[59]. See for more, Egger, p. 347 sq.
[60]. This doctrine, best known to English readers, perhaps, from Mr Arnold’s not quite fair application of it to Théophile Gautier, is of much more general application in the original (Enchiridion, cap. 52). Man being represented as a voyager to a far country, all occupations save duty and philosophy are really mere “inns on the journey,” pleasant perhaps for a night, but not good to stay in. “Eloquence” is specially dwelt on as one of these “inns.”
[61]. Who thanks Heaven (i. 17) that he did not make more progress in rhetoric and poetry.
[62]. V. infra, bk. ii. p. 245 sq.
[63]. Freedom from trouble and pain; the former, especially, being the technical term for the Epicurean nonchalance.
[64]. Ed. Ludhaus. Leipsic, 1892.
[65]. The incomprehensibleness of things; the impossibility of certain knowledge.
[66]. Ed. Bekker. Berlin, 1842.
[67]. This is proved in the usual fallacy-fashion: Time must be past, present, or future. Admittedly, neither past nor future time is; present time is either divisible or indivisible, to each of which there is an objection.
[68]. ἐμπειρία.