Immagini della pagina
PDF
ePub

arm, is a bold, but happy and original exaggeration.

The subsequent scene between Euclio and Lyconides in the one, Harpagon and Valere in the other, is a specimen of natural équivoque; a recourse which seldom fails on the stage, even when it is extravagant. They mutually mistake each other's meaning most humorously: and the Pot and the Daughter being both of the same gender, the pronouns are let in to play their part with very great effect.

Thus far the ancient and modern poets go hand in hand and good taste will bear Moliere out in those incidental touches of humour which he has superinduced. Indeed there is nothing in him so extravagant as the supposition of Strobilus, that Euclio's desire of saving carries him so far, as not only to grudge the escape of smoke from his kitchen chimney, but to catch his own breath while asleep, in a bag fastened to his mouth and throat. We may also notice the "ostende etiam tertiam" of Plautus, and the conceit of the cooks being all of Geryon's race, and having six hands a-piece. But whether Moliere can be justified when he travels so far out of the record as to superadd new circumstances to the character of the miser, may be much doubted. I feel quite clear, that to represent him in love, albeit that passion owes its birth and death to avarice, is not natural, and therefore a fault. Avarice is an engrossing and exclusive tyrant. The making Harpagon a usurer, and that towards his own son, renders the character more complicated than that of Euclio, who, having become rich by chance, has no object beyond the safe custody of his treasure. Harpagon's eager

ness to amass by accumulation of interest, as well as to save by abstinence from expense, is perfectly in keeping with the avaricious character, as it appears in modern life, and therefore may, I think, be considered as a judicious graft on the original stock.

The last piece of Moliere I shall notice is, Les Fourberies de Scapin. In this hero of the shoulderknot, the French poet, without direct copying, has brought together the humours of both Plautus and Terence, in that favourite and soul of the ancient stage, the currens Servus, qui fallit Senem. He has, however, in the much canvassed scene between Geronte and Scapin, descended to farce, and to the minor humour of dialect. But the general liveliness and rapid succession of intrigue is quite in the style of Plautus, especially in the fictitious adventure of the Turkish galley. The art with which the spectators are informed of the intended stratagem, by means of one character talking to himself, on the supposition of being alone, and of another overhearing and forming his own plans by what he says, is very much in Terence's spirit. Indeed Scapin bears a strong resemblance to Davus, in the Andrian. The first scene of the piece is also cleverly contrived, where the "plot is insinuated into the boxes," by means of a monosyllabic and tautological footman, who performs the office of Sosia in listening dutifully to his master's story. But it is time to close these remarks, which are becoming too desultory. Enough has been said to prove, that Moliere has, on the whole, shown taste and skill in adapting Plautus and Terence to modern manners, similar to what those masters of the Roman comedy have exhibited, in the dress they

have given to their originals. In one respect the task of the modern was more difficult, because he found it necessary to make his characters French, scarcely with the exception of his gods: but the Latin authors, in many cases, did not even take the trouble to shift their scene from Athens.

ON THE EPICUREAN PHILOSOPHY.

γε

Ἐπίκουρος ὁ Γαργήττιος ἔλεγεν, ᾧ ὀλίγον οὐχ ̓ ἱκανὸν, ἀλλὰ τούτῳ οὐδὲν ἱκανὸν.- ELIAN. Var. Hist. lib. iv. cap. 13.

DIOGENES LAERTIUS mentions four persons who bore the name of Epicurus. This circumstance has led Cruquius, in his Commentary on Horace, to doubt whether the Gargettian Epicurus be the founder of the celebrated sect. "Fuit hic Philodemus Epicurus* (ut Strabo scribit) patria Gadaræus: quem Asconius Pedianus in oratione Cic. in Lucium Pisonem, scribit Epicureum fuisse ea ætate nobilissimum: sed arbitror apud Asconium legendum esse pro Epicureum, Epicurum dictum, ut habet Strabo, vel hunc ex illo restituendum : tamen Epicuri cujusdam (quem etiam Gargettium nominat) frequens est mentio apud Stobæum." This hesitation seems to have been excited by the passage in Stobæus; but Statius, Cicero, Ælian, and Diogenes Laertius, all agree as to the birth-place of the founder: which is so far material, that supposing the Gargettian to be a different person, and only a follower, he would remain in possession of the excellent maxim ascribed to him by Elian, and much other good morality, and leave the founder with nothing but a burden of metaphysical

* Diogenes Laertius calls Philodemus an Epicurean. Gassendi mentions an Epicurus spoken of by Galen, as a maker of plasters. De Vita et Moribus Epicuri.

nonsense on his shoulders. Assuming, therefore, that there was but one eminent person of this name, he died in the second year of the 127th Olympiad, 129 years after Socrates, and 271 before Christ, and consequently was contemporary with Alexander the Great. This date, which Gassendi says he found in a manuscript, was restored by Isaac Casaubon, the words xal eixoσTs having been omitted by transcribers and printers of D. Laertius, who copied one another, through the inaccuracy of the first. This error left the date 107, and led to the gross anachronism of placing his death in the. reign of Philip, and just after Alexander's birth.

Of his youth, Diogenes Laertius gives this account, not much to the honour of Chærestrata : Καὶ γὰρ σὺν τῇ μήτρι περιϊόντα αὐτὸν ἐς τὰ οἰκίδια, καθαρμούς ἀναγινώσκειν· καὶ σὺν τῷ πατρὶ γράμματα διδάσκειν λυπροῦ τινος μισθαρίου.

Plutarch, in his Disputatio qua docetur ne suaviter quidem vivi posse secundum Epicuri Decreta, gives some curious instances of Epicurus's vanity. It seems he disclaimed being at all indebted to any of his predecessors; and was continually making minute and captious objections against Democritus. We have not the means of refuting or verifying this charge of disingenuous pride; but we know, historically, that if he made the assertion, it was false; because Democritus was born forty years before him, and he borrowed a large portion of his doctrine from the writings of that philosopher. Another anecdote on the same authority is, that he called himself the only wise man.* The third

* Diogenes Laertius, his regular biographer, treats such stories with contempt, and maintains his entire urbanity towards

« IndietroContinua »