ON THE EPICUREAN PHILOSOPHY.

Ἐπίκουρος ὁ Γαργήττιος ἔλεγεν, ᾧ ὀλίγον οὐχ ̓ ἱκανὸν, ἀλλὰ τούτῳ ye oùdèv ixavòv. — ÆLIAN. 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 xa 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 all descriptions of persons.

involved a most ludicrous application of the atomic system to the circumstances of his mother's gestation: her body contained the exact quantity of atoms, the concourse of which was necessary to form a wise man. Which of these two propositions is the proof, and which the thing to be proved?

In estimating the doctrines of Epicurus, whether moral or philosophical, it will scarcely be necessary to look for materials beyond Cicero, who has given a copious and clear exposition of them: and his testimony on this subject is so much the more valuable, that so far from being that of a flatterer, it was not that of a friend. From a letter to Memmius, who had obtained a grant of a ruinous edifice at Athens belonging to the Epicurean college, and intended to build a house there for himself, but which grant Cicero requests him to wave in favour of his friend Patro, we learn that Cicero commenced his philosophical studies under Phædrus, the probable predecessor of Patro in the college; but that on reflection, and in the maturity of his judgment, he abandoned the sect and abjured its principles. He retained, however, a very high respect for the learning and personal character of his early tutor; but assures Memmius that his good understanding with Patro does not extend to philosophy. His own best considered habits of thinking and rules of action were drawn from the Academy; and are set forth at large in his Tusculan and Academic Questions, where he declares his own adoption of the Socratic system. The object of his treatise De Finibus, was to give a history of the ancient philosophy. Indeed, in his Tusculan and Academic Questions, and in his treatise on the Nature of the Gods, as well as in

that on the chief Good or Ill of Man, he assumes alternately the character of a Stoic, an Epicurean, and a Peripatetic; and for a time forgets his own principles in his zeal to do justice to those whom he temporarily represents: but in his private character of the Academic, he turns round and attacks them all. In one respect this dialogue form rather perplexes philosophical discussion. The reader is, perhaps, not always attentive to the circumstance, whether the speaker of the moment be the author or one of his combatants. This has occasioned Cicero to be charged with many inconsistencies, which a closer application to the course of the dialogue would have reconciled. But this mistake on the part of the reader must be entirely his own fault; for the great Roman is a model of perspicuity as well as elegance, in the conduct of these polite and learned conversations. It may be remarked in passing, that the moderns who have adopted this form have been generally unsuccessful. They have not been happy, like Cicero, in identifying themselves with the character which they for the moment assume their Dramatis Persona are too evidently brought on, merely to be pelted: it is clearly seen at once, what the author's system really is, and that " all the rest is leather and prunella." In short, the grave impatience of modern readers has determined, that philosophical disquisition is best conducted as a serious business, without theatrical ornament or rhetorical declamation.

But however this may be, Cicero's form of composition seems peculiarly adapted to our purpose, wanting as we do to appreciate the character of a philosopher, whose writings have not come down

to us to tell their own tale. Cicero was educated in the doctrine, and therefore understood it: he weighed it in the balance and found it wanting, and therefore threw it off.

With respect to the imputations so current on Epicurus's moral doctrine, and example, there is an important passage in Cicero to a contrary effect, De Finibus, lib. i. cap. 20. :

"Restat locus huic disputationi vel maxime necessarius, de amicitia, quam, si voluptas summum sit bonum, affirmatis nullam omnino fore: de qua Epicurus quidem ita dicit: omnium rerum, quas ad beate vivendum sapientia comparaverit, nihil esse majus amicitia, nihil uberius, nihil jucundius. Neque vero hoc oratione solum, sed multo magis vita, et factis, et moribus comprobavit. Quod quam magnum sit, fictæ veterum fabulæ declarant: in quibus tam multis, tamque variis, ab ultima antiquitate repetitis, tria vix amicorum paria reperiuntur, ut ad Orestem pervenias, profectus a Theseo. At vero Epicurus una in domo, et ea quidem angusta, quam magnos, quantaque amoris conspiratione consentientes tenuit amicorum greges? quod fit etiam nunc ab Epicureis."

This representation is confirmed by the statement of Laertius, somewhat hyperbolical, that whole cities could not have contained the multitude of his friends. We also find that he improved upon the Pythagorean community of goods. Every individual continued master of his own property and patrimony: but a system of mutual kindness and assistance was recommended in principle, and so carried into effect in practice, as to have produced that state of society and friendship so eloquently described by Cicero. We have concurrent

1