having mentioned one day in a company of learned men, that Monsieur Descartes, who had acquired a high character in Geometry, was drawing up a system of Natural Philosophy, in which he admitted a vacuum, the system was ridiculed by Robertoul and some others, who prophesied that on such a foundation it would come to nothing. Father Mersene wrote to him, that a vacuum was just then out of fashion at Paris. On this inform. ation, Descartes felt himself obliged to change his scheme, in conformity with the notions of the Natural Philosophers in vogue, for whose support he was a candidate, and to admit the plenum of Leucippus. "Ainsi l'exclusion du vuide devint par politique un de ses principes." To obviate the difficulties started by Gassendi, he invented his doctrine of subtle matter, which was to suit itself to all the solid interstices, between the larger solid bodies, necessarily clogging and interfering with each other, unless we allow some fluid, yielding matter to give way to the motions of the other. Thus did he endeavour in some measure to reconcile the two opinions of the plenum and the vacuum: to which temporising conduct he was probably in duced, not merely by the ambition of being the most fashionable philosopher, but by the strong hint given to the learned world in general, in the person of Galileo, who was at this time thrown into the Inquisition, for asserting the earth's motion. The consequence of this complaisance to the taste of the age was, that Descartes was not himself satisfied with his own after-thought of the plenum and subtle matter, and therefore supports it with less than his natural power, especially in what regarded the principle of motion. Divines have

with much justice objected to his metaphysics, from the sceptical tendency they encourage. They are set forth in his Meditationes de prima Philosophia. In the first of these he propounds the reasons why we ought to doubt of all things in general, the advantage of which he states to consist in delivering us from all kinds of prejudices arising from education and commonly received but unexamined impressions; and even disengaging our minds from sense, that we may not any longer doubt of the things, which we shall afterwards discover to be true. But is it certain that we shall discover these truths? Does he not ask us to give up much more than he can satisfactorily engage to replace by his system? His method resembles that of the Pytha goreans, spoken of by Aristotle, who do not so much endeavour to assign a reason for the things which they explain, as to make every thing bend to the principles they have assumed; in like manner he seems not to consider his system as made to suit the sensible, and therefore we may suppose actual constitution of things, but the sensible and actual constitution of things as made to suit his system.

CHARACTER OF TIMON THE MISANTHROPE.

̓Αντώνιος δὲ τὴν πόλιν ἐκλιπὼν καὶ τὰς μετὰ τῶν φίλων διατριβὰς, οἴκησιν ἔναλον κατεσκεύαζεν αὐτῶ περὶ τὴν Φάρον, εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν χῶμα προβαλών· καὶ διῆγεν αὐτόθι φυγὰς ἀνθρώπων, καὶ τὸν Τίμωνος ἀγαπᾶν καὶ ζηλοῦν βίον ἔφασκεν, ὡς δὴ πεπονθὼς ὅμοια· καὶ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἀδικηθεὶς ὑπὸ φίλων καὶ ἀχαριστηθεὶς, διὰ τοῦτο πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἀπιστεῖν καὶ δυσχεραίνειν. ̔Ο δὲ Τίμων ἦν Αθηναῖος, ὃς καὶ γέγονεν ἡλικίᾳ μάλιστα κατὰ τὸν Πελοποννησιακὸν πόλεμον, ὡς ἐκ τῶν ̓Αριστοφάνους καὶ Πλάτωνος* δραμάτων λαβεῖν ἐστιν. Κωμῳδεῖται γὰς ἐν ἐκείνοις ὡς δυσμενὴς καὶ μισάνθρωπος· ἐκκλίνων δὲ καὶ διωθούμενος ἅπασαν ἔντευξιν, ̓Αλκιβιάδην νέον ὄντα καὶ θρασὺν ήσπάζετο καὶ κατεφίλει προθύμως. Απημάντου δὲ θαυμάσαντος, καὶ πυθομένου τὴν αἰτίαν, φιλεῖν ἔφη τὸν νεανίσκον, εἰδὼς ὅτι πολλῶν ̓Αθηναίοις κακῶν αἴτιος ἔσοιτο. Τὸν δὲ ̓Απήμαντον μόνον, ὡς ὅμοιον αὐτῷ καὶ ζηλοῦντα τὴν διαίταν, ἔστιν ὅτε προσίετο· καὶ ποτὲ τῆς τῶν χοῶν † οὔσης ἑορτῆς, εἰστιῶντο καθ ̓ αὑτοὺς οἱ δύο. Τοῦ δ ̓ ̓Απημάντου φής σαντος, ὡς καλὸν, ὦ Τίμων, τὸ συμπόσιον ἡμῶν ; Εἴγε σὺ, ἔφη, μὴ παρῇς. Λέγεται δὲ, Αθηναίων ἐκκλησιαζόντων, ἀναβὰς ἐπὶ τὸ βῆμα ποιῆσαι σιωπὴν καὶ προσδοκίαν μεγάλην διὰ τὸ παράδοξον· εἶτα εἰπεῖν, Εστι μοι μικρὸν οἰκόπεδον, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι, καὶ συκῆ τις ἐν αὐτῷ πέφυκεν, ἐξ ἧς ἤδη συχνοὶ τῶν πολιτῶν ἀπήγε ξαντο. μέλλων οὖν οἰκοδομεῖν τὸν τόπον, ἐβουλήθην δημοσία προειπεῖν ἵνα ἂν ἄρα τινὲς ἐθέλωσιν ὑμῶν, πρὶν ἐκκοπῆναι τὴν συκῆν, ἀπάγξωνται. Τελευτήσαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ ταφέντος "Αλησι παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν, ὤλισθε τὰ προὔχοντα τοῦ αἰγιαλοῦ· καὶ τὸ

* The comic writer of that name.

+ This feast took place on the second or middle day of the Anthesteria.

κῦμα περιελθὸν, ἄβατον καὶ ἀπροσπέλαστον ἀνθρώπῳ πεποίηκε τὸν τάφον. Ην δ' ἐπιγεγραμμένον,

Ενθάδ' ἀποῤῥήξας ψυχὴν βαρυδαίμονα κεῖμαι.

Τοὔνομα δ ̓ οὐ πεύσοισθε, κακοὶ δὲ κακῶς ἀπόλοισθε.

Καὶ τοῦτο μὲν αὐτὸν ἔτι ζῶντα πεποιηκέναι λέγουσι, τὸ δὲ περιφερόμενον, Καλλιμάχειόν ἐστι,

Τίμων μισάνθρωπος ἐσοικέω· ἀλλὰ παρελθε,
Οἰμώζειν εἰπὰς πολλὰ, πάρελθε μόνον.

Ταῦτα μὲν περὶ Τίμωνος ἀπὸ πολλῶν ὀλίγα.

PLUTARCHUS.

THE character of Timon derives its principal interest from Shakspeare's adoption. The question of Shakspeare's learning is set at rest by Dr. Farmer's conclusive essay on the subject, equally satisfactory as a curious collection of facts, and a model of argumentative criticism. He certainly did not understand the Greek language; but there was already an English Plutarch, from which he versified closely in all his dramas connected with ancient history. Painter had also described Timon as "a manhater, of a strange and beastly nature, in his Palace of Pleasure; but the cause of his misanthropy is not assigned. Shakspeare has described the cause as well as the effect: and has evidently taken his hint from the beginning of the passage above quoted, where the temporary feelings of Antony furnish Plutarch with the only ground for introducing anecdotes of Timon at all. Dr. Farmer conjectures, from a passage in an old play, called Jack Drum's Entertainment, or Pasquil and Katherine, of the year 1601, that Timon was not new to the stage. Mr. Steevens thinks the allusion in a single line, and that by way

But

of comparison, might with as much probability refer to Plutarch or the Palace of Pleasure. Mr. Strutt, the engraver and antiquary, was possessed of a manuscript play on the subject, written, or at least transcribed, about the year 1600, probably a year before Jack Drum's Entertainment, and ten years before Timon of Athens. The passage on which Dr. Farmer forms his conjecture might refer to this play: but it is immaterial; as there are much stronger grounds for supposing that Mr. Strutt's play was not unknown to Shakspeare. Of this there is a very curious evidence in the second banquet-scene. The last line of it,

and of the third Act, is this:

One day he gives us diamonds, next day stones.

Now in the second scene of the first Act, he had requested the first Lord to "advance this jewel," to prefer it; to raise it to honour by wearing it. But at the second banquet, he had thrown no stones at his guests; he had only thrown warm water in their faces, and empty dishes at their heads. In the parallel scene of the more ancient drama, there is no warm water: but painted stones, resembling artichokes, form a part of his entertainment. There can therefore be little doubt, that Shakspeare intended to adopt that incident, but forgot it in the carelessness of composition : in closing the scene, he recollected it; and without troubling himself to look whether he had inserted it or not, he took it for granted he had made Timon fling the artichokes with their dishes, and without any propriety made the fourth Lord mention those missiles in antithesis with the former jewels.

F