Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub

curus. Among the most scandalous of these is that relating to Leontium, in Athenæus, lib. xiii. :

Οὗτος οὖν Ἐπίκουρος οὐ Λεόντιον εἶχεν ἐρωμένην, τὴν ἐπὶ ἑταιρείᾳ διαβόητον γενομένην; ἡ δὲ οὐχ, ὅτε φιλοσοφεῖν ἤρξατο, ἐπαύσατο ἑταιροῦσα, πᾶσί τε τοῖς Ἐπικουρείοις συνῆν ἐν τοῖς κήποις, ̓Επικούρῳ δὲ καὶ ἀναφανδόν· ὥστ ̓ ἐκεῖνον πολλὴν φροντίδα ποιούμενον αὐτῆς, τοῦτ ̓ ἐμφανίζειν διὰ τῶν πρὸς Ἕρμαρχον ἐπι

στολῶν.

This is the Hermachus of Diogenes Laert. x. 15., and of Cicero De Finib. ii. 30., of the old editions of Athenæus, of Seneca, and of Plutarch. But Villoison shows, from the subscription of a bronze statue found at Herculaneum, and from an unpublished treatise of Philodemus on rhetoric, that the name is as given by Schweighæuser, on these authorities, Hermarchus. He is mentioned by Philodemus, as it appears, as a very celebrated philosopher, and was the heir and successor of Epicurus.

With respect to the numerous letters ascribed to him, on which it has been attempted to establish a disadvantageous impression of his personal character, a large collection of them is stated to have been forged for scandalous purposes: —

Διότιμος δὲ ὁ Στωϊκὸς δυσμενῶς ἔχων πρὸς αὐτὸν, πικρότατα αὐτὸν διαβέβληκεν, ἐπιστολὰς φέρων πεντήκοντα ἀσελγεῖς, ὡς Επικούρου· καὶ τὰ εἰς Χρύσιππον ἀναφερόμενα ἐπιστόλια, ὡς Επικούρου συντάξας.

With respect to the pious frauds, according to the morality of rival schools, and the system of defamation, by which an unfavourable impression of Epicurus was produced, as well as the insidious use made of his doctrine by some of his disciples, we have again an unsuspicious witness in Seneca, De Vita beata, cap. 12. "Ita non ab Epicuro im

pulsi luxuriantur, sed vitiis dediti, luxuriam suam in philosophiæ sinu abscondunt: et eo concurrunt, ubi audiunt laudari voluptatem. Nec æstimatur voluptas illa Epicuri (ita enim mehercules sentio) quam sobria et sicca sit: sed ad nomen ipsum advolant, quærentes libidinibus suis patrocinium aliquod ac velamentum.”

In the same spirit of calumny, a letter appears in the second book of Alciphron, professedly written from Leontium to Lamia. It begins thus:

[ocr errors]

Οὐδὲν δυσαρεστότερον ὥς ἔοικεν ἐστὶ πάλιν μειρακιευομένου πρεσβύτου. οἷα με Επίκουρος οὗτος διοικεῖ, πάντα λοιδορῶν, πάντα ὑποπτεύων, ἐπιστολὰς ἀδιαλύτους μοὶ γράφων, ἐκδιώκων ἐκ τοῦ κήπου. μὰ τὴν ̓Αφροδίτην εἰ ̓́Αδωνις ἦν ἤδη ἐγγὺς ὀγδοήκοντα γεγονὼς ἔτη, οὐκ ἄν αὐτοῦ ἠνεσχόμην φθειριῶντος καὶ φιλονοσοῦντος καὶ καταπεπιλημένου εὖ μάλα πόκοις ἀντὶ πίλων.

This letter carries internal marks of forgery. Leontium represents her old lover as eighty years of age now Epicurus died in his seventy-second year, and Leontium died before him. In proof of this we find in Gassendi, that she was either the wife or the mistress Metrodori, sodalis sui, as Cicero has it; and that they left a son, mentioned in Epicurus's will, as an orphan recommended by his friend Metrodorus. This anachronism is decisive; and there are other suspicious circumstances about the letter. In the passage above quoted, she says, that he sent her letters written in such a style that no ingenuity can solve their meaning; and in another passage, she says she will rather change this land for some other, ἤ τὰς ἐπιστολὰς αὐτοῦ τὰς διασπάστους ἀνέξομαι. Again she speaks of him in point of language, as if ̓ ἐκ Καππαδοκίας πρῶτος τὴν Ἑλλάδα ἥκων. Now it is very unlikely that his

letters should be disjointed, when we have the testimony of Diogenes Laertius, that perspicuity was the sole object of attainment in his style. With respect to the Cappadocian brogue or slang imputed to him, there certainly is a passage in Athenæus immediately before that just quoted, where his style is represented as inelegant: and Casaubon, in his notes, affirms that Epicurus could not speak the Greek language correctly. He does not state his authority for that assertion; so that it may possibly be no better than this lady's supposititious sarcasm on his Cappadocian-like dialect. But the expressions of Athenæus are easily reconcilable with those of Diogenes Laertius. The probability is, that aiming at perspicuity, he neglected the ornaments of eloquence: his periods might be unmelodious, and his style rather let down to vulgar capacity, than raised to the level of polished society; but clearness and connection were necessary in a writer or a lecturer, who wished to lead his classes through the intricacies of so perplexed a labyrinth.

Metrodorus, as well as Timocrates, is said to have deserted the standard of his leader. Against this supposition, Gassendi, De Vita et Moribus Epicuri, adduces the following argument. "Sane

si Metrodorus a vivente adhuc Epicuro defecisset, quæsitum non fuisset ex Arcesila (qui duodecim annis Epicuro supervixit) cur homines a cæteris ad Epicureos, ab Epicureis vero ad cæteros non commigrarent." Had two conspicuous instances of desertion been before the public, such a question would scarcely have been put to Arcesilaus. But whatever may be thought of that proof, and Bayle treats it with great contempt, it is not probable

that the son of a person, who had been inconstant in so important a matter as sectarian adherence, would be kindly mentioned in the will of his injured friend or at all events, however placable that friend might be in his nature, the seceder must have had a more than usual share of assurance, to have been the first proposer of such an adoption. But to the continuance of the friendship between Epicurus and Metrodorus, we have Seneca's testimony. After speaking of Rutilius, Epist. 79. "Nunquid non sorti suæ gratias egit, et exsilium suum complexus est? De his loquor, quos illustravit fortuna, dum vexat: quam multorum profectus in notitiam evasere, post ipsos? quam multos fama non excepit, sed eruit? Vides Epicurum, quantopere non tantum eruditiores, sed hæc quoque imperitorum turba miretur. Hic ignotus ipsis Athenis fuit, circa quas delituerat. Multis itaque jam annis Metrodoro suo superstes, in quadam epistola, cum amicitiam suam et Metrodori, grata commemoratione cecinisset, hoc novissime adjecit, Nihil sibi et Metrodoro inter bona tanta nocuisse, quod ipsos illa nobilis Græcia non ignotos solum habuisset, sed pene inauditos. Numquid ergo non postea, quam esse desierat, inventus est? numquid non opinio ejus emicuit? Hoc Metrodorus quoque in quadam epistola confitetur, se et Epicurum non satis eminuisse: sed post, se et Epicurum, magnum paratumque nomen habituros, apud eos qui voluissent per eadem ire vestigia.”

Chrysippus and Epicurus are represented as the two most voluminous writers of the philosophical tribe. Diogenes Laertius, lib. x. num. 26., gives the palm to Epicurus. Téyove dè ToλvypαΓέγονε πολυγρα φώτατος ὁ Ἐπίκουρος, πάντας ὑπερβαλλόμενος πλήθει βιβλίων·

But Chrysippus was so animated with a spirit of rivalship, that no sooner had Epicurus put forth one book, than he wrote another; and that with so much more haste than good speed, that he fell into continual incorrectness and repetition, in consequence of not allowing himself time to read over his rough copy. On this subject we have a passage in the life of Chrysippus, lib. vii. num. 181. Καὶ ̓Απολλόδωρος δὲ ὁ ̓Αθηναῖος ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ τῶν δογμάτων βουλόμενος παριστάνειν, ὅτι τὰ Ἐπικούρου οἰκείᾳ δυνάμει γε γραμμένα, καὶ ἁπαράθετα ὄντα, μύριῳ πλείω ἐστὶ τῶν Χρυ σίππου βιβλίων, φησὶν οὕτως αὐτῇ τῇ λέξει, Εἴ γάρ τις ἀφέλοι τῶν Χρυσίππου βιβλίων ὅσ ̓ ἀλλότρια παρατέθειται, κενὸς αὐτῷ ὁ χάρτης καταλελείψεται. . The number of volumes written by Epicurus is stated at three hundred, without a single quotation: Chrysippus, on the contrary, is represented as a mere compiler, confining himself to the collection of authorities.

Without entering into the minutiae of an exploded philosophy, the leading doctrines of Epicurus are, the atomic system, in which he deviates from the dogma of Democritus concerning the soul of atoms; a set of opinions, which lead in their consequences to impiety, whatever might be the intention or the practice of their author, concerning the nature of the gods: and his method of explaining liberty.

St. Augustin, in his refutation of Democritus, has pointed out a difference between him and Epicurus, which has not been noticed by writers in general. "Quanquam Democritus etiam hoc distare in naturalibus quæstionibus ab Epicuro dicitur, quod iste sentit inesse concursioni atomorum vim quandam animalem et spiritalem: qua vi eum credo et imagines ipsas divinitate præditas

« IndietroContinua »