, and thereby also of our passions and desires, which are themselves only modes of conception (ii. 18.1, &c., 29, iv. 10. 26), and as such they press and force us; one person being more under the influence of this kind, and another more under the influence of another kind; for which reason every one, according to his personal peculiarity, must oppose to them a continued practice. (i. 25. 26, ii. 16. 22.) This first and most essential practice must be accompanied by a second, which is directed towards that which is appropriate (duty), and a third, the object of which is surety, truth, and certainty; but the latter must not pretend to supplant the former. (iii. 2, 6, 12. 12, &c.) The unerring desire after what is good, the absolute avoidance of what is bad, the desire ever directed towards the appropriate, carefully-weighed resolutions, and a full consent to them, are the nerves of the philosopher. (ii. 8. 29.) Through them he acquires freedom and entire independence of everything which is not subject to his choice (iv. 4.39, iii. 22. 13), and in confiding submission he leaves the management of it to Providence, whose universal rule cannot escape the eye of an unbiassed and grateful observer of the occurrences in the world. (i. 6.9, 4. 12, 13, 14, 16, 30, ii. 14, 26, iii. 17.) In this submissive confidence, and the consciousness of its necessity, in order to be able to preserve unchanged our outward peace of mind in all the occurrences of life, in sorrow and in want, we see the spirit of the modern, and we may say, ennobled Porch; the same spirit is expressed in the energy and purity of its sentiments, and in the giving up of principles whose harshness and untenableness arose from the inflexible and abstract consistency of the earlier Porch. Epictetus is well aware, that man, as such, is a member of the great cosmic community of gods and men, and also that he is a member of the communities of state and family, and that he stands to them in the same relation as a limb to the whole organic body, and that therefore he can attain his full development only with them. (ii. 5. 26, 10.3, &c., 2. 19, 13.) He recognizes the necessity of love and confidence (ii. 22.4, 1), and he demands of the Cynic, that is, the true philosopher, to renounce marriage and family life, only that he may devote himself with all his powers to the service of the deity, and to the duties of an unlimited phianthropy. (iii. 22.67. &c.) It is true that with Epictetus, too, the place of a political system and a considerable portion of ethics, are supplied by the ideal of a philosopher, but how could a living consciousness of the nature of a state have been formed in his time and in his circumstances? In his endeavours to establish in himself and others a moral standard, unaffected by the corruptions of his age, he does not perceive its close and necessary connexion with the active and unchecked scientific and artistic efforts. But he acknowledges their moral importance more than his predecessors, and he is impressed with the conviction, that the individual must live for the whole, although he is not able to determine the how in a manner productive of great results. Above all things, however, he ove up the proud self-sufficiency which the Stoic "QL. II.
philosopher was expected to shew in his relation to the vicissitudes of the world and of man. The maxim suffer and abstain (from evil) (Fragm. 179; comp. Dissert. iv. 8, 25; Gell. xvii. 19), which he followed throughout his life, was based with him on the firm belief in a wise and benevolent government of Providence; and in this respect he approaches the Christian doctrine more than any of the earlier Stoics, though there is not a trace in the Epictetea to shew that he was acquainted with Christianity, and still less, that he had adopted Christianity, either in port or entirely. (Chr. Crelius, De Uireporó40ts el dosépous Epicteti Dissertat. Lipsiae, 1711–16; comp. Brucker in Temp. Helvet. iii. 2. p. 260.) [CH. A. B.] EPICTE'TUS ('Estíctmros), a physician mentioned by Symmachus (Epist. x. 47), who attained to the title and dignity of Archiater in the time of Theodosius the Great, A. D. 379–395. [W. A. G.] EPICU'RIUS ('Etukovptos), the 'helper, a surname of Apollo, under which he was worshipped at Bassae in Arcadia. Every year a wild boar was sacrificed to him in his temple on mount Lycaeus. He had received this surname because he had at one time delivered the country from a pestilence. (Paus. viii. 38. § 6, 41. § 5.) [L. S.] EPICU'RUS ('Etikovpos), a celebrated Greek philosopher and the founder of a philosophical school called after him the Epicurean. He was a son of Neocles and Charestrata, and belonged to the Attic demos of Gargettus, whence he is sometimes simply called the Gargettian. (Cic. ad Fam. xv. 16.) He was born, however, in the island of Samos, in B. c. 342, for his father was one of the Athenian cleruchi, who went to Samos and received lands there. Epicurus spent the first eighteen years of his life at Samos, and then repaired to Athens, in B. c. 323, where Xenocrates was then at the head of the academy, by whom Epicurus is said to have been instructed, though Epicurus himself denied it. (Diog. Laërt. x. 13; Cic. de Nat. Deor. i. 26.) He did not, however, stay at Athens long, for after the outbreak of the Lamian war he went to Colophon, where his father was then residing, and engaged in teaching. Epicurus followed the example of his father: he collected pupils and is said to have instructed them in grammar, until gradually his attention was drawn towards philosophy. Epicurus himself asserted that he had entered upon his philosophical studies at the early age of fourteen. while according to others it was not till five or six years later. Some said that he was led to the study of philosophy by his contempt of the rhetoricians and grammarians who were unable to explain to him the passage in Hesiod about Chaos; and others said that the first impulse was given to him by the works of Democritus, which fell into his hands by accident. It is at any rate undeniable that the atomistic doctrines of Democritus exercised a very great influence upon Epicurus, though he asserted that he was perfectly independent of all the philosophical schools of the time, and endeavoured to solve the great problems of life by independent thought and investigation. From Colophon Epicurus went to Mytilene and Lampsacus, in which places he was engaged for five years in teaching philosophy. In B. c. 306, when he had attained the age of 35, he again went to Athens. He there purchased for eighty minae a garden—the famous Kirot 'Emikoúpov—which apparently was situated in the heart of the city, and in d
which he established his philosophical school. Surrounded by numerous friends and pupils and by his three brothers, Neocles, Charidemus, and Aristobulus, who likewise devoted themselves to the study of philosophy, Epicurus spent the remainder of his life in his garden at Athens. His mode of living was simple, temperate, and cheerful, and the aspersions of comic poets and of later philosophers who were opposed to his philosophy and describe him as a person devoted to sensual pleasures, do not seem entitled to the least credit, although they have succeeded in rendering his name proverbial with posterity for a sensualist or debauchee. The accounts of his connexion with Leontium, Marmarium, and other well known hetaerae of the time, perhaps belong to the same kind of slander and calumny in which his enemies indulged. The life in Diogenes Laërtius affords abundant proof that Epicurus was a man of simple, pure, and temperate habits, a kind-hearted friend, and even a patriotic citizen. He kept aloof from the political parties of the time, and took no part in public affairs. His maxim was A&0e Buča'as, which was partly the result of his peculiar philosophy, and partly of the political condition of Athens, which drove men to seek in themselves happiness and consolation for the loss of political freedom. During the latter period of his life Epicurus was afflicted with severe sufferings, and for many years he was unable to walk. In the end his sufferings were increased by the formation of a stone in his bladder, which terminated fatally after a severe illness of a fortnight. He bore his sufferings with a truly philosophical patience, cheerfulness, and courage, and died at the age of 72, in Olymp. 127. 2, or B. c. 270. His will, which is preserved in Diogenes Laërtius (x. 16, &c.), shews the same mildness of character and the same kind disposition and attachment to his friends, which he had manifested throughout life. Among his many pupils Epicurus himself gave the preference to Metrodorus of Lampsacus, whom he used to call the philosopher, and whom he would have appointed to succeed him (Diog. Laërt. x. 22, &c.); but Metrodorus died seven years before his master, and in his will Epicurus appointed Hermarchus of Mytilene his successor in the management of his school at Athens. Apollodorus, the Epicurean, wrote a life of Epicurus, of which Diogenes made great use in his account of Epicurus, but this is now lost, and our principal source of information respecting Epicurus is the tenth book of Diogenes Laërtius, who however, as usual, only puts together what he finds in others ; but at the same time he furnishes us some very important documents, such as his will, four letters and the kūpiat 56%al, of which we shall speak below. With the account of Diogenes we have to compare the philosophical poem of Lucretius, and the remarks and criticisms which are scattered in the works of later Greek and Roman writers, nearly all of whom, however, wrote in a hostile spirit about Epicurus and his philosophy and must therefore be used with great caution. Among them we must mention Cicero in his philosophical treatises, especially the De Finibus, and the De Natura Deorum; Seneca in his letter to Lucilius, and some treatises of Plutarch in his so-called Moralia. Epicurus appears to have been one of the most prolific of all the ancient Greek writers. Diogenes Laërtius (x. 26), who calls him troAvypasparatos,
states that he wrote about 300 volumes (köNuvèpot His works, however, are said to have been full of re petitions and quotations of authorities. A list of th best of his works is given by Diogenes (x. 27, &c.) and among them we may mention the IIepl púarew in 37 books, IIep dróuwu ka? kevoo, Emirou?) ré Tpós (purikoús, Ilpos Tovs Meyapukovs 6tatropia. Kūpiat 56%ai, IIepl TéAovs, IIepl kpitmptov i kavao Xalpéðmuos i Tepl Seóv, IIepl 8tav in three books IIepl tims év to atóuw yovías, IIspi eiuapuévns IIepi eiðdowv, IIepi Öucatoawms kal Tóv ćNAw dpetów, and 'ETurtoxas. Of his epistles four an preserved in Diogenes. (x. 22, 35, &c., 84, &c. 122, &c.) The first is very brief and was ad dressed by Epicurus just before his death to Ido meneus. The three others are of far greater im portance: the first of them is addressed to on Herodotus, and contains an outline of the Canon and the Physica; the second, addressed to Pythocles, con tains his theory about meteors, and the third, which is addressed to Menoeceus, gives a concise view ol his ethics, so that these three Epistles, the genuine ness of which can scarcely be doubted, furnish us an outline of his whole philosophical system. An abridgement of them is preserved in Eudocia, p. 173, &c. They were edited separately by Nürnberger in his edition of the tenth book ol Diogenes Laërtius, Nürnberg, 1791, 8vo. The letters, to Herodotus and Pythocles were edited separately by J. G. Schneider under the title of Epicuri Physica et Meteorologica duabus Epis. tolis comprehensa, Leipzig, 1813, 8vo. These letters, together with the above mentioned Kopia, 66&ai, that is, forty-four propositions containing the substance of the ethical philosophy of Epicurus, which are likewise preserved in Diogenes, must be our principal guides in examining and judging ol the Epicurean philosophy. All the other works ol Epicurus have perished, with the exception of a considerable number of fragments. Some parts ol the above-mentioned work, IIepl (bùoews, espe. cially of the second and eleventh books, which treat of the etàwAa, have been found among the rolls at Herculaneum, and are published in C. Corsini's Volumin. Herculan. vol. ii. Naples, 1809, from which they were reprinted separately by J. C. Orelli, Leipzig, 1818, 8vo. Some fragments of the tenth book of the same work have been edited by J. Th. Kreissig in his Comment. de Sallust. Histor. Fragm. p. 237, &c. If we may judge of the style of Epicurus from these few remains, it must be owned that it is clear and animated, though it is not distinguished for any other peculiar merits. With regard to the philosophical system of Epi. curus, there is scarcely a philosopher in all antiquity who boasted so much as Epicurus of being inde pendent of all his predecessors, and those who were believed to have been his teachers wer treated by him with scorn and bitter hostility, He prided himself upon being an autobiöartos but even a superficial giance at his philosophy shews that he was not a little indebted to thi Cyrenaics on the one hand and to Democritu on the other. As far as the ethical part of his phi losophy is concerned thus much may be admitted that, like other systems of the time, it arose from the peculiar circumstances in which the Greel states were placed. Thinking men were led t seek within them that which they could not find without. Political freedom had to a great exten disappeared, and philosophere endeavoured to establish an internal freedom based upon ethical principles, and to maintain it in spite of outward oppression, no less than to secure it against man's own passions and evil propensities. Perfect independence, self reliance, and contentment, therefore, were regarded as the highest good and as the qualities which alone could make men happy, and as human happiness was with Epicurus the ultimate end of all philosophy, it was necessary for him to make ethics the most essential part, and as it were the centre of his whole philosophy. He had little esteem for logic and dialectics, but as he could not altogether do without them, he prefixed to his ethics a canon, or an introduction to ascertain the criterium which was to guide him in his search after truth and in distinguishing good from evil. His criteria themselves were derived from sensuous perception combined with thought and reflection. We obtain our knowledge and form our conceptions of things, according to him, through el Saxa, i. e. images of things which are reflected from them, and pass through our senses into our minds. Such a theory is destructive of all absolute truth, and a mere momentary impression upon our senses or feelings is substituted for it. His ethical theory was based upon the dogma of the Cyrenaics, that pleasure constitutes the highest happiness, and must consequently be the end of all human exertions. Epicurus, however, developed and ennobled this theory in a manner which constitutes the peculiarity and real merit of his philosophy, and which gained for him so many friends and admirers both in antiquity and in modern times. Pleasure with him was not a mere momentary and transitory sensation, but he conceived it as something lasting and imperishable, consisting in pure and noble mental enjoyments, that is, in atapašía and drovía, or the freedom from pain and from all influences which disturb the peace of our mind, and thereby our happiness, which is the result of it. The summum bonum, according to him, consisted in this peace of mind; and the great problem of his ethics, therefore, was to shew how it was to be attained, and ethics was not only the principal branch of philosophy, but philosophy itself, and the value and importance of all other kinds of knowledge were estimated by the proportion in which they contributed towards that great object of human life, or in which they were connected with ethics. His peace of mind was based upon (ppóvmals, which he described as the beginning of everything good, as the origin of all virtues, and which he himself therefore occasionally treated as the highest good itself. In the physical part of his philosophy, he followed the atomistic doctrines of Democritus and Diagoras. His views are well known from Lucretius's poem De Rerum Natura. It would, however, appear that sometimes he misunderstood the views of his predecessors, and distorted them by introducing things which were quite foreign to them ; sometimes he appears even in contradiction with himself. The deficiencies are most striking in his views concerning the gods, which drew upon him the charge of atheism. His gods, like everything else, consisted of atoms, and our motions of them are based upon the effaxa which are reflected from them and pass into our minds. They were and always had been in the enjoyment of perfect happiness, which had not been disturbed by the
laborious business of creating the world; and as the government of the world would interfere with their happiness, he conceived the gods as exercising no influence whatever upon the world or man. The number of pupils of Epicurus who propagated his doctrines, was extremely great; but his philosophy received no further development at their hands, except perhaps that in subsequent times his lofty notion of pleasure and happiness was reduced to that of material and sensual pleasure. His immediate disciples adopted and followed his doctrines with the most scrupulous conscientiousness: they were attached and devoted to their master in a manner which has rarely been equalled either in ancient or modern times: their esteem, love, and veneration for him almost bordered upon worship; they are said to have committed his works to memory; they had his portrait engraved upon rings and drinking vessels, and celebrated his birthday every year. Athens honoured him with bronze statues. But notwithstanding the extraordinary devotion of his pupils and friends, whose number, says Diogenes, exceeded that of the population of whole towns, there is no philosopher in antiquity who has been so violently attacked, and whose ethical doctrines have been so much mistaken and misunderstood, as Epicurus. The cause of this singular phaenomenon was partly a superficial knowledge of his philosophy, of which Cicero, for example, is guilty to a very great extent, and partly also the conduct of men who called themselves Epicureans, and, taking advantage of the facility with which his ethical theory was made the handmaid of a sensual and debauched life, gave themselves up to the enjoyment of sensual pleasures. At Rome, and during the time of Roman ascendancy in the ancient world, the philosophy of Epicurus never took any firm root; and it is then and there that, owing to the paramount influence of the Stoic philosophy, we meet with the bitterest antagonists of Epicurus. The disputes for and against his philosophy, however, are not confined to antiquity; they were renewed at the time of the revival of letters, and are continued to the present day. The number of works that have been written upon Epicurus and his philosophy is prodigious (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iii. p. 584, &c.); we pass over the many histories of Greek philosophy, and mention only the most important works of which Epicurus is the special subject. Peter Gassendi, de Vita et Moribus Epicuri commentarius libris octo constans, Lugdun. 1647, and Hag. Comit. 1656, 4to.; Gassendi, Syntagma Philosophiae Epicuri, Hag. Comit. 1659, 4to., London, 1668, 12mo, Amsterdam, 1684; J. Rondel, La Vie d'Epicure, Paris, 1679, 12mo., La Haye, 1686, 12mo.; a Latin translation of this work appeared at Amsterdam, 1693, 12mo., and an English one by Digby, London, 1712, 8vo.; Batteux, La Morale d'Epicure, Paris, 1758, 8vo.; Bremer, Versuch einer Apologie des Epicur, Berlin, 1776, 8vo.; Warnekros, Apologie und Leben Epicurs, Greifswald, 1795, 8vo.; and especially Steinhart in Ersch u. Gruber, Allgem. Encyclop. vol.xxxv. p. 459, &c. Diogenes Laërtius (x. 26) mentions three other persons of the name of Epicurus, and Menage on that passage points out three more ; but all of them are persons concerning whom nothing is known. [L. S.] EPICY'DES ('Etuköns). 1. A Syracusan by origin, but born and educated at Carthage, and the son of a Carthaginian mother, his grandfather having been banished by Agathocles, and having settled at Carthage. (Polyb. vii. 2; Liv. xxiv. 6.) He served, together with his elder brother Hippocrates, with much distinction in the army of Hannibal, both in Spain and Italy; and when, after the battle of Cannae, Hieronymus of Syracuse sent to make overtures to Hannibal, that general selected the two brothers as his envoys to Syracuse. They soon gained over the wavering mind of the young king, and induced him to desert the Roman alliance. (Polyb. vii. 2–5; Liv. xxiv. 6–7.) But the murder of Hieronymus shortly after, and the revolution that ensued at Syracuse, for a time deranged their plans: they at first demanded merely a safe-conduct to return to Hannibal, but soon found that they could do more good by their intrigues at Syracuse, where they even succeeded in procuring their election as generals, in the place of Andranodorus and Themistus. But the Roman party again obtained the upper hand; and Hippocrates having been sent with a force to Leontini, Epicydes joined him there, and they set at defiance the Syracusan government. Leontini was, indeed, quickly reduced by Marcellus, but his cruelties there alienated the Syracusans, and still more the foreign mercenaries in their service ; a disposition of which Hippocrates and Epicydes (who had made their escape to Erbessus) ably availed themselves, induced the troops sent against them to mutiny, and returned at their head to Syracuse, of which they made themselves masters with little difficulty, B. c. 214. (Liv. xxiv. 21–32.) Marcellus immediately proceeded to besiege Syracuse, the defence of which was conducted with ability and vigour by the two brothers, who had been again appointed generals. When the Roman commander found himself obliged to turn the siege into a blockade, Epicydes continued to hold the city itself, while Hippocrates conducted the operations in other parts of Sicily. The former was, however, unable to prevent the surprise of the Epipolae, which were betrayed into the hands of Marcellus; but he still exerted his utmost efforts against the Romans, and co-operated zealously with the army from without under Himilco and Hippocrates. After the defeat of the latter he went in person to meet Bomilcar, who was advancing with a Carthaginian fleet to the relief of the city, and hasten his arrival; but, after the retreat of Bomilcar, he seems to have regarded the fall of Syracuse as inevitable, and withdrew to Agrigentum. (Liv. xxiv. 33–39, xxv. 23–27.) Here he appears to have remained and co-operated with the Numidian Mutines, until the capture of Agrigentum (B. C. 210) obliged him to fly with Hanno to Carthage, after which his name is not again mentioned. (Liv. xxvi. 40.)
2. A Syracusan, surnamed Sindon, one of the lieutenants of the preceding, who were left by him in command of Syracuse when he retired to Agrigentum : he was put to death by the Roman party, together with his colleagues. (Liv. xxv. 28.
3. Of Olynthus, a general under Ophellas of Cyrene, who took Thimbron prisoner at Teuchira. (Arr, ap. Phot. p. 70, a.) [E. H. B.]
EPIDAURUS ('Etíðavpos), the mythical founder of Epidaurus, a son of Argos and Evadne, but according to Argive legends a son of Pelops, and
according to those of Elis a son of Apollo. (Apollod. ii. 1. § 2; Paus. ii. 26. § 3.) [L. S.]
EPIDIUS, a Latin rhetorician who taught the art of oratory towards the close of the republic, numbering M. Antonius and Octavianus among his scholars. His skill, however, was not sufficient to save him from a conviction for malicious accusation (calumnia). We are told that he claimed descent from Jopidius Nuncionus (the name is probably corrupt), a rural deity, who appears to have been worshipped upon the banks of the Sarnus. (Sueton. de Clar. Johet. 4.) [W. R.] C. EPIDIUS MARULLUS. [MARULLUs.] EPIDOTES (Erišarms), a divinity who was worshipped at Lacedaemon, and averted the anger of Zeus Hicesius for the crime committed by Pausanias. (Paus. iii. 17. § 8.) Epidotes, which means the “liberal giver,” occurs also as a surname of other divinities, such as Zeus at Mantineia and Sparta (Paus. viii. 9. § 1 ; IIesych. s. v.), of the god of sleep at Sicyon, who had a statue in the temple of Asclepius there, which represented him in the act of sending a lion to sleep (Paus. ii. 10. § 3), and lastly of the beneficent gods, to whom Antoninus built a sanctuary at Epidaurus. (Paus. ii. 27. § 7. ) [L. S.] EPI'GENES (Etroyévis), son of Antiphon, of the demus of Cephisia, is mentioned by Plato among the disciples of Socrates who were with him in his last moments. Xenophon represents Socrates as remonstrating with him on his neglect of the bodily exercises requisite for health and strength. (Plat. Apol. p. 33. Phaed. p. 59 ; Xen. Mem. iii. 12.) [E. E.] EPI'GENES (‘Eriyévns). 1. An Athenian poet of the middle comedy. Pollux indeed (vii. 29) speaks of him as véav Tus kauków, but the terms “middle” and “new,” as Clinton remarks (F. H. vol. ii. p. xlix.), are not always very carefully applied. (See Arist. Eth. Nic. iv. 8. § 6.) Epigenes himself, in a fragment of his play called Mvnuártov (ap. Ath. xi. p. 472, f.) speaks of Pixodarus, prince of Caria, as “the king's son”; and from this Meineke argues (Hist. Crit. Com. Graec. p. 354), that the comedy in question must have been written while Hecatomnus, the father of Pixodarus, was yet alive, and perhaps about B. c. 380. We find besides in Athenaeus (ix. p. 409, d.), that there was a doubt among the ancients whether the play called 'Apyvptov dopaviguós should be assigned to Epigenes or Antiphanes. These poets therefore must have been contemporaries. [See vol. i. p. 204, b.] The fragments of the comedies of Epigenes have been collected by Meineke (vol. iii. p. 537; comp. Poll. vii. 29 : Ath. iii. p. 75, c., ix. p. 384, a., xi. pp. 469, c., 474, a., 480, a., 486, c. 502, e.). 2. Of Sicyon, who has been confounded by some with his namesake the comic poet, is mentioned by Suidas (s. v. Oéatris) as the most ancient writer of tragedy. By the word “ tragedy”here we can understand only the old dithyrambic and satyrical Tpay@5ta, into which it is possible that Epigenes may have been the first to introduce other subjects than the original one of the fortunes of Dionysus, if at least we may trust the account which we find in Apostolius, Photius, and Suidas, of the origin of the proverb ow8év Tpós Tov Alévvorov. This would clearly be one of the earliest steps in the gradual transformation of the old dithyrambic performance into the dramatic tragedy of later times, and may tend to justify the state