ceeding ages has clouded the lustre of his name. The name of this calumniator was Diotimus, a disciple of the school of Zeno; and the work which he produced, was a series of fifty lascivious epistles, to which he affixed the name of Epicurus. In these letters, this great and good man is represented as addicted to drunkenness, to gluttony and gambling; as lascivious, and as habitually violating the laws and the peace of society. These calumnies, like others in modern times, for human nature is the same in all ages, were not without their intended effect, to which also the indignant silence of the philosopher not a little contributed. Dis. daining to commit his dignity by replying to such slanders, he trusted his character to truth, and the irrefragable argument of a life of virtue and usefulness. The purity and rectitude of that life, he was satisfied would amply refute his calumniators, and he lived to enjoy the triumph which his virtues deserved: the slanderer was detected, exposed, and overwhelmed with ignominy.* Nor were the lives of Lucretius and his immediate followers, less reputable and worthy of regard. The friends of Lucretius were the most brilliant ornaments of their country, as well in regard to moral eminence, as to intellectual endowments, efforts, and acquisitions; their very names were synonymous with private friendship, and patriotic virtue. The researches of Gassendi, of Du Rondelle, of Brucker, of Good, and Enfield, have established beyond all controversy, the claims of this teacher and sect, to the highest consideration and praise; and shown, that jealousy of his reputation, and envy of his genius, aggravated indeed by his reprehension of the absurd speculations and impracticable morals of the Stoics and other opponents, together with the consequent diminution of their disciples, were the true causes of all the obloquy and defamation to which he has been exposed. It is true, that the doctrines of the Stoics, (which were by no means new, but a system of eclectism) were impugned by Epicurus, whose object was to introduce a mode of direct and natural reasoning, founded on an actual observation of things, in the place of mystery, speculation, and paradox. Their manners, distinguished only for moroseness and austerity, afforded further occasion for rebuke; and this was impressed not more by verbal reprehension, than by the public and private exhibition of manners engaging, social, natural and kind. "In opposition, therefore, (says Dr. Good) to the Porch, he opened an elegant and delightful garden, and, instead of the grimace of external austerity, exhibited the most captivating urbanity of manners, and facility of address. He denied the absurd doctrine of fatality, the very pivot of the Stoic machinery, and boldly contended for the free agency of man. The school of Zeno had much, therefore, to dread, from such an adversary; its adherents beheld the Porch deserted in its * Vide Good's Life of Lucretius, turn for the garden, and with malicious invention, endeavoured to destroy the fair fame of their adversary." Nor were the adherents of the Academy and the Lyceum, behind the Stoics in the perversity of their misrepresentations, or in the virulence of their invective. Their doctrines, intricate and paradoxical, were strongly contrasted with the simplicity, both in terms and principles, of those of Epicurus, which were therefore a standing reproach, not to be borne by these haughty rivals; and they also commenced and strove to perpetuate the misrepresentations of the Stoics. The charge, so often repeated in modern times, that Epicurus denied the existence of a Deity, is not less erroneous, than malevolent and absurd. He did deny, and refute also, the ridiculous belief of the people in a multiplicity of gods, equally vicious and profligate with themselves; but with regard to the Great Supreme, let us hear his own words:t-"Believe, before all things, that God is an immortal and blessed being; as, indeed, common sense should teach us concerning God. Conceive nothing of him that is repugnant to blessedness and immortality, and admit every thing that is consistent with these perfections." None contended more strenuously for the existence of a Supreme Being than his disciples. He thought, moreover, that there might be intelligences superior to man, who, enjoying a more excellent and glorious nature, took no concern in human affairs: and if these unseen beings were designated by the name of gods, this mode of expression is not without parallelism in the sacred scriptures. To these exalted beings, he endeavoured to assimilate himself by contemplation, and deemed such reflections favourable to purity and tranquillity of life. Unable to determine the essence of Deity, he sought the most perfect proofs of his wisdom, his goodness, and his power; and, by a profound resignation to his will, fortified himself against the calamities of life. Duly appreciating the benefit of such contemplations, he recommended them to his disciples in a series of discourses, of which the following are enumerated by Diogenes Laertius, viz.: ' IIept say, on the Gods: η Περι Οσιότητος, on Piety: Περι Δικαιοπραγίας, on Just Dealings : Περί Δικαισύνης, και των αλλων Αρετών, on Justice and other Virtues: Περί Δώρων και Χαριτων, on Gifts and Graces. He regarded superior intelligences, not as gods in the stricter sense, but rather in the * His ancient enemies never advanced the accusation-they knew his principles better. "Seneca says, that Epicurus worshipped God on account of his most excellent majesty, and supreme nature alone; and Cicero expressly tells us, that he was punctilious in the discharge of his religious duties."-Good. † ΠΡΩΤΟΝ μεν τον ΘΕΟΝ ζωον αφθαρτον, &c. Ad Menæceum. Diog. Laert. Ex. 5. 123. Edit. West. Cited by Good. + It is the opinions concerning these divinities, that are false. Epic ad Men light in which Christians contemplate angels; while he speaks of the Supreme as entirely distinct from those subordinate beings, and represents him as ONE and undivided; as the Incomprehensible, Unseen Power, who is denominated by Lucretius, Vis Numen, Mens Divina, The Present God. There is, therefore, no ground for considering the charge of Atheism in any other view than as malevolent, unfounded and absurd-refuted alike by the precepts, the practice, and the writings of this philosopher. Another charge, not less unfounded, asserts that Epicurus denied that the Supreme Intelligence had any agency in the creation of the world, and that he believed it to have sprung from a fortuitous concurrence of atoms. Plato and Aristotle, as well as Democritus, did indeed conceive the world to be eternal, and intelligent as a whole; but Epicurus and Lucretius opposed this doctrine, so strenuously advocated by the Stoics and others, and urged further, that every atom, in its primordial state, was absolutely senseless and without intelligence. They never promulgated the doctrine of chance as a cause of action, but regarded the planetary and other celestial motions as the result of immutable laws established in the origin of things. With regard to the terms chance, fortune, accident, which occur in the writings of Epicurus, this philosopher distinctly says, that they are to be understood in the popular sense only. Let us hear his opinions, as expressed by himself, on this head: "Whom (says Epicurus, in an Epistle to Menæceus) do you believe to be more excellent than he who piously reveres the gods, who feels no dread of death, and rightly estimates the design of nature? Such a man does not, with the multitude, regard chance as a god; for he knows that God can never act at random; nor as a contingent cause of events; nor does he conceive that from any such power flows the good, or the evil, that attempers the real happiness of human life." In regard to the doctrine of the eternity of matter, Epicurus was unquestionably an avowed advocate. But this, so far from being peculiar to him, was a feature in every philosophical system of antiquity. Nor was the Christian church itself without espousers of the opinion. Justin Martyr affirms it to have been the common belief of his own era, that the Creator of the world formed it out of unfashioned matter;* in which respect, says he, Moses, the Platonists, and ourselves, are all agreed. "That the whole world was created by the word of God, out of plastic matter, (as asserted by Moses,) Plato and his adherents affirm, and ourselves have been taught to believe."t Justin Martyr, c. lix. p. 78.-(Cited by Good.) The opprobrium of the dogma, therefore, should be shared by the Platonists, the Παντα, την αρχήν, αγαθόν οντα δημιουργήσαι αυτόν εξ αμόρφου ύλης, δι ανθρώπους Siddagμida. Apol. i. 10. (Cited by Good.) † Milton also admits the pre-existence of matter in a chaotic state. Aristotelians, &c. among the ancients, and by many illustrious writers in modern times. "In other respects, the doctrine he inculcated was perfectly coincident with the creed of almost every modern geologist, whether Plutonic or Neptunian, and which has been gradually gaining ground from the age of Des Cartes."* The doctrine of a future state was certainly not among the tenets of Epicurus and his disciples; but this will not be objected to him by those who believe that "life and immortality have been brought to light by the Gospel." "It is," says the celebrated Locke, "beyond the discovery of reason, and is purely a matter of faith." While, however, Socrates and Seneca did not refuse to degrade themselves by worshipping the gods of the people, and assisting at their sacrifices, this consistent and illustrious • moralist devoted himself to those quiet contemplations, that enabled him to manifest through life a purity and simplicity of heart and conduct unattained by any of his rival defamers. It might not be uninteresting to notice here, that form of Epicurism which has been so pleasantly portrayed and exemplified by several fine writers in France, during the last century. There is about them a cheerfulness, a gaité de cœur, which results from the possession, in an eminent degree, of that art which gives consequence to all others-we mean the sçavoir vivre. The French, above all other people, appear to have understood and relished this practical philosophy. In the pleasures of imagination and taste, they exhibit an enviable connoisseurship. With them, life is not that indefinable good which we in this country, in imitation of our brethren of England, are too much accustomed to regard it. The excellences of liberal learning, a pervading taste for music, painting, and statuary, a quick perception of, and high relish for the charms of poetry, a devoted friendship, and the delights of a refined and joyous social intercourse, are the inexhaustible sources from which they extract a large portion of the enjoyments which make life "A gift indeed, and worthy of the Giver." We reserve, however, the consideration of this subject for a future occasion. The "Rerum Natura" has generally been deemed of difficult interpretation; but the success which has attended the labours of Dr. Good, will remove from the future inquirer any objection on this point to a perusal of this eminent author. The mode of versification which he has adopted, is that of blank verse; in the construction of which, Akenside, in his "Pleasures of Imagination," appears to have been in a considerable degree his model. Great care has been taken to preserve a regular succession in the • Vide Good's Life of Lucretius. feet, and, so far as seems to have been practicable, in the variation of the pauses. Occasionally an epithet or mode of expression occurs, which strongly reminds us of Thomson, or of Cowper in his Iliad; and these are in most instances happily introduced, and always warranted at least by the tenor of the text. A distinguishing merit of the version is its scrupulous accuracy. Profoundly acquainted with the language, and a minute critical scholar, Dr. G. has drawn to his aid various translations in most of the modern tongues, and thus succeeded in accomplishing the essential part of his task. The liberties taken by Creech are invariably avoided; he adds nothing essential, and is equally cautious of withholding any portion of the original. A comparison of the proemial lines of the two translations will illustrate these remarks. They comprise an address to Venus, the goddess acknowledged by the ancients as the source of animal and vegetable life; and therefore, as the symbol of universal generation, properly invoked in a poem on the origin of things. We give, first, the passage from Dr. Good: "Parent of Rome! by gods and men beloved, Hastes, at thy shrine, to plant the future race." We insert a part of the same passage in the language of Creech: "Kind Venus, glory of the blest abodes, Parent of Rome; chief joy of men and gods: Delight of all, comfort of sea and earth: To whose kind powers all creatures owe their birth: |