the other side, such as those of Seneca, Epictetus, M. Aurelius, and Cicero's philosophical dialogues. The Christian Fathers also sided strongly with the Stoics against the Epicureans, even going so far as to count Seneca one of themselves, so that the traditional literary view had till lately followed the old popular view. But of late years the pendulum has swung in the other direction, partly owing to more accurate research, which has brought to light the exaggerations of the old view, partly to the present rage for rehabilitating whatever has been condemned by former ages, but more particularly because Epicureanism was identified with the cause of freedom, intellectual, social, moral and religious; because it was regarded as the forerunner of positive science and of utilitarian morality; and in a lesser degree because, the great poem of Lucretius having been better edited and more widely studied, admiration for the poet has led to an increased sympathy with the philosophy which he advocates'. To what extent these advantages may fairly be claimed on behalf of Epicureanism will perhaps be made clear as we proceed. For my own part I am inclined to think Cicero was not very wide of the mark when he spoke of it as a 'bourgeois philosophy. Whether we have regard to his expressed opinions on science and literature and ethics; or to the naiveté of his assumptions, the narrow scope of his imagination, the arbitrariness and one-sidedness shown in his appeals to experience, and the want of subtlety and thoroughness in his reasonings,

1 An example of this change of view, in quarters where it would hardly have been expected, is to be found in Dean Alford's Note on Acts XVII. 18.

Plebeii philosophi, Tusc. 1. 55.

Epicurus seems to me to stand out among philosophers as the representative of good-natured, self-satisfied, unimpassioned, strong-willed and clear-headed Philistinism. No doubt it was doing a service to mankind to give anything like philosophical expression to such a very important body of sentiment as that with which we are familiar under this name; but I think Epicurus himself would be not a little surprised, if he could return to life and see the kind of supporters, aesthetic and other, who have lately flocked to his standard.

Historically speaking, Epicureanism may be roughly described as a combination of the physics of Democritus with the ethics of Aristippus'. Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) was an Athenian, born in Samos, where he is said to have received instruction in the doctrines of Plato and Democritus, though, like Hobbes and Bentham and Comte in later times, he himself always denied his indebtedness to previous thinkers, and stoutly maintained his entire independence and originality of thought. He founded his school at Athens about 306 B.C., teaching in his own 'Garden,' which became not less famous than the Stoic 'Porch.' Here he gathered around him a sort of Pythagorean brotherhood, consisting both of men and women, united in a common veneration for their master3, and in a mutual friendship which became proverbial in after

1 See the excellent, though somewhat apologetic, account of Epicureanism by W. Wallace, in the S. P. C. K. series.

2 For the extravagant terms in which the Epicureans were accustomed to speak of their founder, see Lucretius v. 8, deus ille fuit, deus, inclute Memmi, qui princeps vitae rationem invenit eam quae nunc appellatur sapientia, and other passages quoted in my note on Cic. N. D. 1. 43. His disciples kept sacred to his memory not only his birthday, but the 20th day of every month, in ac

years. All Epicureans were expected to learn by heart short abstracts of their master's teaching, especially the Articles of Belief, kúpiaι Sóέa', still preserved to us by Diogenes Laertius; and it is said that the last words addressed by Epicurus to his disciples, were to bid them remember the doctrines, μεμνῆσθαι τῶν δογμάτων. The scandalous tongue of antiquity was never more virulent than it was in the case of Epicurus, but, as far as we can judge, the life of the Garden joined to urbanity and refinement, a simplicity which would have done no discredit to a Stoic; indeed the Stoic Seneca continually refers to Epicurus not less as a model for conduct, than as a master of sententious wisdom. It is recorded that, though partly supported by the contributions of his disciples, Epicurus condemned the literal application of the Pythagorean maxim κοινὰ τὰ φίλων, much as Aristotle had done before, because it implied a want of trust in the generosity of friendship. Among the most distinguished members of the school were Metrodorus, (paene alter Epicurus, as Cicero calls him) Hermarchus the successor of Epicurus, Colotes, Leonteus and his wife Themista, to whom Cicero jestingly alludes in his speech against Piso, as a sort of female Solon, and Leontium the hetaera, who ventured to attack Theophrastus in an essay characterised, as we are told, by much elegance of style*. Cicero mentions among his own contemporaries Phaedrus, Zeno of Sidon, called the Coryphaeus Epicureorum

cordance with the instructions in his will. Hence they were called in derision elkadıσral, see Diog. L. x. 15, Cic. Fin. II. 101.

1 Cf. Diog. X. 12, 16, and Cic. Fin. II. 20, quis enim vestrum non edidicit Epicuri κυρίας δόξας?

2 Cic. N. D. 1. §.93.

(N. D. 1 59,) and Philodemus of Gadara': and his account of the Epicurean doctrines is probably borrowed from these. Epicureanism had great success among the Romans; but, with the exception of the poet Lucretius, none of the Latin expounders of the system seem to have been of any importance3.

The end of the Epicurean philosophy was even more exclusively practical than that of the Stoics. Logic (called by Epicurus 'Canonic,' as giving the 'canon' or test of truth) and physics were merely subordinate to ethics, the art of attaining happiness. Knowledge, as generally understood, is in itself of no value or interest, but tends rather to corrupt and distort our natural judgment and feeling. Hence we are told that Epicurus preferred that his disciples should have advanced no further in the elements of ordinary education than just so far as to be able to read and write. In particular we are informed that he condemned not only the study of Poetry, Rhetoric and Music, but also those sciences which Plato had declared to be the necessary Propaedeutic of the philosopher, Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy and Dialectic or Logic, as being at best a frivolous waste of time, dealing with words and not with things, if not

1 Several treatises of Philodemus have been found among the Herculanean papyri. On the relation between his IIepì Evσeßeias and Cicero's De Natura Deorum see my edition of the latter, pp. XLII-LV.

2 Cic. Tusc. IV 7, Fin. I 25.

3 Cf. Cic. Tusc. 11 7, and Zeller III I. p. 372.

4 Compare his words reported by Diogenes x 6, Taideíav dè wâσav, μakápie, peûye; Quintil. Inst. XII § 24, Epicurus fugere omnem disciplinam navigatione quam velocissima jubet; and Sext. Emp. Math. 11 and 49.

actually erroneous and misleading'. It is possible that these strictures may have had reference not so much to Art and Literature and Science in themselves, as to the manner in which they were then prosecuted, to the 'learned' poetry of Alexandria with its recondite mythological allusions, to the hair-splitting logic of the Megaric and Stoic schools, and the unreal interpretations of Nature propounded by the great idealistic philosophies; but there is not the least appearance of any real speculative interest among the early Epicureans. If there had been, we can hardly suppose, that they would have spoken of geometry as 'utterly false,' just at the time when the Elements of Euclid, the elder contemporary of Epicurus, had made their appearance amid the general applause of the scientific world'. Even their supposed strong point, Physical Science, was not studied by them for its own sake. Epicurus himself distinctly says that

1 See Cic. Fin. I § 72, II § 12, Acad. 11 § 106, and § 97.

2 Metrodorus, however, told his disciples they need feel no shame in confessing that they could not quote a line of the Iliad, and did not know which side Hector took in the Trojan war.

3 Hirzel has shown in his Untersuchungen zu Ciceros philosoph. ischen Schriften, p. 177 foll. that there was an important section among the later Epicureans (probably alluded to in Diog. X 25, as those οὓς οἱ γνήσιοι Επικούρειοι σοφιστὰς ἀποκαλοῦσιν) who set a higher value on logic and literary culture generally than their master had done. One of these was Philodemus, of whom Cicero speaks as litteris perpolitus (In Pis. 70), the author of numerous treatises on rhetoric, music, poetry, dialectic, &c.

4 See Art. in Dict. of Biog. by De Morgan, 'the Elements must have been a tremendous advance, probably even greater than that contained in the Principia of Newton;' 'their fame was almost coaeval with their publication.'

5 Cic. Fin. 1 § 63: in physicis plurimum posuit.