testimony to prove, that the moral practice of the sect, touching this class of duties, did not degenerate for some ages; and that its disciples enjoyed profound peace among themselves, while others were torn to pieces by party quarrels.* They are distinctly traced down to the second century, and from the union which then subsisted between them, it seems probable that they continued a compact and mutually well affected body for some time longer. The testimony of Cicero, in the second book, chap. 25., is still stronger to the correctness of Epicurus's personal conduct: "Ratio ista, quam defendis; præcepta, quæ didicisti, quæ probas; funditus evertunt amicitiam: quamvis eam Epicurus, ut facit, in cœlum efferat laudibus. At coluit ipse amicitias. Quasi quis illum neget et bonum virum, et comem, et humanum fuisse. De ingenio ejus in his disputationibus, non de moribus quæritur. . . . . Ac mihi quidem, quod et ipse bonus vir fuit, et multi Epicurei fuerunt, et hodie sunt et in amicitiis fideles, et in omni vita constantes, et graves, nec voluptate, sed officio consilia moderantes, hoc videtur major vis honestatis, et minor voluptatis. Ita enim vivunt quidam, ut eorum vita refellatur oratio. Atque ut cæteri existimantur dicere melius, quam facere: sic hi mihi videntur facere melius, quam dicere." Here is a distinct declaration, that the principles of the sect had not led to those practical evils, which the dangerous tendency, and in some re * "Ea quæ Epicuro placuerunt, ut quasdam Solonis aut Lycurgi leges ab Epicureis omnibus servari."-Themistius apud Gassendum, de Vita et Moribus Epicuri. spects the absurdity of the theory would seem naturally to have involved. To this Seneca also bears testimony. Now he was a leader of the Stoics; and consequently inclined to censure Epicurus on grounds in the least degree plausible. In Epist 21. he thus speaks of the frugal fare in the garden of Epicurus: "Eo libentius Epicuri egregia dicta commemoro, ut istis, qui ad illa confugient, spe mala inducti, qui velamentum seipsos suorum vitiorum habituros existimant, probem, quocumque ierint, honeste esse vivendum. Cum adierint hos hortulos, et inscriptum hortulis, Hospes hic bene manebis, hic summum bonum voluptas est: paratus erit istius domicilii custos, hospitalis, humanus, et te polenta excipiet, et aquam quoque large ministrabit. Et dicet: Ecquid bene acceptus es? Non irritant, inquam, hi hortuli famem, sed extinguunt: nec majorem ipsis potionibus sitim faciunt, sed naturali et gratuito remedio sedant." Seneca here confesses, that the best cheer Epicurus gave his guests was bread and water. The following lines of Juvenal confirm this: In quantum sitis atque fames et frigora poscunt: Sat. 14. We have the evidence of Laertius, that chastity was enforced, not only by precepts from the professor's chair, but by personal example. This his antagonist, Chrysippus, imputed to insensibility, as we are informed in Vita Epicuri: "Scribit Stobæus quempiam fuisse qui et non iri captum 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 D curus. Among the most scandalous of these is that relating to Leontium, in Athenæus, 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 Επικουρείοις συνῆν ἐν τοῖς κήποις, Επικούρῳ δὲ καὶ ἀναφανδόν· ὥστ ̓ ἐκεῖνον πολλὴν φροντίδα ποιούμενον αὐτῆς, τοῦτ ̓ ἐμφανίζειν διὰ τῶν πρὸς Ερμαρχον ἐπι στολῶν. 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 Schweighauser, 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 πρεσα 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 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 ἐπιστολὰς 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 |