This library is built in the open.
If you spot an error, have a suggestion, or just want to say hello — we’d love to hear from you.

school. Lucian, in his account of the arch-impostor Alexander of Abonoteichos, pays a high tribute to Epicurus and his writings; whence it might hastily be inferred that Lucian was an adherent of the sect, did we not know his real sentiments from his other works. Celsus, to whom he dedicated his Alexander Pseudomantis Original: "The False Prophet.", was a Roman Epicurean, and the praise of the system was intended for him. And another writer, less witty and more serious-minded than Lucian, might none the less occupy a position of detachment.
Diogenes Laertius could not have been at the same time a Sceptic and an Epicurean. But he treats both these sects with genuine sympathetic interest.
The impression left upon the unprejudiced reader by close acquaintance with our author is that he is dealing with a "Dryasdust," A pedantic, dull, or overly dry scholar. vain and credulous, of multifarious reading, amazing industry, and insatiable curiosity. Of his industry there can be no question. When he tells us that he had found something in the Memorabilia of Favorinus (viii. 53 "but I found"), we cannot help believing that he had searched for it himself, and perhaps enjoyed the search as much as the discovery. To countless good stories he has added decrees, epitaphs, epistles; among other documents the last will and testament of no less than six philosophers.
It is hard to realize, at first, how much in the work is borrowed. The numerous references give it an air of erudition, until it dawns upon us that many of these may come from an earlier writer whom Laertius is copying. How many of the two hundred sources cited he had read himself, we have no means of determining. But it is reasonable to assume that