amore virum sapientem dixerit, et ipsius Epicuri exemplo inter cæteros id probarit: Chrysippum autem contradixisse, et Epicurum quod attineret, excepisse nihil ex ejus exemplo concludi quoniam foret ἀναίσθητος, sensu carens. This uncandid exposition of an admitted virtue only proves, that the odium theologicum is the lineal descendant of the odium philosophicum. But be that as it may, we receive evidence from various sources, that Epicurus and his disciples were exact in the practice of virtue, and enjoyed the reputation of men trustworthy in all offices of friendship or integrity. They were neither buffoons nor profligates. Cicero has a passage, De Natur. Deor. lib. i. cap. 33., which seems not quite consistent with the urbane character elsewhere given of him, and supports the charge brought by Plutarch and others, that he professed to be αὐτοδίδακτος : "Sed stomachabatur senex, si quid asperius dixeram? cum Epicurus contumeliosissime Aristotelem vexaverit: Phædoni Socratico turpissime maledixerit: Metrodori, sodalis sui, fratrem, Timocratem, quia nescio quid in philosophia dissentiret, totis voluminibus conciderit: in Democritum ipsum, quem secutus est, fuerit ingratus: Nausiphanem, magistrum suum, a quo nihil (or nonnihil according to Pearce's conjecture) didicerat, tam male acceperit." That Epicurus should have quarrelled with Timocrates, can be matter neither of wonder nor reproach, when we find that refractory disciple not only deserting the sect, but representing his master as a glutton and a drunkard, and joining in those other slanders on the part of the Stoics, which are so clearly refuted in Gassendi's Life of Epi curus. Among the most scandalous of these is that relating to Leontium, in Athenaeus, lib. xiii. : Οὗτος οὖν Επίκουρος 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 ἐπιστολῶν. 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 But Villoison shows, from the subscription of a bronze statue found at Herculaneum, and from an unpublished treatise of Philodemus on rhetoric, that the name is as given by Schweighæuser, on these authorities, Hermarchus.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: Οὐδὲν δυσαρεστότερον ὡς ἔοικεν ἐστὶ πάλιν μειρακιευομένου πρεστ βύτου. 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 ἐπιστο λὰς 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 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 |