and deviated from the straight line of their own accord; they ascribed to them a slight measure of freewill. They have often been ridiculed for this, and, it cannot be denied, with justice; but it is also obvious that there was scarcely any other hypothesis for them to adopt, so long as they adhered to their atheism and materialism.

In even a brief and general estimate of the Epicurean system, this notion, that "when bodies fall sheer down through empty space by their own weights, at quite uncertain times and spots they swerve a little, yet only the least possible, from their course," must have due stress laid on it. For it was no accessory or subordinate feature of the Epicurean theory, but what was most distinctive as well as original in it; what differentiated it from the allied doctrine of Democritus on the one hand, and from the antagonistic doctrine of the Stoics on the other. It was precisely by means of this conception that Epicurus and Lucretius fancied they escaped the necessity of believing either in the creative and providential action of God, or in the sway of fate,-the two beliefs which seemed to them to be the great enemies of mental peace.

The hypothesis of a slight power of deviation in the atoms was rested on two reasons. In the first place, it was needed to explain the formation of the universe without the intervention of a super

natural cause. The formation of the universe supposed collision of the atoms. But variety of shape and even difference of weight failed to account for this. If empty space offers no resistance to anything in any direction at any time, all things, whatever their weight, must move through it with equal velocity. If they so move, however, in perfectly parallel lines, they must move, for ever, without clashing against one another, and consequently without producing varied motions and compound bodies. Thus nature never would have formed anything. How, then, could aught have been produced? Only by a certain freedom of action in nature, or by the free action, the intervention, of a Being above nature. But it was a foregone conclusion with Epicurus and Lucretius, just as it is with a host of modern scientific men, that they would not seek for anything above nature that they would not believe there could be anything beyond matter. They were determined to account for everything entirely by natural principles, by material primordia. Therefore they were compelled to ascribe contingency to nature, spontaneity to matter. At the same time they had a respect for facts, and therefore attributed to nature as little contingency, to matter as little spontaneity, as possible. The atoms must swerve a little, and yet so very little, that neither they nor the bodies composed of them can be

E

described as moving "slantingly" or "obliquely," since this the reality would refute. The only deviations possible must be imperceptible deviations. It has been said that the Epicureans, by ascribing to atoms the power of deviation, introduced a quite incalculable element into their system. But they had foreseen the objection, and also that they could return to it a twofold answer, -namely, first, that the deviations were imperceptible, leaving all that was perceptible calculable, so that there could be nowhere any miracle or interruption of natural action; and secondly, that although it could not be determined when and where an atom would act in the way of deviation, once it had so acted all the results could be determined-or, in other words, that spontaneity and law, contingency and calculation, were not incompatible. Much might, perhaps, be said in defence of these answers. The weakness of the hypothesis lay less at this point than in ignoring the consideration that if the atoms possessed the power of deviation that was itself a fact to be accounted for. Whence came the countless hosts of atoms to be all provided with so remarkable a characteristic ? Some one ground or cause was demanded for their all agreeing in this curious and useful peculiarity. Such single ground or cause could only be a something above and beyond themselves. The feeble wills with which the

atoms were supposed to be endowed implied a mighty supernatural will as their source. For not recognising this single ultimate will Epicurus and Lucretius had no relevant reason. They stopped short at the atoms in sheer wilfulness; they saw nothing beyond them because they had beforehand determined on no account to look beyond them.

In the second place, the hypothesis of a certain degree of spontaneity in the atoms recommended itself to the Epicureans as a warrant for rejecting fatalism, and as an explanation of freewill in living things. Epicurus pronounced the fatalism of the physicists and philosophers even more disquieting and discouraging than superstition; the goodwill of the gods might be gained by honouring them, but there are no means by which fate can be controlled. He and his followers accepted freewill in man as a fact fully guaranteed to them by consciousness and observation. But if there be freewill in man there must be freewill elsewhere to account for it; only nothing can come from nothing; only necessity from necessity. If, then, there be no Being above nature, and all must be explained from nature, freewill must have its cause in nature, and nature cannot be wholly subject to necessity. "If all motion is ever linked together, and a new motion ever springs from another in a fixed order, and first beginnings do

not by swerving make some commencement of motion to break through the decrees of fate, that cause follow not cause from everlasting, whence have all living creatures here on earth, whence, I ask, has been wrested from the fates the power by which we go forward whither the will leads. each, by which likewise we change the direction of our motions neither at a fixed time nor fixed place, but when and where the mind itself has prompted?" The Roman poet could give to this question of his own no more rational answer on materialistic principles than the one which has been mentioned. If the materialist maintain that there is nothing but necessity in nature, he must maintain also that there is nothing but necessity in man. If he admit that there is spontaneity or freedom in man, he must admit that it is inherent Necessity in both nature and man, or freedom in both, is the only reasonable alternative. The effort to deduce truly voluntary movements from purely mechanical causes is nonsensical. But when Epicurus and Lucretius followed reason so far, why did they not follow it farther, and pack reason as well as will into their atoms, and emotion and conscience too, and so endow each atom with a complete mind? They might at least have anticipated Professor Clifford, and told us that "a moving molecule of inorganic matter possesses a small piece of mind-stuff."

likewise in nature.