morals of Epictetus, (whom Marcus Aurelius often imitates, and sometimes excels) than from any book she ever read-except her bible. These reflexions on his own conduct, indeed, inculcate, with great force, our duty to God, our neighbour, and ourselves; which comprehends the chief duties of a Christian. And it is evident, that the philosophical Earl of Shaftesbury was greatly indebted to our author, and other writers of the porch and of the old academy, for his refined system of morality and sublime theism. For, though the character of an humble Christian might be thought beneath the dignity of a British peer, the pride of a stoic would prevent him from acting beneath the dignity of human nature. Yet after all that can be said in favour of our author's writings, and those of any unenlightened pagan moralist, there are such strange defects and inconsistencies to be found in their opinions and precepts, as sufficiently shew the necessity of some authoritative repubication of the law of nature; (such as Socrates wished for) and such as the greatest sceptic (one would think) must acknowJedge to have been made by the author of our religion, Perhaps then the combating vice with the weapons of philosophy, instead of those of the Gospel, at this time of day, may be thought as trifling and childish, as our gentlemen archers reviving the use of the bow, since the invention of guns; yet I should hope, it would be more than mere amusement, for those who deem the precepts of the Gospel impracticable, to observe how far a heathen sage, by the mere efforts of reason could proceed in subduing his passions, and in the practice of the most rigid virtue. At all events, they may be attended with an advantage to a Christian, similar to that of an Englishman's travelling into some despotic country; to make him return with greater satisfaction to his own. But the younger Casaubon, who published both an edition and translation of this work about the middle of the last century, says, "It is not only the most excellent, but the most obscure, of all the remains of antiquity." Yet this is to be ascribed, partly, to the studied brevity of these memoirs, which were evidently written principally for the Emperor's own satisfaction and moral improvement, in the momentary intervals of an hazardous campaign: though probably not without a view to his son Commodus's instruction. But another cause of the obscurity of some of these me

ditations, is, his perpetually alluding to the peculiar doctrines of the Stoicks; which the reader must therefore always keep in view. They considered the universe as one great community, governed by an irreversible system of laws, which they called Fate: and as the good of every individual was dependent on and included in the welfare of the whole; it was the duty of every one to submit to, and chearfully acquiesce in, every event, (whether prosperous or adverse to themselves) as it made a part of that connected series of causes and effects, which necessarily resulted from the original contrivance and arrangement of the whole. From this system, however, they by no means excluded an intelligent, super-intending Providence, the Governor of the universe. Marcus Aurelius, at least always speaks of a GOD, as presiding, not only over the universe in general, but as extending his care to every individual; who were therefore bound to worship and obey him and to regulate all their actions with a view to his approbation. Whether Antoninus or the other stoics are always consistent in this opinion, may perhaps be questioned. But whatever idea they had of Fate or Necessity, they always speak of Man, as a free agent; and of the First Cause, as Pope does;

"Who, binding Nature fast in Fate,
Left free the human will.”

They sometimes indeed seem to confound the Deity with Nature: and speak of God, as no more than the “anima mundi," or soul of the material world: a kind of plastic principle, which pervades and animates it, as the human soul does the body. But they seem to me, to have made the same distinction between the first intelligent cause, and this ætherial substance, as between the rational soul of man, and the mere animal or vital spirit; which they held to be only a small particle, discerpt or separated from the soul of the world; and, after death, resorbed and reunited to it, without any distinct, personal existence. This, however, must be understood in a qualified sense; as they believed that the perfectly good or heroic souls were admitted to the society of the Gods. Their idea of the periodical renovation of the world by repeated conflagrations, and the continual changes of one substance into another, (to which our author so frequently alludes) is very remarkable; and somewhat analogous to the modern hypothesis of volcanos

and perhaps took its rise from some fiery eruptions in the time of the first propagators of that opinion. As to the moral sentiments of the Stoics, though they allowed nothing to be really good, but what was honourable or virtuous; and nothing evil, but what was base; yet it is absurd to suppose that they were absolutely indifferent to pain or pleasure, sickness or health, poverty or riches, and the like. They thought it their duty to support that state of existence in which nature had placed them, in the most perfect manner. But a wise man was to chuse or reject every object which presented itself, according to its moral excellence: and to bestow that precise degree of attention on it which it deserved. He therefore never suffered any external advantages to come in competition with those of the mind: or to regard natural evil in comparison with moral. The gout, for instance, was no evil, when compared to remorse of conscience; nor poverty, when opposed to a life of infamy or dependence, and the like. Even their errors shewed their exalted ideas of virtue. They said,' (or are supposed to say) that all sins were equal; because they thought the least devi, ation from the line of rectitude inconsistent with the character of a good man. They endeavoured to eradicate the passions; but it was to assert the supremacy of reason. In reality, na ture frequently rebelled, and gave the lie to their doctrines. Antoninus himself says of his friend Sextus, that, in spite of his apathy, he was "pilosopyorar, the most affectionate man in the world." They called compassion the sickness of the soul, and would not suffer their wise men to pity a person in distress, but to assist him. Seneca indeed seems strangely puzzled to distinguish between a wise man and a fool, with respect to the feelings of nature. A wise man might be alarmed at a sudden. noise; or his knees might tremble, when he was to speak in public: but a wise man soon recovers himself; whereas a fool loses his presence of mind, is embarrassed and confounded. Their greatest absurdity, however, was their allowing of suicide when life was no longer eligible. For if pain or poverty were no evil; and their wise men could be happy even in torture; how could it be lawful to desert his station, and act contrary to the established course of nature on that account?-the conforming to which is the perpetual theme of our good Emperor's admonitions. "If you chuse to sup with a man," says Epictez

tus, "and cannot bear his long stories about the Mœsian wars,5 you may retire and leave him." Yes; but you will affront your host; as it is to be feared, we should offend the Governor of the world, by a voluntary death. On the whole, though the reasoning of the philosophers can never destroy that connexion which nature has established between our passions and affections, and the objects which are adapted to excite them; yet it cannot be doubted, that the stoic philosophy had great influence on the character and conduct of its professors; and excited many of them, particularly the good Antoninus, to actions of the most heroic magnanimity and the most extensive benevolence.

POSTSCRIPT.

It will probably be asked, what necessity there was for a new translation of this work, when there has been already one or two published within these fifty years? I answer, that when I first engaged in it, in my retired situation, I could get no intelligence from the neighbouring booksellers, of any other than that of Jeremy Collier, at the beginning of this century; which abounds with so many vulgarisms, anilities, and even ludicrous expressions, and is, in many places, so unlike the original, that one cannot now read it with any patience. When I had got into the ninth book, however, I accidentally met with one, printed at Glasgow in 1747, which is very faithful to the original in general; but often so unnecessarily literal, and with such a total neglect of elegance and harmony of style, that there is certainly room for improvement ;-this I may suppose to have attempted, or why thus intrude upon the public? But, alas! I must rely on the candour of the reader, not in this instance alone: and (in a work, where so much room is left for conjecture, some indulgence seems but reasonable; especially in those mutilated passages, or imperfect hints which the best commentators have viewed with despair. In short, as [ have endeavoured to steer between the loose translation of J. Collier, who often loses sight of his author; and the dry manner of the Glasgow translator, who generally sticks too close to him; I do not entirely despair of gaining more attention to one of the most curious, and in the opinion of M." Casaubon, one of the most excellent works of antiquity.

A SHORT SKETCH

OF THE LIFE OF

MARCUS AURELIUS.

The City of Rome, from its first foundation by Romulus, was governed by kings, for about two hundred and fifty years. After their expulsion, the commonwealth was administered by two Consuls, annually chosen, for about four hundred and fifty years; when Julius Cæsar, about fifty years before the birth of Christ, having subdued Pompey and what was called the republican Party, made himself perpetual Dictator; and was the first Emperor of Rome. After a succession of eleven more Emperors, a majority of whom where execrable tyrants, Nerva, Trajan, and Hadrian, came to the throne; under whom the Empire rose to its utmost splendor; although the remote provinces were with difficulty kept in subjection, even by their wise and firin adininstration. The latter of these, the Emperor Hadrian, adopted Antoninus Pius, on condition that he should immediately adopt our Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Ve rus, the son of C. Commodus his late favourite; whom before he had intended for his successor. Marcus Aurelius was born about the year 121 of the Christian æra; soon after the Emperor Hadrian's accession to the throne. He was of an illustrious family, both by the father's and mother's side; being the son of Annius Verus and Domitia Calvilla Lucilla; both whose fathers were of consular dignity. M. Aurelius was first called Annius Verus, the name of his father and of his grandfather; but on being adopted into the Aurelian family by Antoninus Pius, he took the name of Aurelius; to which, when he came to the empire, he added that of Antoninus. As he was early about the court, the Emperor Hadrian had called him “ verissimus ;” but that seems to have been only a name of fondness and familiarity; as he was always a favourite with that emperor from his infancy. His father dying while he was very young, he had been bred up chiefly in the family of his grandfather Annius Verus who gave him every advantage in his education, which even that polished age could supply. He had masters in every science and genteel accomplishment; even in music and painting among the rest. He was also, in his youth, very fond of all the manly and athletic exercises; hunting, wrestling, tennis,