<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:O.ocellus_lucanus_1</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:O.ocellus_lucanus_1</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:base="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><body xml:lang="eng" n="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><div type="textpart" subtype="alphabetic_letter" n="O"><div type="textpart" subtype="entry" xml:id="ocellus-lucanus-bio-1" n="ocellus_lucanus_1"><head><label xml:id="tlg-1545"><persName xml:lang="la"><forename full="yes">Ocellus</forename><surname full="yes">Luca'nus</surname></persName></label></head><p>(<label xml:lang="grc">Ὄκελλος Λευκανός</label>), as his name implies, was a
      Lucanian, and a Pythagorean in some sense.</p><p>Ocellus is mentioned in a letter from Archytas to Plato, which is preserved by Diogenes
      Laertius (8.80), and in this letter the works above mentioned are enumerated. If the letter of
      Archytas is genuine, it proves that Ocellus lived some time before Archytas, for it speaks of
      the descendants of Ocellus. Nothing is said in the letter about Ocellus being a Pythagorean.
      Lucian (<hi rend="ital">Pro Lapsu,</hi> &amp;c. vol. i. p. 729, ed. Hemst.) speaks of Ocellus
      and Archytas as acquainted with Pythagoras, but we know that Archytas lived at least a hundred
      years after Pythagoras, and Lucian's historical facts are seldom to be relied on. Ocellus is
      mentioned by still later writers, but their evidence determines nothing as to his
       period.<note place="margin" anchored="true">GRC: 6/10/08: moved this paragraph up to separate the life from the works and to
       make this article more consistent with the rest.</note></p><div><head>Works</head><p>There were attributed to him a work, <foreign xml:lang="grc">Περὶ Νόμου</foreign>, or
        <title>on Law</title>; <foreign xml:lang="grc">περὶ βασιλείας καὶ
       ὁσιότητος</foreign>, <title>on Kingly Rule and Piety</title>; an <foreign xml:lang="grc">περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς φύσιος</foreign>, <title>on the Nature of the Whole</title>, which
       last is extant, though whether it is a genuine work is doubtful, or, at least, much
       disputed.</p><div><head><foreign xml:lang="grc">περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς φύσιος</foreign>, <title>on the
         Nature of the Whole</title></head><p>As he was a Lucanian, Ocellus would write in the Doric dialect, and as the work attributed
        to him is in the Ionic, this has been made a ground for impugning its genuineness; but so
        far from being an argument against the genuineness of the work, this is in its favour, and
        only shows that some copyist had altered the dialect. Besides this, the fragments from this
        work, which Stobaeus cites, are in the Doric dialect. It is, however, always a doubtful
        matter as to early works, which are first mentioned by writers of a much later period,
        whether they are really genuine. If the existing work is not genuine we must suppose that
        when it was fabricated the original was lost. It is also possible that it is a kind of new
        modelled edition of the original; and it is also possible that the <pb n="3"/> extant work
        is the original itself, which the brevity and simple close reasoning render a probable
        conclusion.</p><p>This small treatise is divided into four chapters. The first chapter shows that the whole
         (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τὸ πᾶν</foreign>, or <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὁ
         κόσμος</foreign>) had no beginning, and will have no end. He maintains that it is
        consistent with his views of the Cosmos that men have always existed, but he admits that the
        earth is subject to great revolutions, that Greece (Hellas) has often been and will be
        barbarous, and that it has sustained great physical changes. The object of the sexual
        intercourse, he says, is not pleasure, but the procreation of children and the permanence of
        the human race. Accordingly, the commerce of the sexes should be regulated by decency,
        moderation, and congruity in the male and female, in order that healthy beings may be
        produced, and that families may be happy; for families compose states, and if the parts are
        unsound, so will the whole be. The book appears to be a fragment. The physical philosophy is
        crude and worthless, but the fundamental ideas are clearly conceived and happily
        expressed.</p><div><head>Editions</head><p><bibl>The best editions are by A. F. W. Rudolphi, Leipzig, 1801-8, with copious notes and
          commentaries, and by Mullach</bibl>; <bibl>the latter edition bears the title,
          "Aristotelis de Melisso, Xenophane et Gorgia Disputationes cum Eleaticorum pilosophorum
          fragmentis, et Ocelli Lucani, qui fertur, de universe natura libello." Berlin,
          1846.</bibl><bibl>There is another good edition by Batteux, Paris, 1768, three vols. 12mo.</bibl><bibl>An edition was published at Berlin, 1762, 8vo., by the Marquis d'Argens, with a
          French translation, and a good commentary.</bibl></p></div><div><head>Translations</head><p><bibl>Ocellus was translated into English by Thomas Taylor, 1831, 8vo.</bibl></p></div></div></div><byline>[<ref target="author.G.L">G.L</ref>]</byline></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>