c. 29, 60; 51, 115) ad tranquillitatem accommodatis, certa et vera

cernit in somnis; sic castus animus purusque vigilantis et ad astrorum et ad avium reliquorumque signorum et ad extorum veritatem est paratior.

[1031] See p. 46.

[1032] See p. 139.

[1033] See p. 132.

[1034] Whether Diogenes, in connecting the Stoics with the Cynics, was following a Stoic authority or not (vii.), is a moot point; nevertheless, the view comes to us from a time in which the relations of the two must have been well known, and the quotation from Posidonius on p. 274, 2, quite accords herewith. Not to mention others, Diog. vi. 14, speaking of Antisthenes, says: δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ τῆς ἀνδρωδεστάτης Στωϊκῆς κατάρξαι ... οὗτος ἡγήσατο καὶ τῆς Διογένους ἀπαθείας καὶ τῆς Κράτητος ἐγκρατείας καὶ τῆς Ζήνωνος καρτερίας, αὐτὸς ὑποθέμενος τῇ πόλει τὰ θεμέλια: and Juvenal, xiii. 121, calls the Stoic dogmas a Cynicis tunica (the common dress in distinction to the tribon) distantia.

[1035] Krische, Forschungen, i. 363, and above, p. 145, 2.

[1036] On Aristo see p. 59; 260; 281.

[1037] Aristo cannot, therefore, be considered (as he is by Krische, Forsch. 411) the best representative of the original Stoic theory. On the contrary, he only represents a reaction of the Cynic element in Stoicism against the other component parts of this philosophy.

[1038] See p. 290.

[1039] Apart from the testimony of Numenius (in Eus. Pr. Ev. xiv. 5, 10), to which no great value can be attached, the acquaintance of Zeno with Heraclitus is established by the fact that not only the ethics, but also the natural science of the Stoic School owes its origin to him. See pp. 40, 3; 62, 2, 3; 126, 2; 141, 2; 144, 4; 145, 1, 2; 146, 4; 148, 2; 151, 1. Diog. mentions treatises of Cleanthes, vii. 174; ix. 15, of Aristo, ix. 5, of Sphærus (vii. 178; ix. 15) treating of Heraclitus; and Phædrus (Philodem.), Fragm. col. 4, says that Chrysippus explained the old myths after the manner of Heraclitus.

[1040] Instances have often occurred. See p. 144, 4; 145, 1, 2; 232, 4. Conf. Sen. Ep. 83, 9.

[1041] Besides meteorological and other points of natural science, which the Stoics may have borrowed from Heraclitus, Heraclitus’ attitude towards the popular faith also belongs here.

[1042] See p. 101, 2.

[1043] See p. 100, 4, 5; 101, 2; 140, 1.

[1044] As an illustration of the difference, take Heraclitus’ statement of the daily extinction of the sun, which every one must admit would not have been possible in the Stoic School.

[1045] πνεῦμα as with the Stoics.

[1046] See particularly Antiochus and also Cicero in many passages. See above, p. 39, 2.

[1047] See p. 46, 1, 2.

[1048] The story in Diog. vii. 3 bears out this view, that Zeno was first won for philosophy by Xenophon’s Memorabilia, and that on asking who was the representative of this line of thought, he was referred to Crates. According to the quotations on pp. 274, 2; 387, 1, the Cynics were regarded in the Stoic School as genuine followers of Socrates.

[1049] Consult, on this subject, the valuable treatise of Steinhart, in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclopædia, sect. i. vol. 35, pp. 459–477.

[1050] Diog. x. i. He is frequently mentioned as an Athenian, belonging to the δῆμος Gargettos. Diog. l.c.; Lucret. Nat. Rer. vi. 1; Cic. Ad Fam. xv. 16; Ælian, V. H. iv. 13.

[1051] Diog. i.; Strabo, xiv. 1, 18, p. 638. According to these authorities, and Cic. N. D. i. 26, 72, his father had gone thither as a κληροῦχος. That this happened before his birth has been demonstrated by Steinhart, p. 461.

[1052] Apollodorus (in Diog. x. 14) mentions 7 Gamelion, Ol. 109, 3, as the birthday of Epicurus. It was observed (Epicurus’ will, Diog. 18) τῇ προτέρᾳ δεκάτῃ τοῦ Γαμηλιῶνος. Gamelion being the seventh month of the Attic year, the time of his birth must have been either early in 341 B.C., or the last days of 342 B.C.

[1053] His father, according to Strabo, was a schoolmaster, and Epicurus had assisted him in teaching (Hermippus and Timon, in Diog. 2; Athen. xiii. 588, a). His mother is said to have earned money by repeating charms (καθαρμοί), and Epicurus to have assisted in this occupation (Diog. 4). Although the latter statement evidently comes from some hostile authority, it would seem that his circumstances in early life were not favourable to a thoroughly scientific education. His language in disparagement of culture would lead us to the same conclusion, even were the express testimony of Sext. Math. i. 1 wanting: ἐν πολλοῖς γὰρ ἀμαθὴς Ἐπίκουρος ἐλέγχεται, οὐδὲ ἐν ταῖς κοιναῖς ὁμιλίαις (in common expressions, conf. the censure passed on him by Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Aristophanes in Diog. 4, 13) καθαρεύων. Cic. Fin. i. 7, 26: Vellem equidem, aut ipse doctrinis fuisset instructor—est enim ... non satis politus in artibus, quas qui tenent eruditi appellantur—aut ne deterruisset alios a studiis. Athen. xiii. 588, a: ἐγκυκλίου παιδείας ἀμύητος ὤν.

[1054] According to his own statement (Diog. 2), he was not more than fourteen (Suid. Ἐπικ. has twelve) years of age when he began to philosophise, i.e. to think about philosophical subjects; probably about chaos, following the suggestion of Hesiod’s verses. He subsequently boasted that he had made himself what he was without a teacher, and refused to own his obligations to those shown to be his teachers. Cic. N. D. i. 26, 72; 33, 93; Sext. Math. i. 2, who mentions his disparagement of Nausiphanes; Diog. 8, 13; Plut. N. P. Suav. V. 18, 4; conf. Sen. Ep. 52, 3. It is, however, established that in his youth he enjoyed the instruction of Pamphilus and of that Nausiphanes, who is sometimes called a follower of Democritus, sometimes of Pyrrho (Cic.; Sext.; Diog. x. 8; 13; 14; ix. 64; 69; Proœm. 15; Suid. Ἐπικ.; Clem. Strom. i. 301, D). The names of two other supposed instructors are also mentioned, Nausicydes and Praxiphanes (Diog. Proœm. 15; x. 13), but they almost seem to be corruptions for Pamphilus and Nausiphanes.

[1055] According to Cic. l.c., he denied the fact. Others, however, asserted it, and, among them, Demetrius of Magnesia. Diog. 13.

[1056] Whither he came, in his eighteenth year, according to Heraclides Lembus, in Diog. 1. Conf. Strabo, l.c.: τραφῆναί φασιν ἐνθάδε (in Samos) καὶ ἐν Τέῳ καὶ ἐφηβεῦσαι Ἀθήνῃσι.

[1057] According to Hermippus (Diog. 2) Democritus first gave him the impulse to pursue philosophy; but this is only a conjecture. Besides Democritus, Aristippus is also mentioned as a philosopher whose doctrines he followed (Diog. 4). Epicurus is even said to have expressed a disparaging opinion of Democritus (Cic. N. D. i. 33, 93; Diog. 8). Nor is this denied by Diog. 9: but it probably refers to particular points only, or it may have reference to the attitude of later Epicureans, such as Colotes (Plut. Adv. Col. 3, 3, p. 1108). Plut. l.c., says, not only that Epicurus for a long time called himself a follower of Democritus, but he also quotes passages from Leonteus and Metrodorus, attesting Epicurus’ respect for Democritus. Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας, Vol. Herc. v. 2, col. 20, seems to refer to expressions of Epicurus which excuse certain mistakes of Democritus. Lucret. iii. 370, v. 620, also speaks of Democritus with great respect; and Philodem. De Mus. Vol. Herc. i. col. 36, calls him ἀνὴρ οὐ φυσιολογώτατος μόνον τῶν ἀρχαίων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἱστορουμένων οὐδενὸς ἧττον πολυπράγμων.

[1058] Diog. 1, 15 mentions Colophon, Mytilene, and Lampsacus. Strabo, xiii. 1, 19, p. 589, also affirms that Epicurus resided for some time at Lampsacus, and there made the acquaintance of Idomeneus and Leonteus.

[1059] Diog. 2, on the authority of Heraclides and Sotion. According to him, Epicurus returned to Athens in the archonship of Anaxicrates, 307–6 B.C. In that case the numbers must be slightly reduced in the statement (Diog. 15) that he came to Mytilene when 32, and taught there and in Lampsacus for five years.

[1060] Not immediately, however, since Diog. 2 says, on the authority of Heraclides: μέχρι μέν τινος κατ’ ἐπιμιξίαν τοῖς ἄλλοις φιλοσοφεῖν, ἔπειτ’ ἰδίᾳ πως τὴν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ κληθεῖσαν αἵρεσιν συστήσασθαι.

[1061] On this celebrated garden, after which the Epicureans were called οἱ ἀπὸ τῶν κήπων, see Diog. 10, 17; Plin. H. N. xix. 4, 51; Cic. Fin. i. 20, 65; v. 1, 3; Ad Fam. xiii. 1; Sen. Ep. 21, 10; Steinhart, p. 462, 45; 463, 72. Epicurus had purchased it for 80 minæ.

[1062] This subject will be discussed at a later period.

[1063] Such as Themista or Themisto, the wife of Leonteus (Diog. 5; 25; 26; Clem. Strom. iv. 522, D).

[1064] Diog. 4; 6; 7; Cleomed. Meteor. p. 92, Balfor.; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 4, 8; 16, 1 and 6; Lat. Viv. 4, 2. The best-known among these ἑταῖραι is Leontion, who lived with Metrodorus, a pupil of Epicurus (Diog. 6; 23), and wrote with spirit against Theophrastus (Cic. N. D. i. 33, 93; Plut. Hist. Nat. Præf. 29). Conf. Diog. 5; Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας, Vol. Herc. v. 2, Fr. 9. Athen. xiii. 593, b, tells a fine story of self-sacrifice of her daughter Danaë.

[1065] Ol. 127, 2, in the archonship of Pytharatus, and in his seventy-second year. Diog. 15; Cic. De Fat. 9, 19.

[1066] Diog. 15; 22; Cic. Ad Fam. vii. 26; Fin. ii. 30, 96; Sen. Ep. 66, 47; 92, 25. That he put an end to his own life (Baumhauer, Vet. Philo. Doct. De Mort. Volunt. 322), Hermippus (Diog. 15) by no means implies.

[1067] According to Diog. Pro. 16, x. 26, he was, next to Chrysippus, the most voluminous writer of the ancient philosophers, his writings filling 300 rolls. The titles of his most esteemed works are given by Diog. 27. Conf. Fabric. Bibl. Gr. iii. 595, Harl.

[1068] Three epistles in Diog. 35; 84; 122; and the κύριαι δόξαι, an epitome of his ethics, mentioned by Cic. N. D. i. 30, 85, and 139. Of his 37 books περὶ φύσεως, fragments of books 2 and 11 have been edited (Vol. Hercul. ii.).

[1069] Fragments in Diog. 5; 7. Besides the testament and the letter to Idomeneus (Diog. 16–22), many individual expressions of Epicurus have been preserved by Seneca.

[1070] Aristophanes (in Diog. 13) calls his style ἰδιωτικωτάτη. Cleomed. Meteor. p. 91, complains of his awkward and barbarous expressions, instancing: σαρκὸς εὐσταθῆ καταστήματα· τὰ περὶ ταύτης πιστὰ ἐλπίσματα· λιπάσμα ὀφθαλμῶν· ἱερὰ ἀνακραυγάσματα· γαργαλισμοὺς σώματος. In this respect, Chrysippus may be compared with him. See above, p. 48, 1.

[1071] See Fabric. Bibl. Gr. iii. 598, Harl. They were, no doubt, very numerous. Diog. x. 9, probably exaggerates their number in saying the friends of Epicurus would fill towns. Cic. Fin. i. 20, 65, speaks of magni greges amicorum. Plut. Lat. Viv. 3, 1, also mentions his friends in Asia and Egypt. In Greece, however, on his own testimony, and that of Metrodorus (Sen. Ep. 79, 15), they attracted little notice.

[1072] A native of Lampsacus (Strabo, xiii. 1, 19, p. 589), and, next to Epicurus, the most celebrated teacher of the School. Cicero, Fin. ii. 28, 92, calls him pæne alter Epicurus, and states (Fin. ii. 3, 7) that Epicurus gave him the name of a wise man (Diog. 18; Sen. Ep. 52, 3). Further particulars respecting him and his writings in Diog. x. 6; 18; 21–24; Philodem. De Vitiis, ix. (Vol. Herc. iii.), col. 12; 21; 27; Athen. vii. 279; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 7, 1; 12, 2; 16, 6 and 9; Adv. Col. 33, 2 and 6; Sen. Ep. 98, 9; 99, 25. Fragments of the letters are to be found in Plutarch, Seneca, and Philodemus. Whether the fragments of a treatise περὶ αἰσθητῶν in vol. vi. of Vol. Hercul. belong to him, is very uncertain. According to Diog. 23, he died seven years before Epicurus, in his fifty-third year, and must therefore have been born 330 or 329 B.C. For the education of his children probably by Leontion, whom Diog. 23 calls παλλακὴ, and Sen. Fr. 45 in Hieron. Adv. Jovin. i. 191 calls his wife, provision is made by Epicurus in his will (Diog. 19, 21).

[1073] Son of Athenodorus, likewise a native of Lampsacus (Diog. 24), a capital mathematician, according to Cic. Acad. ii. 33, 106; Fin. i. 6, 20. Diog. l.c. calls him ἐπιεικὴς καὶ φιλήκοος; Metrodorus, in Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας (Vol. Herc. v. a), col. 6, ἀποφθεγματίας. Sen. Ep. 6, 6, calls him, Metrodorus, and Hermarchus, viros magnos. Philodemus (vol. v. b), Fr. 49. praises his frankness towards his teacher. A son of his is also mentioned in Epicurus’ will (Diog. 19), whose mother would appear to have been a courtesan, according to Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 16, 6.

[1074] This individual’s name, formerly written Hermachus, appears as Hermarchus in the modern editions of Diogenes, Cicero, and Seneca. The latter form is now established beyond doubt by the Herculanean fragments from Philodemus (περὶ θεῶν διαγωγῆς, vol. vi. col. 13, 20; De Vitiis, ix. vol. iii. col. 25, 1), and the inscription on a monument to him (Antiquitat. Hercul. V. 17). His birthplace was Mytilene, Agemarchus being his father. (Diog. 17, 15, 24.) Diog. 24 gives a list of his books. Epicurus (Diog. 20) describes him as one of his oldest and most faithful friends, in the words: μετὰ τοῦ συγκαταγεγηρακότος ἡμῖν ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ. On his character, see Sen. Ep. 6, 6.

[1075] According to what is stated in the testament of Epicurus. Diog. 16.

[1076] Colotes, a native of Lampsacus. Diog. 25. Further particulars about him may be obtained from Plut. Adv. Col. 17, 5; 1, 1; N. P. Suav. Vivi, 1, 1; Macrob. Somn. Scip. i. 2. Vol. Hercul. iv. Introd. in Polystr. p. iii.

[1077] In particular, Neocles, Chairedemus, and Aristobulus, the brothers of Epicurus (Diog. 3, 28; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 5, 3; where Ἀγαθόβουλος is evidently a copyist’s error; 16, 3; De Lat. Viv. 3, 2); Idomeneus, a native of Lampsacus (Diog. 25; 22; 23; 5; Plut. Adv. Col. 18, 3; Strabo, xiii. 1, 19, p. 589; Athen. vii. 279; Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας. Fr. 72, Vol. Herc. v. 2; Sen. Ep. 21, 3 and 7; 22, 5; Phot. Lex.; and Suid. Πύθια καὶ Δήλια), from whose historical writings many fragments are quoted by Müller, Fragm. Hist. Gr. ii. 489; Leonteus, likewise a native of Lampsacus (Diog. 5; 25; Plut. Adv. Col. 3, 3; Strabo, l.c.); Herodotus (Diog. 4 and 34); Pythocles (Diog. 5 and 83; Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 12, 1; Adv. Col. 29, 2; Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας, Fr. 6); Apelles (Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 12, 1); Menœceus (Diog. 121); Nicanor (Diog. 20); Timocrates, the brother of Metrodorus, who afterwards fell out with Epicurus (Diog. 4 and 6; 23 and 28; Cic. N. D. i. 33, 93: Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 16, 9; Adv. Col. 32, 7; Comment. in Hesiod. Fr. 7, 1; Philodem. περὶ παῤῥησίας, Vol. Herc. v. a, col. 20). This Timocrates must not be confounded with the Athenian Timocrates, whom Epicurus appointed his heir, jointly with Amynomachus (Diog. 16; Cic. Fin. ii. 31, 101). The two last named were probably pupils of Epicurus. Other pupils were: Mithras, a Syrian, an official under Lysimachus (Diog. 4 and 28; Plut. Adv. Col. 33, 2; N. P. Suav. Viv. 15, 5); Mys, a slave of Epicurus, on whom he bestowed liberty (Diog. 21; 3; 10; Gell. ii. 18, 8; Macrob. Sat. i. 11; the ladies mentioned on p. 407, 2, 3; likewise Anaxarchus, to whom Epicurus addressed a letter, and Timarchus, to whom Metrodorus addressed one (Plut. Adv. Col. 17, 3); Hegesianax, who died early (Plut. N. P. Suav. Vivi, 20, 5); the poet Menander, whose wondrous epigram on Epicurus is to be found in the anthology; and probably Dionysius ὁ μεταθέμενος. (See above, p. 44, 1.)

[1078] Diog. 16. In Cicero’s time, the plot of ground, together with the tenement standing thereupon, and at that time in ruins (parietinæ), was in the hands of C. Memmius, a distinguished Roman, to whom Cicero wrote (Ad Fam. xiii. 1), conf. Ad Att. v. 11, begging him to restore it to the School. Whether he was successful is not known from Sen. Ep. 21, 10.

[1079] Diog. 25. does not say that Polystratus was a personal disciple of Epicurus, but it seems probable. Fragments of a treatise of his περὶ ἀλόγου καταφρονήσεως in the fourth volume of Vol. Hercul.

[1080] According to Valer. Max. i. 8, ext. 17, both these individuals were born on the same day, and passed their whole lives together with a common purse. Lysias, according to the older text of Diog. x. 25, was a cotemporary, at whose house Hermarchus died, as Fabric. Bibl. Gr. iii. 606 believes, and who is styled in Athen. v. 215, b, tyrant of Tarsus, Cobet, however, reads παραλύσει instead of παρὰ Λυσίᾳ.

[1081] Diog. 25. The Dionysius referred to can hardly be Dionysius ὁ μεταθέμενος (see p. 44, 1), or Diogenes would have said so. Besides the chronology forbids such an assumption.

[1082] Strabo, xiv. 2, 20, p. 658. He is probably the Protarchus whose sayings are quoted by Simpl. Phys. 78, a; Themist. Phys. 27, a.

[1083] According to Strabo, l.c., Diog. 26, Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. iii. 137, Math. viii. 348, x. 219, Erotian, Lex. Hippocr. Κλαγγώδη, Demetrius was one of the most distinguished Epicureans. Whether a treatise on mathematics, illegible fragments of which are found in Herculaneum (Vol. Herc. iv. Introd. in Polystr. iii. 2), is his, or belongs to another Demetrius mentioned by Strabo, xii. 3, 16, page 548, it is impossible to say.

[1084] Both the Ptolemies of Alexandria (Diog. 25); Diogenes of Tarsus (Diog. vi. 81; x. 26; 97; 118; 136; 138); Orion (Diog. 26); Timagoras (Cic. Acad. ii. 25, 80); and also Metrodorus of Stratonice, who went over from Epicurus to Carneades (Diog. 9)—a very rare thing for an Epicurean to do—may be named among his pupils.

[1085] According to Athen. xii. 547, a, Ælian, V. H. ix. 12, two Epicureans, Alcius and Philiscus, were banished from Rome, in the consulate of L. Postumius (173 or 155 B.C.; see Clinton’s Fasti), because of their evil influence on youth. Although the story is obviously taken from a hostile authority and in Suid. (Ἐπίκουρος, vol. i. b, 419 Bern.), it is told with such exaggerations as to inspire grave mistrust, it can hardly be altogether without some foundation. Plut. N. P. Suav. V. 19, 4, says, that in some cities severe laws were passed against the Epicureans, and just at that time there was a strong feeling in Rome against innovations, witness the well-known enquiry into the Bacchanalia instituted 186 B.C.

[1086] According to Cic. Tusc. iv. 3, 6, Amafinius seems to have come forward not long after the philosophic embassy of 156 B.C.; nor is this at variance with Lucr. v. 336, who claims primus cum primis to have set forth the Epicurean teaching in Latin. His works made a great impression at the time, according to Cic. l.c. (cujus libris editis commota multitudo contulit se ad eam potissimum disciplinam). According to Acad. i. 2, 5, he pursued natural science, carefully following the views of Epicurus. Cicero then complains of him and Rabirius, we know not which one is meant, nor whether he was an Epicurean, qui nulla arte adhibita de rebus ante oculos positis vulgari sermone disputant: nihil definiunt, nihil partiuntur, &c. Conf. Tusc. ii. 3, 7. Cassius, too (Cic. Ad Fam. xv. 12), calls him and Catius (see p. 414, 3) mali verborum interpretes.

[1087] Cic. Tusc. iv. 3, 7: Post Amafinium autem multi ejusdem æmuli rationis multa cum scripsissent, Italiam totam occupaverunt, quodque maxumum argumentum est non dici illa subtiliter, quod et tam facile ediscantur et ab indoctis probentur, id illi firmamentum esse discipliæ putant. Conf. in Fin. i. 7, 25, the question: Cur tam multi sint Epicurei?

[1088] Surnamed ὁ κηποτύραννος, the writer of more than 400 books. Diog. 25; 2; 13; vii. 181.

[1089] Diog. vii. 35, x. 25, and Procl. in Euclid. 55, says that Zeno was a native of Sidon, and a pupil of Apollodorus; nor can these statements be referred to an older Zeno, as some previous writers maintained, believing Apollodorus to be called in error a pupil of Epicurus by Diog. x. 25, instead of to the one mentioned by Cicero. For no trace of such a one exists; and Diogenes vii. 35 would then have passed over the teacher of Cicero without notice, although the latter cannot possibly have been unknown to him. According to Cic. Acad. i. 12, 46, Zeno attended the lectures of Carneades and admired them; and since Carneades died not later than 129 B.C., Zeno cannot have been born much later than 150 B.C. If, therefore, Zeno was really the successor of Apollodorus, the latter must be placed entirely in the second century. But this fact is not sufficiently established. Cicero, in company with Atticus, attended his lectures (Cic. l.c.; Fin. i. 5, 16; Tusc. iii. 17, 38. In Cic. N. D. i. 21, 58, Cotta says the same of himself), on his first visit to Athens, 78 or 79 B.C.; conf. N. D. i. 34, 93; but this cannot possibly be the same Zeno or Xeno (as Krische, Forsch. 26, maintains) whom Cic. Ad Att. v. 10, 11; xvi. 3 mentions as living in 50 and 43 B.C. Cic. N. D. i. 21, calls him princeps Epicureorum (and Philo of Larissa, coryphæus Epicureorum); Tusc. l.c., acriculus senex, istorum (Epicureans) acutissimus. Diog. x. 25, calls him πολύγραφος ἀνήρ. From Procl. in Euclid. 55; 59; 60, we hear of a treatise of Zeno, in which he attacked the validity of mathematical proofs. Philodemus’ treatise περὶ παῤῥησίας (Vol. Herc. v. a) seems, from the title, to have been an abstract from Zeno. Cotemporary with Zeno was that Aristio, or Athenio, who played a part in Athens during the Mithridatic war, and is sometimes called a Peripatetic, and sometimes an Epicurean (Plut. Sulla, 12; 14; 23). See Zeller’s Philosophie der Griechen, vol. ii. b, 759, 2. Perhaps to the time of his despotism the statement may be referred (Demetrius Magnes in Athen.