Creech had totally omitted this paffage of his author, as he likewife has feveral others; and thefe eleven verfes are not his; nor indeed do I know whofe they are: they were fent to me, and I was the rather willing to infert them, that this edition might be complete, and want nothing that is contained in the original. I think I have in this note given the fenfe of Lucretius, and from thence the reader may judge how rightly thefe lines exprefs it. Meanwhile, he may, if he like them better, instead of the two first of thefe verfes, take the two following: Befides the mind and body bear a part, Ver. 169. This paffage, in the original, runs thus: believe, approve of this emendation; nor will others perhaps diflike it. Thus far Faber. But Creech is of another opinion. I, fays he, who, both by nature and through croffes and afflictions, am more than a little difpofed to fadness and melancholy, nevertheless disapprove this correction. The poet defcribes the perturbations of the mind in a wounded body. It drops as foon as it receives the blow; while it lies on the ground it feels other emotions, and fometimes it is feized with a defire or will, but that not fully bent and determined to rife up from the ground. The wounded perceive all this; and why may not Lucretius defcribe what they experience? I therefore interpret, "Mentis in terra," Of the mind grovelling on the ground, together with the wounded body. Thus Creech; but the perfon, who translated this paffage, seems to be rather of Faber's opinion. Ver. 178. If we may give credit to Lucretius, he has fufficiently evinced the mind to be of a corporeal nature; and in these twenty-fix verfes, he teaches, of what fort of body this mind confifts. The atoms, fays he, that compofe the mind, are very small, fmooth, and round. For the mind is most easy to be moved; and whatever is so, muft be compofed of particles, which, by reason of their texture, as well as of their size and figure, are most subject to motion. For let us but confi. der other things, water, for example, is very fab. ject to move, because its parts are fmall and vols. ble but honey moves with more difficulty, be caufe its parts are more intricate, and more clok Si minus offendit vitam vis horrida Teli, Offibus ac nervis difclufis, intus adacti; Attamen infequitur languor, terraque petitus Suavis, & in terra mentis qui gignitur æftus, Interdumque quafi exfurgendi incerta voluntas. These five verses Lambinus fufpeds to be fuppofititious, and deems them unworthy of Lucretius. And the judicious Gaffendus, whofe opinion is justly held to be of more weight than that of a thousand fuch as Gifaneus and Pareus, who admit of thefe verfes, approves of his fufpicion. But Fa-ly joined together. Again; a heap of the feeds of ber er deavourso illuftrate and correct them. In terra mentis qui gignitur æftus, He changes into Interdum moriendi gignitur æftus; then he adds: They, who through any affli&ion Illa graves oculos conata attollere, rurfus En. 4. v. 688, Thrice Dido try'd to raise her drooping head, Dryd. Moreover, the" æftus moriendi," means a full purpofe, a certain refolution, &c. to die. They who by nature or afflictions are inclined to be fad, will, I : poppies, or of grafs, is scattered by a gentle wind; but a heap of darts or of stones refifts a much stronger blaft: the ftones and darts are heavy and rough bodies, but the feeds are round, smooth, and fmall; ψυχὴ συγκᾶται ἐξ ἀ]όμων λει]άζων, τὲ τραγ[υλοματων, κ Gaffendus inferts this particle) waλdã thì dimfier. vwugós. Epicurus in Laertius, lib. x. But not only Epicurus and Lucretius held that the mind is moft easy to be moved; and that it moves of itfelf; for Plato taught the fame thing. And so too did the Pythagoreans, who defined the mind, "Numerus feipfum movens," a self-moving num ber. But Ariftotle, I. de Anim. denies that the foul is moved in the leaft; and affirms it to be the motionless cause of the motion of the body. Bu he was more in the right, who faid, Of thefe different opinions of the Platonifts and Ver. 183. Hence, perhaps Cowley, David. ii. Ver. 204. The poet has taught, that the mind confifts of fmall, fmooth, and round atoms, be cause it is very subject to motion. He, now, in thefe twenty verfes, teaches, that the nature of the mind and foul is fubtle, of very flight contexture, and compacted of minute bodies. For when an animal dies, the whole foul flies away; and yet if you measure the dead body, you will find the bulk of the limbs to be as large as when the animal was alive if you weigh it, you will find it as heavy. Therefore, what flies out of it, is fomething that is extremely fubtle and minute. For, take away any folid or large part, the fize will be different, and different the weight. In a word, as we conclude that the fpirits of wine, the fragrancy of odorous bodies, and the taste of avoury, confift of fubtle and minute particles; becaufe, when the wine is become flat and vapid, when the odorous body Has loft its fragrancy, and the favoury is grown taftelefs and infipid; yet he bodies themfelves retain the fame weight, nd the fame bulk they had before; fo, for the ame reason, we ought to conclude the like of the lalfo. Epicurus, in the tenth book of Laerαπ, [ays, ψυχὴ σῶμα ἐτὶ λεπτομερές, παρ' ὅλον τὸ δισμα περισπαρμένον. The foul is a body confting of very tenuious parts, and diffused through he whole bulk of the animal. lefs fomething, from which proceeds its faculty of fenfe and perception Ver. 237. Here our interpreter has committed a like fault with that we obferved above, ver. I22. What he here calls vapour, he should have called heat or fire. Lucretius always ufes the words ventus or vapour, wind or vapour indifcriminately, but never either of them to exprefs the heat or the air of which the foul is compofed. His words in this place are, Prima cietur enim parvis perfecta Figuris, Accipit; inde Aer. inde omnia mobilitantur. Ver. 250. Here the poet tells us, that he is going to undertake a difficult task, and that the Latin tongue does not fupply him with proper and fignificant words to exprefs his fubject, and to keep up to the dignity of it. He proceeds, however, and in these twenty fix verses, teaches, that thefe four things, heat, vapour or wind, air, and the fourth fomething without a name, are entirely blended with one another; infomuch, that they compose one most subtle substance, which being diffufed through the whole body of the animal, is contained by, and within the body, and is the caufe of its prefervation; yet they are not all feated in the fame place. That part of the body, which is properly called the mind, being placed deepest and most inwardly, or in the inmost receffes of the whole body, is, as it were, the foundation of the whole foul; but the wind, the heat, and the air, are fo mingled with one anogor-ther, that they compofe one fubftance, according to the different nature of animals. Thus heat, favour, and odour, are mixed together in every animal, yet conftitute but one body Ver. 224. In these five verfes, he afferts, that Thus we have the compofition of the Epicurean foul; but how contemptibly the ancients erred in explaining the nature of the mind and foul, is fufficiently manifeft even from their different opinions concerning it. Cicero, Lib. i. Tufcul. Ver. 229. This foul, that confifts of vapour, , and heat, is manifeftly imperfect; it has not the faculty of perception or thinking; there-Qæft. reckons up no lefs than thirteen, which re fome fourth thing, whatever it be, must be ded to the other three. This fourth thing conts of the very smallest, smootheft, and moft fubatoms; because it is the first thing that moves, d by its motion ftirs up the vapour, the heat d the air; and according to its different moins, all the parts of the body feel either pleasure pain. If this motion be more violent than the ature of the mind can fuffer, if it penetrates even the bones and narrow, the foul is diffipated, ad death follows. If the motion be lefs vehement, d flop at the furface of the body, then the foul mains whole and entire; and a feufe arifes eier of pleasure or of pain. This the poet has comfed in twenty-one verfes, Plutarch 4. de Plac. lof. c. 3. fays, that Epicurus did not make the ure of the foul fimple, but held it to be xgãμn τεσσάρων, ἐκ ποια πυράδες, ἐκ ποιῶ ἀεράδες, ἐκ ποιο πνευματικά, ἐκ τεσσάρει τινος ἀκατανομασικό, ὁ ἣν raisferixiv, fomething composed of four certhings, viz. of fomething fiery, of fomething Ver. 254 In thefe four verfes, he gives the reary, of fomething windy, and of a fourth name- fon why the manner in which thefe four natures are as follows. 1. Some held the mind to be the heart itself. II. Others, not the heart, but that it is feated in the heart. III. Others thought fit to make it a part of the brain. IV. Others would not have it a part of the brain, but held that it is feated in the brain. V. Empedocles believed the foul to be a fuffufion of blood in the heart. VI. Others held it to be a breath, or gentle wind. VII. Zeno taught that it is a fire. VIII. Ariftoxenus, a harmony. IX. Pythagoras and Xenocrates, a number. X. Plato taught, that it confifts of three parts: 1. Reafon in the head: 2. Anger in the heart: 3. Cupidity in the lower part of the diaphragma. XI. Dicearchus held, that it was nothing at all, but a more empty name. XII. Ariftotle believed it an isexa, perpetual and never-ceafing motion. XII. Democritus and Epicurus, a contexture of tenuious atoms. And others had ftill other opi nions concer. ing it. See book i. ver. 141. combine to make up one foul, cannot be perceived: viz. because the atoms, of which thefe four different natures confift, are fo fubject to motion, that by reafon of their continual and ceaseless agitation, they are confounded with one another; fo that their feparate and peculiar powers cannot be diftinguished either in time or place. Ver. 262 He means the fourth nameless thing, which Lucretius himself calls in this place, "Animæ Anima," the foul of the foul, because it gives motion and fenfe to each and every of the members of the body; and for that it excels the other three natures, wind, heat, and air, in sub. tlety, and in quickness of motion. Ver. 270. In these fix verses, he gives the reafon why those three natures, vapour or wind, air, and heat, ought to be subject to the fourth nature that has no name; left, fays he, either the air, the heat, or the wind, should prevail separately; and by that means prejudice, nay, entirely deftroy the fenfes therefore, that fourth nature ought to govern, that it may impart out of itfelf to the other three, the motions that are called fenfiferous, i. e. that confer sense. Ver. 276. In these fifteen verfes, the poet proves, that even the minds of irrational animals are compofed of vapour or wind, heat and air. Grant this, fays he, and then it is easy to give a reafon for all their different tempers. For why, for example, is a lion prone to anger and rage, but because the heat prevails in his mind? Whence proceeds the timidity of deer, but from the vapours that predominate in their fouls? The ox owes his quiet nefs of temper, and evennefs of mind, being neither much inclined to fear or anger, to the calm and peaceful air. For the eyes of an enraged animal glow with heat; nay, we not only fee the fparkles themselves flashing out; the deer tremble and quake for fear, and the drudging ox is grave and quiet. And here, if Gaffendus will not take it amifs, I will infert the following paffage out of Stobæus: τὸ μὲν πνευμα κίνησιν. ὅδε ἀὲρ ηρεμίαν, τὸ δὲ θερμόν τὴν φαινομένην θερμότητα τῇ σώματος, τὸ δὲ ἀrasion Tar iv nμiv ¡μævoês aïobnov The wind the caufe of motion, the air of reft, the heat of the warmth that is feen in the body; and, laftly, the nameless thing, of the fenfe that is within us. vain-glorious boaft of Epicurus, hơn à &; Si véis and div yàę loins dintâ Çüv üvtgames i àlaváros àɣalus. Ver. 309. In these twelve verfes, he joins this foul, which is formed of heat, vapour, air, and the fourth fomething that wants a name, to the body, and blends them in fuch a manner, the neither the body can remain whole and fafe with out the foul, nor the foul entire without the body. The Epicureans held, that the foul is contained the body, [Epicurus, in Laertius, ufes the word siya, to hide, and in Empiricus, dixxgársría to keep fafe] and that the body is mutually be by the foul, that it may not precipitately ruh diffolution. For they believed an animal to be, as it were a web in the loom, that the body is a the chain, and the foul the woof; fo that the intertexture of each with the other, compeles t whole work; but if either of them be diffoire the other, and therefore both together mut be diffolved likewife. For example, take a lump frankincenfe, and feparate the odour from it, a neither the frankincenfe nor the odour will main entire; and we ought to believe the in: of the foul and body. This was the opinion of the Epicureans: doctrine no lefs impious than false; for though the foul be the keeper and fafeguard of the body, yet the body is not likewife the keeper and lateguard of the foul; nor are they interchangeab the cause of each other's prefervation. The wid gives to the body vital motion, fenfe, and e nor is even the understanding itfelf bound to h body by any corporeal organ. The form, incen contains the body, but is not contained. It fore his affertion is falfe, that the foul is cont by the body, and that it cannot act withos de organs of the body. But the Epicureans were d opinion, that the foul is contained in the body almoft in the fame manner as water is in a rel which keeps it in, because it is a thicker tube fance; thus they will have the foul to cories: a very tenuious atoms, but the body of much thick principles. This is almoft what Lucretius felf fays by and by, ver. 424. For fince the limbs, that veffel of the foul, Ver. 311. He means the foul and body wha compose the nature he speaks of two verses a fore. Ver. 315. That is, the foul, the mind, and body; the whole animal, the whole man. Ver. 291. In thefe eighteen verfes, he teaches, that one of thefe three things predominates in *man likewise, for fome are prone to anger, others to tear, while others are mild, fedate, and easy. And the innumerable variety of tempers proceeds from the variety of the mixtures that may be made of these three things, by reafon of the dif ferent degrees of each ingredient. Yet philofophy may greatly mend a vicious nature, though not to much, but that fome footsteps chs xaxías, of innate malice will fill remain; which, nevertheless, will not hinder any man from living with lefs content and pleafure; though we fee, that they who have had the greatest advantages of learning and education, cannot entirely fubdue their natural pai-flight, when its particles are withdrawn, the w fions, nor put a full stop to their career. Ver. 308. Thus the poet extols the power and efficacy of his philolophy, imitating therein the Ver. 316. That is to fay, that the atoms which the foul confifts, cannot exift apart, and parated from those that compofe the body; on the contrary. Ver 321. He again demonftrates in thefe twe verfes, this adunation of the foul and body. T body, fays he, is neither generated, nor gro without the foul: and when the foul takes chain is unlinked, the members putrify, and length the body perifhes. Meanwhile, what be comes of the foul? It is difperfed into emp! nd vanishes away. Since, therefore, neither of hem are fafe and whole, without the other, we nuft believe that their fubftances are most closely ombined and united together. Ver. 333. Hitherto the poet has afferted, that either the body can act or perceive apart from he foul; nor the foul when feparated from the udy. But that fenfe is produced in all the memers, by the conimon motion of both of them, actEg conjointly. He now, in thefe eight verfes, opoles thofe philofophers, who affirm that the foul aly is capable of that motion which we call enfe; and appeals to experience against their opiLon; for, let it be granted, that the body feels, re could not be more confcious of that fenic than we now are; therefore, it must be granted, that he body does feel. But fome may object, if the ly have fenfe, how comes it not to retain that ower and faculty of perception, when the foul is one cut of it? Becaule that power and faculty elong not to the body alone, but to the body onjined and united to the foul. Epicurus, in he 16th book of Laertius, afferts the fame docrine in these words: & μy (Anima) per är (fentiendi facultatem) & iwò rỸ λutỸ θροίσματος ἐτεάγζιζο πῶς· τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν ἄθροισμα πα ασκεύασαν ἐκείνη τὸν ἀξίαν ταηβὴν, μη είληφε τὲ αὐτὴ ενέτο συμπλώματος παὶ ἐκείνης διὸ ἀπαλλαγέσης τῆς αῖς ἐκ ἔχει τὸν ἄισθησιν, ὃ γὰρ αὐτὸ ἐν ἐαυ]ῶ ἐκἐκΟι την δύναμιν, ἀλλ ̓ ἑξέρω ἅμα συγγεγυημένω αυτῷ αὐτὴν ἀφέσις παρσκευάζει. Ver 341. Now because there were fome who eld that the whole compound body, that is to ay, an animal ought not to be faid to have fenfe, to perceive, but that the foul by itself and lone performs that office, without the affiftance Co-operation of the organs, which they pretend re but in the nature of doors, that being thrown pen, the foul that is feated within, fees all exteral objects; among whom was Epicharmus, whose 4ying was ögu, vès axdes, the mind fees, the mind ears, is very well known; and Cicero too is of fame opinion, Tufcul. i. where he fays: "Nos A ne nunc quidem cernimus ea, quæ videmus. que enim ullus fenfus eft in corpore, fed, ut folum phyfici docent, verum etiam medici, i illa aperta et patefacta viderunt, viæ quafi nt ad oculus, ad aures, ad natures, à fede animai rforate." For we do not even now perceive ole things which we fee. Neither is there any fe in the body; but as not only the natural phifphers teach, but the phyficians too, who have anly feen them open and difplayed abroad, re are, as it were, ways and paffages bored rough to the eyes, to the ears, and nourils, from me feat of the foul. Lucretius, therefore, in these urteen verfes, brings two arguments to evince he weakness of this opinion; for if the eyes, fays e, were merely doors, how come they to feel any iolence and pain from bright and glittering obBefides, pluck out thofe eyes, thofe mere ors as you call then, the foul ought then to pereive external objects much better, becaufe the profwould then be more free and uninterrupted. Ver. 355. Lucretius has before afferted, that the foul is extremely small in bulk, and that its whole fubftance, if it were affembled apart into one, might be contained in a very little space; and he now, in these twenty-eight verfes, declares the fame more at large, in oppofition to Democritus, who held, that as many parts as there are of the body, fo many parts too of the foul are contained in them, that is to fay, in each one; and confequently, that the foul has as many parts as the body. But were this true, we fhould feel every thing that touched any part of the body. For when any particle of the body, and the part of the foul that is joined to it, come to be moved, why fhould not fenfe arife from that motion? But there are many things, as he proves by feveral examples, which we do not perceive when they touch us; they therefore are mistaken, who join a part of the foul to every part of the body. Ver. 356. Democritus a philofopher, born at Abdera in Thrace, about five hundred years before Jefus Chrift. He learned aftronomy of the Chaldeans, and geometry of the Perfians; at length he went to Athens, and gave all he had to the republic, referving to himself only a little garden, where he might freely meditate on the works of nature. This is that philofopher, who is faid to have laughed at the viciffitudes of fortune, and at the vain anxieties and follies of men, from whence he was firnamed Gelalinas. See more of him below, ver. 1944, and Book iv. ver. 335. Ver. 379. Lucretius, ver. 134, of this book, has feated the mind, in which the reafon and the faculty of fenfe refide, in the heart; but he has diffufed the foul, in which the locomotive faculty is placed through the whole body. Now, in these nineteen verfes, he makes that mind the chief inftrument in the prefervation of life. And whatever others think, this is not abfurd nor diffonant to the Epicurean philofophy. The mind, ver. 270, which for the most part confifts of that fourth nameiefs fomething of Epicurus, which alone beftows the faculty of fenfe, is joined to the animal in fuch a manner, that it is the foundation of the whole frame, foul and all together. But withdraw the foundation, and all the fuperftructure muft of neceflity tumble down. The mind and the foul, continues he, may properly be compared to the eye; the ball, the mind; the foul, the reft of the orb: wound the ball, and blindnels inevi tably follows: wound any other part of the eye, the power of fight will nevertheless remain. Ver. 389. The gladiators at Rome, when almoft all their limbs were wounded and hacked to fuch a degree, that they had no manner of ufe of them, and even when many of them were entirely cut off, yet lived a great while in that maimed condition. And Nardius relates, that at this day, at Cairo in Egypt, the robbers on the high way, who are cut afunder near the naval, and then thrown on a heap of unflacked lime, live for feveral hours, talk to the ftanders by, and answer them qucftions. Ver. 390. The cryftalline part of the eye, which a vitreous humour follows inwardly and outwardly an aqueous. It is commonly called the light, or fight of the eye. The vitreous humour is contained in a tunicle or little fkin, which the Greeks therefore call außésgov, furrounding. Ver. 398 Being now going to prove, that the foul is mortal he promifes, in thefe nine verfes, that he will spare no labour in this difputation; but because he has diftinguished, as the ftoics likewife do, between the foul and the mind, left his Memmius fhould not rightly comprehend the force of his reafons, he gives notice, that all his arguments are bent with equal ftrength against the mind and foul likewife; both of which compoft but one fubstance. Ver. 407. In these twenty-one verfes. he brings his first argument, to prove the mortality of the foul, under which name he comprehends the mind alfo, from the fubtleness and tenuity of it, which he has before demonftrated, and now confirms again. For the foul, fays he, is a corporeal fomething, more fubtle, more apt to move, and more fubject to diffolution, not only than water, but even than mift or imoke; fince it is ftirred and moved by things more thin and fubtle than either fmoke or mift, to wit by the very images of thofe things, which often move the foul in our dreams; and, therefore, it must of neceflity be more eafily diffipated than they. And it is in vain for any one to object, that when it is diffolved from the body, it remains entire in the air; for how can the fubtle air preferve that fafe, which often exhales through the pores of a thick body? Ver. 410. Because the foul is moved by the very images of water, mift, and fmoke, when the mind thinks of thofe things in fleep. And the images of all things whatever are more tenuious than the things themselves. Ver. 411. For Epicurus held, that nothing can be feen, nay, not fo much as thought upon, or even dreamed of but by the means of images; as we learn from Cicero, I de Finibus. Ver 420. The conclufion is falfe; as indeed is this whole argument, to prove the corporeality, and confequently the mortality of the foul: and it is anfwered in one word, that the foul is a fpirit. Besides, though the mind, when the body is afleep, does not think of smoke, water, niift, or other things of the like fort, it is not fhe that receives the images of thofe things, but, the fancy, which is an interior faculty of the foul and these in ages being thus admitted into the fancy. the mine makes use of them, to know the things whole images they are. Add to this, that the mind knows other things whofe images are neither received within herfelf, nor in the fancy neither. Thus it is no proof that the foul is corporeal, because the mind makes ufe of corporeal images, to come at the knowledge of things. And, therefore, the poet adds, without reafon, that when the foul is gone out of the body, it cannot fubfift in fafety, from the very air, which is more rare than the body, by which alone the foul could be contained; for the foul is a fpirit and wants not air to preferve and keep itself alive. Ver. 424 As if, because the water runs out, when the veffel that contains it is broken; the foul were contained in the body in fuch a manner, that when this is deftroyed, that too mut diffolve, and vanish into air. But certainly Lucretius ftabs himself with his own weapon; for if the foul be diffolved, when the body is broken to pieces, as the water runs out of a broken veffel; then the more the body is obftructed and closed up, the fafter the foul will be detained and kept in it, as a well-clofed veffel holds the water more fafely than one that is leaky, yet, though in a violent death the body be not broken, ray, though in men that are hanged, it be in fome measure clofed and flopped up, the foul never theless flies out of it with greater eafe, than when the body is cut to pieces limb by limb. It is indeed a veffel, but made of earth, and the foul is contained in it, but proceeds from heaven; and when death comes, both of them return to the place from whence they came, the body is committed to the earth, and the foul feeks her native heaven. Let Lucretius then make the mot of his weak argument. Ver. 428. In thefe twelve verfes, is contained his fecond argument against the immortality of the foul. Whatever, fays he, is generated, grows up, waxes old, and decays with the body, is mertal: But all this is true of the foul: For children are no lefs infirm in mind, than weak in body; as they grow up, and the ftrength of their body in creafes, they ftrengthen in judgment likewe. But in old age, both mind and body decay, and dodder alike This argument is confuted by Lactantius, lib. vii. de Div. Præm. c. 12 where he argues to this purpofe. This reafon, fays he, holds not good as to the foul, though indeed it be true inadmuch 23 it relates to the body, which, because it is made of a perifhing element, is corruptible: but the human foul, because it is derived from a celeftial fubtility, neither dies nor is corruptible; on the contrary, it is an eternal fpirit, that deduces its origin from the fpirit of God. Therefore this common axiom, " Quicquid natum eft, interire neceffe eft," whatever is born, muft of neceffity die, can hold good only in corporeal things. The foul, indeed, is born with the body, but it pro cecds perfe& from God; nor does age add any thing to it, or take any thing from it. ftrength of the mind does indeed increase and de. cay, but this happens not through any imper fection in the foul itfelf, but through the deciency of the organs of the body. Ariftotle too argues to the fame effect, 1. de Anim cap. 4 The Ver. 440. These fixteen verles contain his third argument. When the body is feized with a fit of ficknefs, the mind is poffeffed with grief, fear, &c. Bet in that difcate the body is wasted; and it is likely too that the mind waftes with forrow. Nay, the mind is fometimes difeafed itfeif; for the mind of a lunatic raves, and the mind of a lethargic perfon is stupid. Since, therefore, the |