make him walk to London without his dinner, in order that he might be there in time. He at that time used to choose his seat in the centre of the pit, a short distance from the stage, because he observed a knot of stage critics generally seated thereabouts. In after life, when he still continued peculiarly fond of even the worst theatrical exhibitions, his first care was to bustle up to what he thought the best place, which was in front of the actors, as near the stage as his situation might allow.

It is observed that he was not a little mortified with this his first occupation as the second usher in a mere academy, not devoted to the sort of literature with which he had been conversant. But his object was employment and emolument, more than any prospect of, or love for, a particular course of study. It is certain that the pursuit of classical or mathematical knowledge made no part of his object, neither probably had he occasion to ask himself the reason of his taking this situation, since one who is by principle, as well as inclination, resolved to throw himself entirely into the service of his station, whatever it may be, seldom troubles his head about the little annoyances belonging alike to every office. It does not appear to have occurred to him as any thing more than an employment from which he obtained a certain stipend. He took much delight in observing upon Mr. Bracken's stipulation, and the importance which was attached to it by its being referred to Dr. Shepherd, who procured for him the situation. It

was made part of the bargain that he should wear a wig, and sit behind the door. He thought he had little occasion for such a signal decoration to his head in order to give an air of dignity and age to his face, till on going home shortly after on a visit to his friends, he found Mr. Bracken's proposal very judicious, for he was received by some of his countrymen as his old aunt's husband.

He did not, however, droop in his situation of assistant in a school, nor let go his hold either of his interest in his old studies, or of the pursuit of academical honours. In 1765 he gained the Bachelor's prize by a Latin essay on the subject, “ Utrum civitati perniciosior sit Epicuri an Zenonis philosophia." He undertook to advocate the Epicureans, and this circumstance, together with its having called forth more notice from some of his biographers than seems to belong to it, makes it necessary to observe (what otherwise would scarcely be of importance amongst many University prizes), that there is no appearance on the face of the Essay of any peculiarity of sentiment, except perhaps it be a leaning towards exposing the hypocrisy of Stoicism. If any thing else is to be noticed upon this first attempt to excite public attention in any way, besides that it is a subject which was congenial enough to his own turn of thought and habit of observation, and one on which he could show an ingenuity and closeness of argumentation, it is this-that the prevailing traits of his mind in later life are very conspicuously seen in that

VOL. I.

E

balancing between two opposite opinions, that discernment of the laudanda et culpanda of each, that liberality in construing men's motives, that freedom and independence of discussion, that advocating of an injured party, which are at once the best protection to, as well as accompaniments of, ingenuousness and candour. "Latuit forsan veritas intervallo prope pari utrinque reducta. Non igitur Zenonis præcepta Epicureorum ex libris haurienda, nec tamen ponendus est Epicurus qualis exhibetur a Stoicisquorum alter multum adversatur reipublicæ, multum uterque." The popularity of the Stoics, says the writer in a note, those Pharisees in philosophy, is easily accounted for. The all-sufficiency of virtue to complete our happiness will ever be the theme of popular eloquence, and the language, if not of nature, at least of pride. Zeno was a politician, and in that light, it will appear, has advanced many things immediately destructive of the welfare, some things fatal to the existence, of a state. Epicurus was a more speculative philosopher, and therefore if his principles were pernicious, it was only in their more remote consequences. "Candidi vero estimatoris est non quid quisque dicat, sed quid cuique dicendum erat, videre. Philosophi autem constanter sibi, convenienterque sentire*." When it is considered that his

* Something ought perhaps to be said for making extracts from this essay, rather than adding the essay itself in an appendix. The former plan is followed merely so far as may be

2

genius and love of disputation, with something perhaps of a wish to make, if not the worse, yet the less favoured side appear more favourable, might easily incline him to the less obvious side of the question; and that his subject was not at his own option, nor appears in any way connected with his services to morality in later life, it must be looked upon as amongst the singularities of coincidence, rather than as any taste or distaste for the principles of these philosophers, that any inference drawn from this essay may be applied to the moral writings of Dr. Paley. It cannot indeed be more than conjectured; but the age at which he wrote, the subject chosen in the ordinary course of university exercises, the line of study which it embraced being never afterwards followed by himself, are circumstances which make it doubtful whether any particular passages of this essay may be produced as indicative of the bent of the writer's mind. At any rate, he certainly had little admiration for the Epicurean principle, which he seems to have thought irrelevant to his subject; much less will any one of his friends who knew him well suspect that there was any tendency in him towards a wide construction in favour of even doubtful morality. Indeed it is to show but a slight acquaintance with any heathen philosophy, at least a much slighter than a

sufficient to give the general characteristics of his mind at that time. By the latter the reader might be disposed to suspect that something like an attempt was made to place this university prize on an eminence above other prize essays.

successful candidate for a prize essay in one of our universities would show, to suspect that he was likely to turn it into a defence of Epicurean principles in the common acceptation of that term. He calls himself

an advocate of Epicurus, but it is in such sentences, and with such saving clauses, as these: "Recognoscite vero, Academici, explicandas esse disciplinas, non defendendas; earum inter se conferendas utilitates, non ipsas collaudandas, esse sectas." " Quidnam vero causæ potissimum esse dicam, cur cum in errores perniciosos inciderint ambo, alterius tamen ad cœlos efferantur laudes, alterius fama parum meritis respondeat ?" "Hoc etenim, Epicure, concedendum tibi posco, non in epulis luxuque regio, sed in victu cultuque tenui; non in effusis omni intemperantia libidinibus, sed in sano corpore animoque tranquillo tuam te vitam posuisse beatam. Impietas quædam suspecta gravissimas Epicuro notas inussit, quas quidem cum delere aggrediar, absit ut alia mente id præstem quam veritatis gratia; neque enim si fuisset, qualis esse potuit, impius, ego is sum qui patrocinium ipsius mordicùs suscipiam." After all, a great deal more of the essay is employed in drawing forward the errors of Stoicism, than in recording the honours or services of Epicurus. All he says in defence of his favourite is contained in the following sentence: "De Epicuro, cujus patrocinium suscepi, pauca jam attexam. Videamus ergo virum doctrinæ castimonia vitæque continentia clarum-videamus erga civitatem pium, erga Deos non impium.-Quem tamen iniquis