Obrazy na stronie

B.C.; and their plan was continued by Demetrius, a oriest of Diana; but the whole was completed by Daphnis of Miletus, and a citizen of Ephesus, the building having occupied 220 years. It was the first specimen of the Ionic style, in which the fluted coluinn and capital with volutes were introduced. The whole length of the temple was 425 feet, and the breadth 220; with 127 columns of the Ionic order and Parian marble, each of a single shaft, and sixty feet high. These were donations from kings, according to Pliny (36, 14), but there is reason to doubt the correctness of the text where this assertion is made. Of these columns thirty-six were carved; and one of them, perhaps as a model, by Scopas. The temple had a double row of columns, fifteen on either side; and Vitruvius has not determined if it had a roof; probably over the cell only. The folding doors or gates had been continued four years in glue, and were made of cypress wood, which had been treasured up for four generations, highly polished. These were found by Mutianus as fresh and as beautiful 400 years after as when new. The ceiling was of cedar ; and the steps for ascending the roof (of the cell ?) of a single stem of a vine, which attested the durable nature of that wood. The dimensions of this great temple excite ideas of uncommon grandeur from mere massiveness; but the notices we collect of its internal ornament will increase our admiration. It was the repository in which the great artists of antiquity dedicated their most perfect works to posterity. Praxiteles and his son Cephisodorus adorned the shrine : Scopas contributed a statue of Hecate; Timarete, the daughter of Micon, the first female artist upon record, finished a picture of the goddess, the most ancient in Ephesus; and Parrhasius and Apelles employed their skill to embellish the walls. The excellence of these performances may be supposed to have been proportionate to their price; and a picture of Alexander grasping a thunderbolt, by the latter, was added to the superb collection at the expense of twenty talents of gold. This description, however, applies chiefly to the temple as it was rebuilt, after the earlier temple had been partially burned, perhaps the roof of timber only, by Herostratus, who chose that method to ensure to himself an immortal name, on the very night that Alexander the Great was born. Twenty years after, that magnificent prince, during his expedition against Persia, offered to appropriate his spoils to the restoration of it, if the Ephesians would consent to allow him the sole honour, and would place his name on the temple. They declined the proposal, however, with the flattering remark, that it was not right for one deity to erect a temple to another : national vanity was, however, the real ground of their refusal. The architect who superintended the erection of the new edifice was Dinocrates, of whose aid Alexander afterward availed himself in building Alexandrea. (Vitrup., 2, prof.-Compare Strabo, 640—Plut., Vit. Aler., 72. —Plin., 7, 37–Solin., 40.) The extreme sanctity of the temple inspired universal awe and reverence. It was for many ages a repository of foreign and domestic treasure. There property, whether public or private, was secure amid all revolutions. The conduct of Xerxes was an example to subsequent conquerors, and the impiety of sacrilege was not extended to the Ephesian goddess. But Nero deviated from this rule. He removed many costly offerings and images, and an immense quantity of silver and gold. It was again plundered by the Goths from beyond the Danube in the time of Gallienus; a party under Raspa crossing the Hellespont and ravaging the country until compelled to retreat, when they carried off a prodigious booty. (Treb. Pollio, in Gallien., c. 6.) The destruction of so illustrious an edifice deserved to have been carefully recorded by contemporary historians. We may conjecture that it followed the triumph of

Christianity. The Ephesian reformers, when authorized by the imperial edicts, rejoiced in the opportunity of insulting Diana, and deemed it piety to demolish the very ruin of her habitation. When, under the auspices of Constantine and Theodosius, churches were erected, the pagan temples were despoiled of their ornaments, or accommodated to other worship. The immense dome of Santa Sophia now rises from the columns of green jasper which were originally placed in the temple of Diana, and were taken down and brought to Constantinople by order of Justinian. Two pil

lars in the great church at Pisa were also transported thence. The very site of this stupendous and celebrated edifice is even yet undetermined. The following are the principal data which may assist in fixing it. The distance between the site of the temple and the quar

ries on Mount Prion did not exceed 8000 feet, and no

rising intervened, but the whole space was level plain.

It was distinct from the city, at the distance of nearly a stadium; for Marc Antony allowing the sanctuary to reach somewhat more than a stadium from it, a part

of the city was comprised within those limits. It was without the Magnesian gate, which Chandler supposes

to be that next to Aiasaluc ; and in the second cen

tury was joined to the city by Damianus, a sophist, who continued the way down to it through the Magnesian gate, by erecting a stoa or portico of marble, a stadium in length, inscribed with the name of his wife, and intended to prevent the absence of ministers when it rained. It was near the agora or market-place of the first city, besieged by Croesus, though distant seven stadia, or a mile wanting half a quarter, from it. The monument of Androclus was shown in the second century near the road going from the temple of Diana by the Olympian towards the Magnesian gate. The ancient city was built on Tracheia, and by the Athenaum and Hypelaeus. The Athenæum was without the new city of Lysimachus, and the fountain Hypelaus was near the sacred port. In the plain of Ephesus were anciently two lakes, formed partly by stagnant water from the river Selinus, which ran opposite the temple of Diana, probably from Mount Gallesus. Pliny says: “Templum Diana compleri e dirersis regionibus duo Selinuntes.” It has been supposed, adds Chandler, that the souterrain by the morass or cityport, with two pieces of ancient wall, of square stone, by one of which is the entrance to it, are relics of the temple; but this was nearly in the centre of the city of Lysimachus; and Dallaway says, “Close upon the brink of the present morass, once covered by the sea,

upon a rising ground, are accumulated walls of brick, faced with large slabs of marble, and of sufficient ex

tent to encourage Tournefort and the English travellers in a conjecture that this structure was the farfamed temple of Diana.” Every circumstance of description, adds Arundell, accords with this spot, except the distance from the city wall; and among the fallen masonry are broken shafts of porphyry, twelve feet long and four in diameter, more complete and polished than others which surround them. Might not this have

been the church dedicated by Justinian to St. John'

The souterrain under the supposed site is said by Ry

caut to have a descent of about thirty stairs, and by

Van Egmont to be a very narrow and difficult passage,

having spacious caverns, composed of amazingly large black stones. But these may as well have been the foundations of other ancient buildings as of the temple,

and evidently Chandler does not agree in the opinion that this was the site: for he says, “the vaulted substructions by the stadium might, it is believed, furnish an area corresponding better, and more suited to receive the mighty fabric; which, however, it has been shown above, was in the plain, and distinct, though not remote, from the present city.” Count Caylus, (Memoires de Literature, vol. 53) says: “Les fondations qui subsistent encore aujourd'hui, ne ressemblent point à la description de Pline,” &c., and he has no other mode of accounting for this difference, than by supposing it might have been rebuilt after the time of Pliny, perhaps in the reign of Gallienus, after it had been pillaged and burned by the Goths. Dallaway suggests, that the massive walls of, and adjoining to, the gymnasium may be those of the temple. The grandeur of its plan and dimensions, which are still marked by a long nave, finished by an arch of great expanse at either termination, seems to favour the pretensions of this edifice above those of the other. In various points of description they correspond, excepting that this was beyond the limits of the city walls; for the circumstance of having been washed by the sea applies equally to both ruins. But the Turks, from whose barbarous corruptions or analogous terms the real and more ancient name is in some instances to be collected, call this particular ruin “ Kislar Serai,” or the palace of virgins. The same name induced Dr. Pococke, when investigating Alexandrea Troas, to decide on a building as another temple of Diana. Perhaps the most probable solution of the difficulty will be, that the entire remains of the temple are buried under the soil. In the valley above Nolium is a fine Ionic column, evidently in its original situation, but of which not more than three or four feet are visible; the remainder is buried by the rapid accumulation of soil; and Mr. Cockerell calculates, that of the temple at Sardis 25 feet remain still covered with earth: the accumulation from the Cayster must be vastly greater and more rapid. The relative position of the temple with the Selinusian lakes would be in favour of a conjecture that it stood considerably lower down, and more towards the northeast than the spot usually assigned to it. This would agree better with the distance from the city, and its situation without the Magnesian gate, which can never be imagined to be that, as Chandler supposes, next to Aiasaluc. (Arundell's Seren Churches of Asia, p. 38, seqq.—Hirt, Geschichte der Baukunst bei den Alten, vol. 2, p. 60, seqq.) EPhI altes, a giant, son of Aloeus. (Wid. Aloidae.) Ephor ('Eoopot), a body of magistrates at Sparta, who were possessed of great privileges. The institution of this office is usually ascribed to Theopompus, the grandson of Charilaus the Proclid; but it has been inferred, from the existence of an ephoralty in other Dorian states before the time of Theopompus, and from its being apparently placed among the institutions of Lycurgus by Herodotus (1, 65) and Xenophon (de Rep. Lac., 8, 3), that it was an ancient Dorian magistracy, Arnold supposes that the ephori, who were five in number, were coeval with the first settlement of the Dorians in Sparta, and were merely the municipal magistrates of the five hamlets which composed the city (Muller, Dorians, vol. 2, p. 550, Eng. transl.); but that afterward, when the Heraclidie began to encroach upon the privileges of the other Dorians, and, it would seem, in the reign of Theopompus, who endeavoured to diminish the powers of the general assembly of the Spartan aristocracy, the Dorians, in the struggle which ensued, gained for the ephori, an extension of authority, which placed them virtually at the head of the state, although the nominal sovereignty was still kept in the hands of the Heraclidae. (Arnold, ad Thucyd., 1, 87.-Append., 2, vol. 1, p. 646.) Thus the ephori were popular magistrates, as far as the Dorians themselves were concerned, and were, in fact, the guardians of their rights from the encroachments of the kings; though they were, in relation to the Perioeci (Heptotrot), the oppressive instruments of an overbearing aristocracy. (Plato, de Leg., 4, p. 712, d.) The ephori were chosen in the autumn of every year; the first gave his name to the year. Every Spartan was eligible to the office, without any regard to age or wealth. They were empowered to fine whom they pleased, and exact immediate payment of

the fine. They could suspend the functions of any other magistrate, and arrest and bring to trial even the kings. (Xen., de Rep. Lac., 8, 4.) They presided and put the vote in the public assemblies (Thucyd., 1, 87), and performed all the functions of sovereignty in receiving and dismissing embassies (Xen., Hist. Gr., 2, 13, 19), treating with foreign states (Herod., 9, 8), and sending out military expeditions (Xen., Hist. Gr., 2, 4, 29). The king, when he commanded, was always attended by two of the ephori, who exercised a controlling power over his movements. (Herod., 9, 76.) The ephori were murdered on their seats of justice by Cleomenes III., and their office was overthrown (Plut., Wit. Cleom., c. 8), but they were restored by Antigonus Doson and the Achaeans in 222 BC. (Polyb., 2, 70.-Pausan., 2, 9, 2); and the office subsisted under the Roman dominion. (Böckh, Corp. Inscript, 1, p. 604, seqq.) Some able remarks on this magistracy may be found in Muller's Dorians, vol. 2, p. 115, seqq., and Tittmann's Darstellung der Griech. Staatswerfass., p. 104, seqq. (Encycl. Us. Knowl., vol. 9, p. 469.) Ephorus, a Greek historian, born at Cyme in AEolis, 405 B.C. He survived the passage of Alexander into Asia (333 B.C.), which he mentioned in his history. (Clem. Aler., Strom. 1, p. 337, a.) He studied rhetoric under Isocrates, but with so little success, that, after he had returned from Athens, his father Demophilus sent him back to the rhetorician for fresh instruction. (Plut., Wit. Isocr., p. 366, ed. Wyttenb.) Isocrates, perceiving his unfitness for public speaking, recommended him to turn his attention to historical composition (Senec., de Tranq. An., c. 6); but his style was low and slovenly even in his histories, and Plutarch remarks upon the silliness of the set speeches which he introduced. (Polit. Praecon., p. 803, b.) Polybius observes that, though in his account of naval matters he is sometimes happy, he always fails in describing battles by land, and was entirely ignorant of tactics. (Ercerpt. Vatican., p. 391.) Ephorus wrote, 1. A History of Greece, in thirty books, beginning with the siege of Troy, and terminating with the siege of Perinthus (340 B.C.). Part of the thirtieth book was written by his son Demophilus. (Diod, Sic., 16, 14.) 2. On Inventions, in two books. 3. On Goods and Ills, in twenty-four books. 4. On Remarkable Objects in rarious Countries, in fisteen books. 5. The Topography of Cyme. 6. On Diction.—The fragments of these works have been collected by Marx, Carlsruhe, 1815. (Encycl. Us. Knowl., vol. 9, p. 469,-Scholl., Hist. Lit. Gr., vol. 2, p. 182.) Ephy RA, I. the ancient name of Corinth, which it received from a nymph of the same name, and hence Ephyreus is equivalent to “Corinthius.” . (Wid. Corinthus.)—II. A city of Epirus, at the head of the bay or harbour called Glykys Limen. It is mentioned by Homer and other writers. Homer, in several passages of the Iliad and Odyssey, alludes to one or more cities of this name. The Ephyra, which was situated on the banks of the river Selleis (Il., 2,659), is positively ascribed by Strabo (338) to Elis in Peloponnesus, though he allows that many commentators on the poet were of opinion that he there adverted to the Thesprotian city of the same name. Eustathius observes on the verse above cited, that, as there were nine towns so called, it was no easy matter to ascertain to which reference was made. It seems probable, however, that the Ephyra, which is twice noticed in the Odyssey (1, 259, and 2,328) as a land abounding in poisonous drugs, is the one in question, since it was evidently near Ithaca, and the river Selleis is not named in either of the passages. This city is also spoken of by Pindar (Nem, 7, 53); from which passage we may inser, with Pausanias, that it was the capital of the ancient kings of Thesprotia, and where, on the attempt of Theseus and Pino# carry of and detained. (Pausan, l, 17.-Compare Apollodorus, 2, 7–Diod. Suc., 4, 36.) It appears from Strabo (324) and other authorities, that this town aster

the wife of Aidoneus, they were both taken prisoners abounded in apophthegms, little consistent with the idea

ward took the name of Cichyrus, but on what occasion

we are not informed. Mr. Hughes, who has explored

with great attention this part of Epirus, reports, “that

the ruins of Ephyra are to be seen at no great distance from the Acherusian lake, near a deserted convent dedicated to St. John. Though the walls lie for the most part in a confused mass of ruins, they may be distinctly traced in a circular figure : those parts which reinain perfect exhibiting a specimen of masonry apparently more rude even than Tiryns itself, though the blocks used are not of so large dimensions.” (Travels, vol. 2, p. 312.-Cramer's Ancient Greece, vol. 1, p. 113, seqq) Epich AR Mus, the first Greek comic writer of whom we have any certain account. He was a Syracusan, either by birth or emigration. (Theocruus, Epig, 17.) Some make him a native of Crastus, some of Cos (Suidas Eudocia, p. 166); but all agree that he passed his life at Syracuse. It was about B.C. 500, Olymp. 70, 1, thirty-five years after Thespis began to exhibit, eleven years after the commencement of Phrynichus, and just before the appearance of Æschylus as a tragedian, that Epicharmus produced the first comedy properly so called. Before him this department of the drama was, as we have every reason to believe, nothing but a series of licentious songs and sarcastic episodes, without plot, connexion, or consistency. He gave to each exhibition one single and unbroken fable, and converted the loose interlocutions into regular dialogue. (Aristot., Poet., 5, 5.) The subjects of his comedies, as we may infer from the extant titles of thirty-five of them, were partly parodies of mythological subjects, and, as such, not very different from the dialogue of the satyric drama, and partly political, and in this respect may have furnished a model for the dialogue of the Athenian comedy. Tragedy had, some years before the era of Epicharmus, begun to assume its strid and dignified character The woes of heroes and the majesty of the gods had, under Phrynicus, become its favourite theme. The Sicilian poet seems to have been struck with the idea of exciting the mirth of his audience by the exhibition of some ludicrous matter dressed up in all the grave solemnity of the newly-invented art. Discarding, therefore, the low drol. leries and scurrilous invectives of the ancient kaupéia, he opened a novel and less invidious source of amusement, by composing a set of burlesque dramas upon the usual tragic subjects. (Athenæus, 15, p. 698, ed. Schweigh., vol. 5, p. 555.) They succeeded, and the turn thus given to comedy long continued ; so that when it once inore returned to personality and satire, as it afterward did, tragedy and tragic poets were the constant objects of its parody and ridicule. The great changes thus effected by Epicharmus justly entitled him to be called the Incentor of Comedy (Theocritus, Epig., 17), though it is probable that Phormis or PhorInus preceded him by a few Olympiads. (Aristot., Puct., 3, 5–Athenæus, 14, p. 652, a.) But his merits rest not here : he was distinguished for elegance of composition as well as originality of conception. Demetrius Phalereus (compare Vossius, de Poet. Gr., 6, p. 31) says, that Epicharmus excelled in the choice and coliocation of epithets: on which account the name of 'Estúputo, was given to his kind of style, making it proverbial for elegance and beauty. Aristotle (Rhet., 3, 9) lays one fault to his charge as a writer, the employment of false antitheses. So many were his dramatic excellences, that Plato terms him the first of comic writers (Theactetus, p. 33), and in a later age and foreign country, Plautus chose him as his model. (Horat., Epist., 2, 2, 58.) The plays of Epicharmus, to judge from the fragments still left us,

we might otherwise have entertained of their nature, from our knowledge of the buffooneries whence his comedy sprung, and the writings of Aristophanes, his partially extant successor. But Epicharinus was a philosopher and a Pythagorean. (Diog. Laert., 8, 78.) In the midst of merriment, he failed not to inculcate, in pithy gnomae, the otherwise distasteful lessons of morality to the gay and thoughtless, and, sheltered by comic license, to utter offensive political truths, which, promulgated under any other circumstances, might have subjected the sage to the vengeance of a despotic government We find Epicharmus still composing comedies B.C. 485 (Sudas, s. v. 'ETtt.); and again during the reign of Hiero, B.C. 477. (Clinton, Fast Hellenici, B.C. 477.) He died at the age of ninety or ninety-seven years. Epicharmus is said by some authorities to have added the letters 5, 7, p, w, to the Greek alphabet. (Theatre of the Greeks, 2d ed., p. 162, seqq.—Matthia, G. G., vol. 1, p. 13, Blomfield's transl.-Compare, however, Thiersch's G. G., Sandford's transl., vol. 1, p. 25, seqq.) Epictetus, an eminent Stoic philosopher, born in a servile condition at Hierapolis in Phrygia. The year of his birth is not known, nor are we able to make any very close approximation to it. He must have been born, however, before the end of Nero's reign, 68 A.D., else he could not have been more than twenty-one when Domitian published that edict against philosophers, in 89 A.D., in consequence of which Epictetus retired from Rome. At the age of twentyone he was not likely to have attained sufficient notoriety to bring him within the operation of such an edict. Epictetus, then, was born most probably during one of the last eight years of Nero's reign. The names and condition of his parents are unknown: neither do we know how he came to be brought to Rome. But in this city he was for some time a slave to Epaphroditus, a freedman of Nero's, who had been one of his body-guard. An anecdote related by Origen, which illustrates the sortitude of Epictetus, would also show, if it were true, that Epaphroditus was a most cruel master. Epictetus, when his master was twisting his leg one day, smiled and quietly said, “You will break it;” and when he did break it, only observed, “Did I not tell you that you would do so?” (Orig. c. Cels., 7, p. 36s) We are not told how or when Epictetus managed to effect his freedom; but he could not have been still a slave when he left Rome in consequence of an edict against philosophers. This event, the only one in his life the date of which we can assign, took place, as has been said, in the year S9 A.D., being the eighth year of Domitian's reign. Epictetus then retired to Nicopolis in Epirus, and it is a question whether he ever returned to Rome. The chief ground for believing that he did is a statement of Spartian (Wit. Hadr., 16), that Epictetus lived on terms of intimacy with the Emperor Hadrian; while it is agreed, on the other hand, that there is no good evidence of any of his discourses having been delivered at Rome, but that they contain frequent mention of Nicopolis. This argument, however, is hardly sufficient to overthrow the express testimony of Spartian. We do not know when he died. Suidas says that he lived till the reign of Marcus Aurelius; but, though some support for this opinion is sought to be obtained from Themistius (Or., 5, ad Joruan. Imp), yet the authority of Aulus Gellius is strong on the other side, who, writing during the reign of the first Antonine speaks of Epictetus, in two places, as being dead. (Noct. Att, 2, 18–1b., 17, 19.) Epictetus led a life of exemplary contentment, simplicity, and virtue, practising in all particulars the morality which he taught. He lived for a long while in a small hut, with no other furniture than a bed and lamp, and without an attendant; until he benevolently adopted a child whom a friend had been compelled by poverty to expose, and hired a nurse for its sake.—Epictetus was a teacher of the Stoic philosophy, and the chief of those who lived during the period of the Roman empire. His lessons were principally, if not solely, directed to practical morality. His favourite maxim, and that into which he resolved all practical morality, was “bear and forbear,” avéxop kai dréxov. He appears to have dif. sered from the Stoics on the subject of suicide. (Arrian, Epict , 1, 8.) We are told by Arrian, in his Preface to the “Discourses,” that he was a powerful and exciting lecturer; and, according to Origen (c. Cels., 7, ad int.), his style was superior to that of Plato. It is a proof of the estimation in which Epictetus was held, that, on his death, his lamp was purchased by some more eager than wise aspirant after philosophy for three thousand drachmas, or over five hundred dollars of our currency. (Lucian, adv. Indoct. libr. ement, vol. 8, p. 15, ed Bip.) Though it is said by Suidas that Epictetus wrote much, there is good reason to believe that he himself wrote nothing. His Discourses were taken down by his pupil Arrian, and published after his death in six books, of which four remain. The same Arrian compiled the Enchiridion, and wrote a life of Epictetus, which is lost. Some fragments have been preserved, however, by Stobaeus. Simplicius has also left a commentary on his doctrine, in the Eclectic manner. The best edition of the remains of Epictetus is that of Schweighaeuser, 6 vols. 8vo, Lips, 1799. The same editor has published the Enchiridion, together with the Tablet of Cebes, in a separate volume (Lips., 1797, 8vo). There is an English version of the Enchiridion or Manual by Mrs. Carter. (Fabric, Bibl. Graec., ed. Harles, vol. 5, p. 64.—Enfield, Hist. Philos., vol.2, p. 121–12mcycl. Us. Knowl., vol. 9, p. 471.) Epict Rus, a celebrated philosopher, born in the year 341 B.C., seven years after the death of Plato. He was a native of the Island of Samos, whither his father had gone from Athens, in the year 352 B.C., among 2000 colonists then sent out by the Athenians. (Strabo, 638.) Yet he was an Athenian by right, belonging to the borough Gargettus, and to the tribe AEgels. His father Neocles is said to have been a schoolinaster, and his mother Chaeristrata to have practised arts of magic, in which it was afterward made a charge against Epicurus, that, when he was young, he assisted her. (Diog. Laert., 10, 4) Having passed his early years in Samos and Teos, he went to Athens at the age of eighteen. We are told that he had begun to study philosophy when only fourteen, having been incited thereto by a desire, which the teachers to whom he had applied had failed to satissy, of understanding Hesiod's description of chaos; and that he began with the writings of Democritus. In Samos he is said to have received lessons srom Pamphilus, a follower of Plato. (Suid.—Cuc., N. D., 1, 26.)—On the occasion of this his first visit to Athens, DPicurus stayed there for a very short time. He left it in consequence of the measures taken by Perdiccas after the death of Alexander the Great, and went to Colophon to join his father. In his 32d year, 310 B.C., he went to Mytilene, where he set up a school. Staying only one year at this latter place, he next proceeded to Lampsacus, where he taught for four years. He returned to Athens in the year 306 B.C., and now founded the school, which ever after was named from him the Epicurean. He purchased a garden for 80 mina (about 1400 dollars), wherein he might live with his disciples and deliver his lectures, and henceforth remained in Athens, with the exception only of two or three visits to his friends in Asia Minor, until his death, B.C. 270. The disease which brought him to his death was the stone. He was in his seventy-second year when he died, and he had then been settled in Athens as a teacher for 36

years. Epicurus is said by Diogenes Laertius (10,9, to have had so many pupils that even whole cities could not contain them. Hearers came to him from distant places; very many from Lampsacus; and while men often deserted other schools to join that of Epicurus, there were only two instances, at most, of Epicurus being deserted for any other teacher. Epicurus and his pupils lived together in the garden of which we have spoken, in a state of friendship, which, as it is usually represented, could not be surpassed; abstaining from putting their property together and enjoying it in common, for the quaint yet significant rea. son that such a plan implied mutual distrust. The friendship subsisting between Epicurus and his popils is commemorated by Cicero (de Fun , 1, 20). In this garden, too, they lived in the most frugal and virtuous manner, though it was the delight of the enemies of Epicurus to represent it differently, and though Timocrates, who had once been his pupil, and had abandoned him, spread such stories as that Epicurus used to vomit twice a day after a surfeit, and that many immodest women were inmates of the garden. (Wid. Leontium.) An inscription over the gate of the garden told him who might be disposed to enter, that barley-cakes and water would be the fare provided for him (Senec., Ep, 31); and such was the chastity of Epicurus, that one of his principal opponents, Chrysippus, endeavoured to account for it, so as to deny him any merit, by saying that he was without passions. (Stob., Serm., 117.) Epicurus did not marry, in order that he might be able to prosecute philosophy without interruption. His most attached friends and pupils were Hermachus of Mytilene, whom he appointed by will to succeed him as master of the school; Metrodorus, who wrote several books in defence of his system, and Polyaenus. Epicurus's three brothers, Neocles, Charedemus, and Aristobulus, also followed his philosophy, as also one of his servants, Mys, whom at his death he made free. Besides the garden in Athens, from which the followers of Epicurus, in succeeding time, came to be named the philosophers of the garden (Jur., Sal., 13, 122– Id., 14, 319), Epicurus possessed a house in Melite, a village near Athens, to which he used often to retire with his friends. On his death he left this house, together with the garden, to Hermachus, as head of the school, to be left by him again to whosoever might be his successor.—In physics Epicurus trod pretty closely in the footsteps of Democritus; so much so, indeed, that he was accused of taking his atomic cosmology from that philosopher without acknowledgment. He made very few, and these unimportant, alterations. (Cic., de Fin., 1, 6.) According to Epicurus, as also to Democritus and Leucippus before him, the universe consists of two parts, matter and space, or vacuum in which matter exists and moves; and all matter, of every kind and form, is reducible to certain indivisible particles or atoms, which are eternal. These atoms, moving, according to a natural tendency, straight downward, and also obliquely, have thereby come to form the different bodies which are found in the world, and which differ in kind and shape, according as the atoms are differently placed in respect to one another. It is clear that, in this system, a creator is dispensed with ; and indeed Epicurus, here again following Democritus, set about to prove, in an a priori way, that this creator could not exist, inasmuch as nothing could arise out of nothing, any more than it could utterly perish and become nothing. The atoms have existed always, and always will exist; and all the various physical phenomena are brought about, from time to time; by their various motions—It remains to speak of the Epi

curean system of ethics. Setting out from the two facts that man is susceptible of pleasure and pain, and that he seeks the one and avoids the other, Epicurus propounded, that it is a man's duty to endeavour to or crease to the utmost his pleasures, *...* 10 the utmost his pains; choosing that which tends to pleasure rather than that which tends to pain, and that which tends to a greater pleasure or to a lesser F. rather than that which tends respectively to a esser pleasure or a greater pain. He used the terms

tended that they were to be worshipped on account of the excellence of their nature, not because they could do men either good or harm. (Cic., N. D., 1, 41.Senec., de Benef, 4, 19.)—Our chief sources of information respecting the doctrines of Epicurus are, the 10th

pleasure and pain in the most comprehensive way, as book of Diogenes Laertius, and the poem of Lucretius

including pleasure and pain of both mind and body;

“De Rerum Natura.” Information is also furnished

and he esteemed the pleasures and pains of the mind by the writings of Cicero, especially the “De Fini

as incomparably greater than those of the body. Making, then, good and evil, or virtue and vice, depend on a tendency to increase pleasure and diminish pain, or the opposite, he arrived, as he easily might do, at the several virtues to be inculcated and vices to be denounced. And when he got thus far, even his adversaries had nothing to say against him. It is strange that they should have continued to revile the principle, no matter by what name it might be called, when they saw that it was a principle which led to truth.-The so in which Epicurus opened his school was pecuiarly favourable. In the room of the simplicity of the Socratic doctrine, nothing now remained but the subtlety and affectation of Stoicism, the unnatural severity of the Cynics, or the debasing doctrine of indulgence taught and practised by the followers of Aristippus. The luxurious refinement which now prevailed in Athens, while it rendered every rigid scheme of philosophy, as well as all grossness of manners, unpopular, inclined the younger citizens to listen to a preceptor who smoothed the stern and wrinkled brow of philosophy, and, under the notion of conducting his followers to enjoyment in the bower of tranquillity, led them unawares into the path of moderation and virtue. Hence the popularity of his school. It cannot be denied, however, that, from the time when this philosopher appeared to the present day, an uninterrupted course of censure has fallen upon his memory; so that the name of his sect has almost become a proverbial expression for everything corrupt in principle and infamous in character. The charges brought against Epicurus are, that he superseded all religious principles by dismissing the gods from the care of the world; that if he acknowledged their existence, it was only in conformity to popular prejudice, since, according to his system, nothing exists in nature but material atoms; that he discovered great insolence and vanity in the disrespect with which he treated the memory of former philosophers, and the characters and persons of his contemporaries; and that both he and his disciples were addicted to the grossest sensuality. These accusations, too, have been not only the voice of common rumour, but more or less confirmed by men distinguished for their wisdom and virtue—Zeno, Cicero, Plutarch, Galen, and a long train of Christian fathers. With respect to the first charge, it certainly admits of no ref. utation. The doctrine of Epicurus concerning nature militated directly against the agency of a Supreme Being in the formation and government of the world; and his misconceptions with respect to mechanical motion, and the nature of divine happiness, led him to divest the Deity of some of his primary attributes. It does not, however, appear that he entirely denied the existence of superior powers. Cicero charges him with inconsistency in having written books concerning piety and the reverence due to the gods, and in maintaining that the gods ought to be worshipped, while he asserted that they had no concern in human affairs. That there was an inconsistency in this is obvious. But Epicurus professed, that the universal prevalence of the ideas of gods was sufficient to prove that they existed; and, thinking it necessary to derive these ideas, like all other ideas, from sensations, he imagined that the gods were beings of human form, hovering about in the air, and made known to men by the customary emanations. He believed that these gods were eternal, and supremely happy, living in a state of quiet, and meddling not with the affails of the world. He con

bus” and the “De Natura Deorum;” by those of Seneca, and by the treatise of Plutarch entitled “Against Colotes.” Epicurus, according to Diogenes Laertius, was a more voluminous writer than any other philosopher, having written as many as 300 volumes, in all of which he is said to have studiously avoided making uotations. All that now remains of his works are the i. contained in the 10th book of Diogenes Laertius, and parts of two books of his treatise on Nature (rept ovaeac), which were discovered at Herculaneum. The last were published at Leipzig in 1818, being edited by Orelli. A critical edition of the first two letters was given by Schneider, at Leipzig, 1813. —The Epicurean school was carried on, after Hermachus, by Polystratus and many others, concerning whom nothing is known ; and the doctrines which Epicurus had taught underwent few modifications. When introduced among the Romans, these doctrines, though very much opposed at first, were yet adopted by many distinguished men, as Lucretius, Atticus, Horace. Under the emperors, Pliny the Younger, and Lucian of Samosata, were Epicureans. (Enfield, Hist. Phil., vol. 1, p. 445, seqq.—Encycl. Us. Knowl., vol. 9, p. 472.-Good's Lucretius, Prolegom.—Id., Book of Nature, vol. 1, p. 48, seqq., &c.) EpipAMNUs, a city of Illyricum, on the coast, north of Apollonia. Its foundation is universally ascribed to the Corcyreans, who, in compliment to Corinth, their metropolis, invited a citizen of that town to head their new colony. (Thucyd., 1, 24.) But we are not informed what circumstances led to the change in its name from Epidamnus to that of Dyrrachium, by which it is more commonly known to the Latin writers. Some have thought that Epidamnus and Dyrrachium were two different towns, the latter of which was the emporium of the former. Others affirmed, that the Romans, considering the word Epidamnus to be of evil omen, called it Dyrrachium from the ruggedness of its situation. (Appian, B. C., 2, 39–Pomp. Mel, 2, 3. —Plin, H. N., 3, 23.) It is pretty evident, however, that the word Avfjúxtov is of Greek, and not of Latin origin, for we find it used by the poet Euphorion of Chalcis in a verse preserved by Stephanus of Byzantium, s. v. Avāśārtov. The fact seems to be, that the founders of Epidamnus gave the name of Dyrrachium or Dyrrhachium to the high and craggy peninsula on which they built their town. Strabo (316) certainly applies this appellation to the Chersonese, as does the poet Alexander cited by Stephanus, s. v. Avēśćxton, and this, in time, may have usurped the place of the former name. It is probable, also, that the town called Dyrrachium did not exactly occupy the site of the ancient Epidamnus; indeed, this is plainly asserted by Pausanias (5, 10). Eusebius refers the foundation of Epidamnus to the second year of the 38th Olympiad, or about 625 B.C. Periander was then tyrant of Corinth, and nearly at the same period Cyrene was sounded by Battus. Placed at the entrance of the Hadriatic, in a situation most advantageous for commerce, which was also favoured by its relations with Corcyra and Corinth, Epidamnus early attained to a considerable degree of opulence and power. It possessed a treasury at Olympia (Pausan, 6, 19), and its citizens vied with those of the most celebrated states of Greece in wealth and accomplishments. (Herodot., 6, 127.) And though the jealousy of the neighbouring barbarians had often prompted them to disturb the peace of the rising colomy, it successfully withstood all their attacks until

« PoprzedniaDalej »