Preliminary reasoning of the Pythagoreans - their argument for the incorporeal nature being the origin principle in the universe - and why they philosophied by numbers - views of theories in theology

P hese ét TENT ef Pot A je c& S, nas? as 2 ANDERSON AND SRSaN NW ai — Sect I Ai PART Seer. WC Page UL SECT. L sE C T. IL | L Of the Appearance and Charaëters of the Seven Sages of Greece—Of the Rife of the Ionic School of Philofophy; and the Phyfical Tenets held by the Succeffors in it : En SE a PART SECT SE Se > I IL Of Pythagoras—his Travels into Egypt and other foreign Conntries—his Inflitation of the Italic School of Philofophy—and the peculiar difcipline taught in it - . - S - - EC T. IL > hi 7 43 Preliminary reafoning of the Pythagorzan:—Their argument for the Incorporeal ‚Nature being the Original Principle in the Univerfe—and why they Philofuphifed by Numbers—Views of Theories in Theology and Morals. B PART

RT. T II, ION I. Of Pythagoras—his Travels into Egypt and other foreign Countries—bis In. Pitution of the Italic School of Philofophy,—and the peculiar Difcipline taugbt in it. N the more ancient. times, the Egyptian temples are faid * to have contained no images or ftatues of the gods ; and, from Homer’s filence upon the head, it may be inferred that thofe of Greece were not furnifhed with them in the time of the Trojan war. It is even to be. prefumed that many of the rites and ceremonies recited by him, as ufed in facrifices and expiations, were introduced after that period +." It is. likewife known that neither the antient Chaldeans of Affyria, nor the Magi of Perfia, admitted of images, nor, for fome time, of temples, for religious worfhip ; and that they adored, under the expan/e of the heavens, the firft or fovereign principle of all things, in the fun, or the element of fire; while the Egyptians paid a fimilar veneration to that of water. The like fimplicity of religion appears to have obtained among the antient nations of Italy ; and, according to Dionyfius Halicarnaffeus $, Pliny, and Plutarch, it took place in the facred inftitutions of the Romans by their firft King, and more efpecially in thofe of his fucceffor. The religion of the Sabines, fays Livy §, of which nation Numa. Pompilius was, had much of the character of that of the Pythagoreans ; and, ® Lucian de Dea Syria. Cicero de Legibus, lib. 2. p. 345. $ Lib. r. p. 27. fol. edit. + Diogen. Laert. in Prooemio; Strabo, lib. 15.3. + Antiquitat. Rom. lib. 2.

Paarfl. and, although it was afterwards accounted by the Romans too auftere, it might well be accounted more pure and incorrupt than any other in its precepts. In its exterior forms, a principal regard was paid to compofure of mind, and to a chafte adoration of the prefent, but invifible divinity. Numa *, adds Plutarch, difapproved the ufe of fenfible images of the deity; “ for the firft caufe,” faid that legiflator, “ is not to be “ confidered as an obje& of the fenfes; neither is he fufceptible of paf“ fion; but, having no mixture of parts, he is invifible, and to be “ comprehended only by the mind.” It is alfo obferved by the fame author, that this fentiment of deity correfponded with the «one delivered in the philofophy of Pythagoras. It would however be a grofs error, to imagine that Numa could have borrowed any thing from Pythagoras, who was pofterior to him by two or three generations, and is reckoned } to have come into Italy, not fooner than the reign of Tarquinius Superbus, the laft of the Roman kings. Not much fkilled in chronology, the ancient Romans, fays Cicero }, eafily admitted of this anachronifm about Pythagoras; account. ing it honourable for their king to have converfed with a philofopher fo celebrated for his wifdom. * The Roman orator ||, when copying the religious inftitutions delivered in Plato’s book of laws, in which that philofopher conne&s the regulations of Minos with the Pythagorean difcipline, finds an almoft entire agreement of the two with the facred appointments of Numa. It appears, then, that rational and worthy fenti. ments of deity, together with fuitable notions of religious worfhip, fuch ‘as diftinguifhed the philofophy of Pythagoras, were not unknown, even in that region where he afterwards chofe to inftitute his fchool. In tracing the fources of thefe fentiments, we are therefore ftill obliged to look back to an antiquity prior to that of any Grecian poet or fage; and fhall find that Pythagoras, who became moft intelligent in them, was hardly deemed a Grecian philofopher, on account of his having paffed the greateft part of his life in foreign climes, and received there almoft the whole of his erudition and difcipline. | There ® In Vita Numae. + Ibid. lib. 4. p. 163. + Tufculan. Quaeft. lib. 1. p. 129. | Ibid. de Legibus.

Sect. There are many fables, and unvouched anecdotes, with which Porphyrius, and, after him, his difciple Jamblicus, have loaded their lives of this philofopher, that are to be thrown afide, in any credible account of him that may be given *. That Pythagoras had parents, or near relations,in a condition to afford him the moft liberal education, and to: gratify the uncommon thirft for knowledge he foon difcovered, need not be called in queftion. His father’s name + was Mnefarchus, a perfon of rankin the ifland of Samos; although his employment was that of an engraver of feals. As Samos furnifhed no mafters in fcience of more ability than the ordinary priefts in the temples, he was early placed under the tuition of Pherecydes Syrus, whofe literary fame has been mentioned. That he made a circuit among other profeffors of fcience in Greece and Phoenicia, previoufly to his voyage to Egypt, and by his. ftudies under them, before the age of eighteen, had-attained to that proficiency in knowledge afcribed to him by Jamblicus }, is neither reconcileable with probability nor chronelogy. We may indeed afk, with refpéct to theology, which afterwards made a principal part in his philo fophy, where, among all his Grecian mafters, he could receive it? Une lefs we admit that there were genuine poems of Orpheus, which taught ‘it, and might be perufed by him, he mutt have colleétedit from fome-. obfcure hint, fuch as that of the fyllable +, infcribed on the gate of the temple of Delphos, of which Plutarch gives feveral explications, or exe trated it from fome allufions or figurative expreflionsin Homer,in the: manner his allegorifing commentators pretended to do ; or penetrated: into it through the veil of the Eleufinian myfteries. It is not alledged that Pythagoras received the inftruétion in fciencethat Thales could have afforded him, but only a dirediion from that philofopher |, then in the decline of life, to profecute his ftudies in the facerdotal colleges of Egypt, which were the beft fources of knowledge.. He proceeded, accordingly, in his voyage to. that country; but, although: ® Cicero, De Divinatione, lib. 2. p. 296. reckons him and Plato among the authors who were wealthy. + Diog. Laert. lib. 8. p. 487. + Jamblici Vita Pythag. edit. Bibliopola Commeliano, cap. 2. et 3. fi Archacologiae Philofophicae, quart. edit. lib. 3. cap. 11. p. 150. Ibid. cap. 8..

PART II. though he carried with him letters of recommendation from Polycrates, who bore the chief fway in Samos *, to Amafis the Egyptian King, they did not immediately procure him the admiffion to inftruétion which he expected. Amafis’s mandate for that purpofe, which he obtained, was not direétly complied with by the priefts. Thofe of Heliopolis, to whom he firft applied, remitted him to their brethren of Memphis, as their feniors in office. ‘The latter, under the fame pretext, directed him to the college of Diofpolis, or Thebes; the priefts of which, although they did not ufe the fame evafion, endeavoured to deter Pythagoras from infifting upon bis demand, by reprefenting to him what difagreeable aufterities he would be obliged to undergo, in the courfe of his initiation into their myfteries. Finding, at laft, that he was neither to be diffuaded nor terrified, the rigid fraternity relented, and willingly taught him what they wifhed not to communicate to any ftranger. Perhaps the King’s authoritative command was, in this cafe, difrelifhed by the priefts, who might defire to preferve entirely in their own power, and without his interpofition, the privilege of admitting or reje@ing fuch lications to them for inftruction +. Upon this fuppofition, may be explained what Plutarch, Strabo, and other Grecian authors, fay of the frequent inexorability of the priefts to communicate their fciences to foreigners; efpecially if we add to it, that thefe guardians of the temples and facred monuments might be alfo influenced by the motive of. inte. reft, and that they expected to be recompenfed for their pains by proper prefents. Pythagoras had provided{ three filver cups, as his gift to. the three colleges he meant chiefly to attend. But, coming firft with the royal mandate in his hand, he would be thought to have trufted to it alone for compliance with what he required. Others, who had not. a like ability to conciliate the favour of the prielts, would be ex- | pofed to repulfes from. them. For the courfe of two and twenty years, was Pythagoras’s ftay in Egypt prolonged ; fuch ftudy did the difcipline of philofophy, when extended to all its branches, require in that country, where he had « Porphyrius de Vita. + Diogen. Laert. lib. 8. "+ Plat. de Ifide et Ofiride. Strab. lib. 17.

Sacr. I. had to learn the Egyptian language *, the common or epiftolary orthography, and the fymbolic character ; or that in which the facred books, -and.thofe of fome of the.fciences, were written. The ufe.of a vulgar and of a facred alphabet prevailed among other nations as well as the Egyptians, and which, it is well known, many of the eaftern parts of the world ftili retain. Pythagoras’s affiduity in ftudy was aided by fin. gular abflinence in diet, and by a difregard of all pleafures excited either by the fenfes or the paffions, except that of mu/ic, the powers of which he was, perhaps +, the firft who inveftigated theoretically, by en. deavouring to reduce founds to certain meafures and rules. His genius alfo gave him to the contemplation of numbers, aad to cultivate the mathematical and abitraét fciences of geometry and aftronomy; in “which he fhowed himfelf an able proficient, by the leffons of his Egyptian preceptors, and alfo an inventor of feveral curious theorems {. To extend yet more the account of his acquired knowledge, he is faid to hawe been carried away to Babylon, amongft the captives which Cambyfes made in his expedition to Egypt, and to have remained there for - twelve years; and, during that time, to have had the benefit of theological and fcientific inftruêion from the Chaldeans. of. Affyria, and the Perfien magi. Here, again, chronology is perplexed, and hiftory labours under infurmountable difficulties: For, according to the exadteft computation,:Cambyfes’s invafion of Egypt took not place fooner than the third year of the fixty-third Olympiad ; and Pythagoras’s return, from his travels to Samos and Greece, is commonly fixed to the fixtyfecond of that aera. To patch up || this inconfiftency, fome throw back his birth to the forty-feventh, and others advance it to the fifty-feventh Olympiad. The former prolong, and the latter fhorten his life, by more than twenty years ; fo that, however the particular events of it may be tranfpofed, they may, at leaft, agree with each other about the time of his death. Although Pythagoras endured every trial of his patience, for the fake of attaining the Egyptian fciences, he could not bear the arbitrary {way ® Diog. Laert. lib. 8. edit. p. 185. G with. Archaeolog. ibid. Porphyrius de Vita Pythag. oftav. + Jamblicus, cap. 26. Cicero de finib. lib. 5. p. 113. + Ibid. cap. 4- p 36: | Vide Stanley’s lives of the philofophers,

Paar IL with which Sylofon, the brother of Polycrates, ruled the Samians. Finding alfo a great indifference among his countrymen for philofophic infiruétion, he quitted Samos, and vifited fuch places of Greece as were“ accounted moft remarkable either for religious or political inftitutions. In this courfe, his conference with Leo, the Prince of Phlius, became more memorable than any other held'by him. It gave occafion to his explaining what was to be underftood by the name and profeflion of a pbilofopher; a title which he firft modeftly applied to himfelf, inftead of the more oftentatious one of /age, or an adeptin wifdom. “ You call “ yourfelf a philofopher,” faid Leo; “ but can* you tell whatis me “ meaning of this fingular appellation ?” °‘ Youmay, perhaps,” plied Pythagoras, ‘ conceive its import, by only confidering the per. 4 tacle we lately beheld, which was that of the Olympic games, and the «© concourfe of people of all claffes and characters to the celebration of them. We there faw the eager and anxious competitors for the prizes « of Vi&ory ; and obferved others intent upon their projects for profit, “ by the fale or the exchange of: their commodities. A diverfity of ‘¢ motives and paflions appeared to have drawn together, and to agitate < the vaft multitude: Yet a fmall number may be reckoned to have ‘ come to the games without any view to glory or gain, to be fpeétators € merely of the promifcuous fcene, and to obferve the various motions “ of the atorsin it. The philofopher refembles this laft clafs of men. ‘* Contemplationis his objet; and in it he places all the profit or plea« fure he expectsin human life. To look around him, and to refle& “ on what he has obferved, and to ftudy his own nature, and that of ‘© the univerfe to which he belongs, is the noble employment, and the “ rational pleafure of a philofopher.” Inftead of copying either the abfurd tales, or fabulous prodigies re. lated of this philofopher by authors, who, with a credulity fimilar to that of his two biographers, would have him confidered not fimply as a man, but one of thofe genii, who were believed to hold a middle rank betwixt adivinity and a mortal, we fhall proceed to relate the moft di. ftinguifhing inftitutes of his fchool, the rules prefcribed to the eleves in ® Cicero, Tufculan. Quaeft. lib. 5. p. 176. Diogen. Laert. ibid.

it, and his peculiar manner of imparting fcientific inftru&tion to them. After narrating the fate which befel him, and the firft philofophic focieties reared by him in Italy, a feparate view fhall be taken of the whole Pythagorean fyftem, comprehending its phyfical, theological, and moral theories, whether as taught by Pythagoras himfelf, or fubfequently adopted by his moft eminent difciples. The firft and moft confpicuous feature of Pythagoras’s fchool was, that in it he imitated- what he faw in the foreign colleges of the learned, where the ftudies of religion and philofophy were enjoined; and the veil of fan@ity, common to the one, was extended to the other. Al. though he could not in Greece appropriate them to one clafs of men, yet he did his utmoft to make a feleétion of proper participants in thefe fublime ftudies. The opinion that the minds of men being various, like their bodily conftitutions, the fame difcipline ought not to be difpenfed to them all, had early obtained credit in the world. It was fo much adopted by Pythagoras, that he admitted none into his fchoof without a previous obfervation and trial of the tempet and difpofition of their minds®. ‘“ We do not,” faid he, “ make an Apollo of every block « of marble, nor a Mercury of every piece of wood.” The purgation, as it was called of a difciple, equalled the aufterity of the ftriéteft religious initiation. The filence enjoined to the difciple, for five years, was of itfelf a fevere probation. The communication of knowledge to his eleves, in three feveral ways, by plain fpeaking, by concealing, and by Agnifying, was a further proof how much he adhered to the manner of inftruétion he had learned abroad, The firft of thefe needs no explication. The other two were the’ hieroglyphic and fymbolic ftiles, beth highly efteemed in Egypt +. In conformity to one of them, he taught, for inftance, that the unite in num» ber denoted deity, or the one original generator of all things; and that two exprefled the indefinite nature of matter, or the whole complexity of vifible objets. The guaternion, or number four, was ao confidered as G 2 eompeting ©” Aulus Gellius, lib. 1. + Sextus Empiricus, Adverf. Mathem. lib. 4% P- 104, 5, 6. Diogen. Laert. lib. ner. 8. p. 507.

Part IL competing with the uzite, in indicating the ftability and power of the firft caufe. In this manner, the ideas of theology were concealed under numerical denominations. ‘The /ymbol was-likewife ufed to fignify them; but, more generally *, to convey moral or political maxims. It confifted of a {hort fentence, and fometimes of only a word or two, which, according to its literal fenfe, was either vulgar or frivolous ; but in another acceptation, which was latent, it required and merited attention and ftudy, on account of its important meaning. Thus f, it was Jymbolically faid, “* Stir not up the fire with a fword,” which has the obvious meaning, not to ufe an inftrument unfit for the work to be done; but when reflected upon or explained, it communicated a precept, more proper and inftruêive, not to inflame anger, or iniligate paflion, where it was already excited, * Sit not down upon the bufhel” ‘The meafure of corn of that denomination was not made for a feat; nor had it the conveniency of one, and yet it might be fo ufed by the indolent and care. lefs. Vulgarly taken, it might be fuppofed only to prohibit that practice; but its interpretation conveyed a more refined fenfe, that men ought not to fufpend their thoughts of aétion and induftry, on account of their having gained the prefent day’s. provifion, but be always ready for the labour, which the next would require of them. Jf a temple of the gods fhould lie in the way of your journey, and you were even to pafs near its gates, yet enter it not, was rather a religious precept that needed a <omatent, than a fymbol in its proper form. It guarded againft rafh in. trufon into facred places, and againft offering an unpremeditated worfhip to the gods, and pretending to do that occafionally, which ought ever to be performed as a principal act. ‘The fymbol, befide being _ fometimes reduced to a fingle word, was alfo expreffed by letters or figures, which the inftru&ed Pythagorean could eafily explain. It appears to have been a device, which even civilized nations had fallen up- on, for fignifying to others their defires and intentions, on important occafions, by fome fenfible reprefentations of them, when letters and writing were little known. The fymbolic figns were confidered as | . Jamblicus ibid. cap. ig. forming + Porpbyrius de Vita, p. 199.

Seor.I. 53 forming a language more emphatic than that of words *, and calculated to make a more forcible and lafting impreflion upon thofe to whom they were addreffed.. It has been obferved, to the honour of Orpheus, that he reftrained favage men from their horrible food; which fome underftand to have been their devouring their vanquifhed enemies, and others their feeding upon the animal kind, while life yet quivered with the warm blood in their limbs. Plato + fpeaks of the Orphic diet as a prefcribed abftinence from all animal food, and the ufe of only the vegetable productions of the earth. That Pythagoras was acquainted with, and imitated feveral of the religious and moral precepts of the Thracian bard, is generally admitted. The diftinétion betwixt clean and unclean beafts, whether for facrifice or for common nourifhment, he might have learned in Egypt, and other eaftern countries. To his difciples he enjoined a total difufe of animal food, although it was not altogether obferved among them. ‘His f favourite altar for religious worfhip was that of Apollo at Delos, who prefided over births ; and where life, and not death, being the objed, the fpilling of blood, even accidentally, was accounted a profanation. The ftory of his facrificing an ox upon his difcovery of the mathematical theorem known by his name, Cicero$ obferves to be utterly improbable. Inconfiftent it was with the ideas he had formed of religion and morality ; in which a rational and temperate devotion, and a humanity extended to every creature poflefled of life and fenfation, were confpicuous. His doêtine was, that all animated beings [| here below might be reckoned in a manner of a kindred tribe. In what point of view he underftood and taught the particular one of the tranfmigration of human fouls, known in Egypt, and diffufed over ali the Eaft, ® One of the Scythian Princes fent to Darius Hyftafpes, when he paffed the Ifther with his army, a fymbolic defiance, inftead of a verbal one, which was that of a mooie, a freg, and a bird, tied up together with a javelin, in a bag. It intimated, that, unlefs the Perfian foldiers could creep into holes, {wim rivers, or fly throogh the air, they could have no fuccefs. Clemen. Alexand. Strom. mat. 5. + De Legibus, lib. 6. + Philoftratus in Vita Apolonis, lib. 1. cap. 3. ; Diogen. Laert. ibid. p. 499. § De Natur. Deor. lib. 3. p. 253. 1 Diogen. Laert. ibid.

Paar Il. Eaft, will be ftatedin the account to be given of the philofophy of the Italic fchool. Here we fhall only take notice, that, in the judgment of his ableft difciples, the vulgar notion of it was not admitted by him ; and alfo, that he by no means held the human or rational foul to be of . the fame nature or origin with the mere animal or fenfitive one; or that the corporeal and mortal nature could be ranked in the fame clafs with that which was pre-exiftent to body, and immortal. A fiétion, fuch as that which Homer throws out * in his ftory of the tranfmutation of Ulyffes’s companions into fwine, by the inchantments of Circe, might be allowed to pafs in Pythagoras’s fchool, for the fake of its moral import, although not conformable to any fpecial tenet in his philofophy ; unlefs as it might be underftood by common hearers gf his difcourfes, who were not admitted to the knowledge of its principles. It wast, however, agreeable, both to his phyfical and moral doêtrine, to hold forth the animals below us as conftituent parts of the general fyftem, and, on that account, refpectable to us, who ought to lay afide that thirft for their blood contracted in the barbarous ages, when the wild kinds of them were many and formidable. Confidering the food of man as indicating either his brutality or his humane feelings, he recommended that fort of it which was attended with no cruelty, and, by being lefs inflammatory, would render him temperate and mild. The fentiment itfelf was truly compaflionate, and worthy of being touched in Orpheus’s tendereft ftrains. No fon of the mufes has alluded to it without fome fympathetic approbation. When recollected by the contemplative mind, it has been revered as the image and concomitant of the golden age ; and, even in the indulged ftate and latitude of the human appetites and paflions, it has ftill been admired. The Roman poet, a libertine as he was in principle and praétice, could not take up the theme without falling { into notes of relenting fenfibility; fo that, from ® Odyfty, lib, sor p. 136. + Porphyrius de Abftinentia ab Ufa Animalium, o@av. edit. lib. 3° p. 135. et fequent. + The line of « Quid meruiftis, oves, placidum pecus, inque tuendos,” and the fequel, is hardly ever forgot by any boy who ever read it at fchool; and the « O genus attonitum gelidae formidine mortis,” &c. alfo dwells upon the memory. Ovid. Metamorphof lib. 15.

Bzor.L. a licentious Epicurean, we are apt to think him fuddenly transformed into one of the primitive difciples of Pythagoras. He alfo confiders an. other doëtrine of this philofopher, as emancipating human minds from the fears of Hades, and the Stygian lake, but upon a very different principle from the unnatural, comfortlefs, and heart-freezing conception of Epicurus, that death would totally extinguifh their being. This will be afterwards explained. But we proceed now to narrate the inftitution of the Italic fchool, in confequence of Pythagoras’s voyage to Crotona, a Grecian city upon the Italian coaft. Colonies from Greece, befide migrating eaftward to Afia minor, alfo took their courfe to the weft, and planted themfelves in feveral fea-ports of Italy and Sicily, which, in time becoming populous cities, were, with their diftri@s, called by the general name of Magna Graecia. It is remarkable, that a fchool of philofophy was inftituted in both thefe colonial regions, before any fuch literary feminary took place in the parent country. It would appear that one great motive which Pythagoras had to betake himfelf to the Grecian cities in Italy, was the hope, that the principles, both of their religion and policy, being of a later eftablithment, and lefs rivetted by cuftom than thofe of the original ftates, would admit more eafily the improvements he might prefcribe. Upon his arrival in the city of Crotona, the extended fame he had already acquired, fufficed to procure him the moft honourable reception. People of all tanks flocked around him, and, according to Jamblicus *, were difpofed to pay him a veneration beyond what was due to one in mere mortal condition. The admiration of his eloquence and wifdom, joined with that of his apparent probity and virtue, engaged the magiftrates to fubmit to his decifion their moft important public refolutions. But the change of manners he introduced among the citizens was flill more furprifing, efpecially as the Crotoneates are faid to have contraêted various depravations of luxury. ‘The numerous audiences he had, of both fexes, to his public letures, gave him opportunity to difplay and enforce the fcience and praêice of moral virtue +. The women laid afide their faperfluous ornaments; and the men became afhamed of their effeminate ® In vita Pythag. cap. 6 + Julin, Hifor. lib. 20. Philoftrat. ibid. #

Part IE nate habits ; and fo much was even the ftrit difcipline appointed to his eleves in fcience complied with, that fchools and focieties for learning, in imitation of thofe of Crotona, were, in a fhort time, erefted at Rhegium, Locris, Tarentum, and Metapontum, in Italy, and at Catana, and other Grecian towns on the Sicilian coaft. Thus far did the Pythago.rean dreams * hopefully proceed ; for conftituting, or reforming republics upon a peculiar mixture of the principles of religion, and philofophic fcience. The courfe of a few years was fufficient to fhow. the fallacy of Pythagoras’s proje ; and how vain the imagination was that the precepts of a philofopher, or the principles of a contemplative fociety, could avail to reprefs the operation of the common paflions of men, efpecially when exerted in free governments, where they are apt to run into the greateft excefles. If Pythagoras, as fome alledge, reckoned that his feminaries of difciples could become, like the priefts of Egypt, eftablifhed and “permanent councils of the ftates in which they were erected, he was furely no wife calculator of the difference of political meridians, and of the varying characters of nations. But in this, it is prefumable there was much more of philofophic enthufiafm than of political defign. One man’s difguft was only required to fubvert all the labours of the philofopher, and that of his followers, and to involve him and them in a geacral ruin. As the number of the Pythagoreans increafed, they became the majority in the fenate of Crotona, and attained the chief adminiftration of public affairs. For fome time this created no jealoufy, but rather gave the utmoft fatisfation +. Cylon, however, a perfon of rank and opulence in the city, refenting Pythagoras’s refufal to admit him into his fchool, upon the footing of an initiated difciple, exerted all his endeavours to awake the fleeping fpirit of faction. He was foon fuccefsful in attaching to his party all thofe who were, like himfelf, difipated in their manners. He reprefented the Pythagorean focieties as difguifed iafruments of political domination, and that their affumed authority in the government of Crotona, fully verified this accufation. Ignorance ® The fcheme may be reckoned among the Somnia Pythagorea, mentioned by Horace. + Jamblicus, cap. 25. p. 20%

Secr.L Ignorance in the multitude, and jealoufy in others, rendered it credible. The filent demeanour of the Pythagoreans, their fecrecy, thefymbol, or eypber, intelligible only among themfelves, were deemed indubitable proofs of its truth. Various are the accounts of the meafures purfued by Cylon, and his aflociates, for overthrowing the fe&. But the iffue was, that, taking advantage of the popular odium now excited, a fcheme was laid for their deftru@tion, by aflaulting the perfons of the principal men among them. While convened in the public hall, or, as fome fay, in the houfe of Milo, the famous wreftler, they were furrounded; and the edifice being fet on fire, all who were prefent, except Archippus and Lyfis, fell vi@tims to the flames, or to the [words of their enemies. The number of the fufferers is not agreed upon; while fome reckon them forty, and others a great many more. Pythagoras himfelf, before the fatal event, had gone to Metapontum, where concern, added to the iafirmity of his age, foon put an end to his life. The fame outrageous jealoufy, which arofe in Crotona, fpread through the other Italian cities. gad towns, into which the Pythagorean fraternities had been introduced. Rbegium only affordeda protection for the refugees from Crotona. In other places, they were generally fubjefted to forfeitures of their eftates, or to exilements. To confider this cataftrophe of the Pythagoreans as the confequeace: of their afpizing to civil power; and to conceive their founder to have. been one who entertained the deep defign of fubjeCting, by means of his religious and philofophic difcipline, the cities and ftates of the Magaa Graecia, to the controul and jurifdiftion of his fe@, is an opinion unauthorifed by the judgment of antiquity, which vouches no lefs for the fimplicty, candour, and difinterefted virtue, of the Pythagorean dif. ciples, than for the extent of their theological wifdom, or political knowledge. Pythagoras himfelf was, perhaps, ia no principle maintained by him fo much an enthufiaft, as in that of his hatred of political tyrranny, and zeal for equality among the citizens in every community. He connetted his deteftation of the oppofite principle with the . idea of injuftice, when underftood in a religious as well as in a moral. fenfe, to imply an ufurpation of power contrary to the will of the gods,. and which they had afligned to no individuals. It was the chief labour

Parr ll, of his life to oppofe arbitrary rule * ; as the tyrant of Centoripa is faid, in confequence of his remonftrances, to have refigned his oppreflive power, fo the cruel Phalaris is reckoned to have owed his death to his inftigations. His political doétrines were not, like his philofophical ones, involved in myftery, but openly declared, and well known. Various cities and communities, by the juft and equal laws he promoted amongft them, bore teftimony, that not the narrow view or ambition of throwing civil authority into the hands of his fect, but the noble one of reducing the fcience of government to its trueft principles, and exemplifying wife and equitable legiflation, animated all his endeavours + :. Hence he is called by Cicero the greateft ornament of ancient Italy, onaccount of the civil inftitutions, and ingenious arts, communicated by him; and the difciples trained up in the knowledge of his political ma-- xims }, fuch as Zaleucus of Locris, and Charondas of Thurium, are not known to have affumed power, or dealt in intrigues, even where every opportunity was given them, but to have derived the fignal fame that. followed them, from the honeft and worthy exertions they made for: eftablifhing civil concord and harmony in the ftates they were called to. reform. To have the capacity of performing this fervice to mankind,. was reckoned, in the Pythagorean fchool, the higheft of all worldly ho-. nours. The decifive fentence of the ip/é dixit has been often quoted, to the reproach of Pythagoras ||, as a teacher of philofophy, and to the ridicule: of his fchool; and, if underftood according to the common acceptation, nothing can be imagined more abfurd. Perhaps there may be a miftake in fuppofing that it implied an implicit fubmiffion to every diate of. Pythagoras. We may venture to fay, farther, that it is morally improbable, in the higheft degree, that fuch difciples as Archytas of Taren-tum, Philolaus, Timaeus of Locris, Ocellus Lucanus, Alcmaeon, Lyfis, the preceptor of Epaminondas, men of the moft diftinguithed abilities . in fcience, and whofe literary works teftified their genius, could everadmit Pythagoras’8 aflertion, or that of any philofopher,in the room of : reafon® Jamblic. cap. 32. À Diogen. Laert. ibid. p. 501. + Tofculan. Quaeft. lib. 5: B.Cicer. de Natur, Deor. lib. “1. p. 19%

Szct. I. GREECE. 69 reafon itfelf, and acquiefce in it as the ultimatum of human knowledge °. It appears, indeed, that the ip/ dixit, or the precept, without the reafon being annexed to it, was directed to thofe called Acouftics, or the croud of auditors, and the undifciplined, who attended his fchool. During the five years of the noviciate of the difciples, it alfo had its currency amongft them. But, if we fuppofe that it was extended to the fully inftructed, it is likely to have been only with a particular view of terminating difputes, and preferving in the fet an apparent unanimity of fentiments. In that age, the dialeéfic, as it was afterwards called, or a method of conducting any argument with accuracy, and in fuch a manner as to avoid a falfe conclufion, unlefs what natural good fenfe might fuggeft to that purpofe, was unftudied, and made no part of erudition or fcience. The Pythagorean difciples, fenfible how readily they might be mifled, or miflead others, in various difputable queftions, would find it the propereft remedy againft vague and fallacious argumentation, and generally the beft termination of their reafoning, to appeal to fome noted axiom, or acknowledged principle, in the doctrine of their mafter. Confidered in this light, the ip/ dixit was no fuch grofs abfurdity as it is commonly reprefented. > The diftin&ion which Pythagoras chofe to make amongft his dif ciples, according to the judgment he could form of their genius and capacities, inftead of being a political meafure, calculated to ftrengthen his feet, had a dire& tendency to weaken and infringe its union. It rendered his fchool a breed of philofophers, who cultivated feparate branches of fcience+. Some were theologifis, dedicated chiefly to religious ftudies ; fome were politicians, converfant in the theory of legiflation and. eivil government ; and others mathematicians, who applied themfelves to geometry and aftronomy. Upon none was impofed, and from none was exacted, any other tafk or performance, but that for which their natural faculties and inchnations appeared to qualify them $. One party of them was clofely united to the college; and, having their eftates thrown He ° Diogen. Laert. ibid. + De vita Pythag. autor. incertus. Photii. Bibliotheca, codice 249. Holfteno Interprete, + Porphyr. de vita, p. 189. et obfervat. ad vitam. into

Paar IL into the common ftock, ufed the diet, and lived according to the forms prefcribed in the fociety. Another clafs was-allowed to retain their fortunes, and to dwell at home, under the profeflion of being of the fect, but tied to lefs ftri& rules of fellowfhip. Thefe two orders were diftinguifhed from each other by the names of Pythagoreans and Pythagorites, or the genuine difciples, and their imitators. The diftinétion was triple, whenit included foreigners. According to Pythagoras’s doëtrine, morals and politics formed one fyftem, and were reducible to'the fame principles. As his treatifes on the latter, which are faid to have been large, are not tranfmitted, we can form no diftin& judgment how he reconciled the duties required of his difciples in their private capacity, which, in feveral refpetts, were fingular, and out of the tra& of common life, with fuch as might be exacted of them, as members of civil government. Here we allude not to the precepts about diet and abftinence, but take into view their fenfe and practice of certain moral duties, when they came in competition with others that might be accounted of fuperior obligation. A Pythagorean, it appears, under promife to render any perfonal fervice to one of his fraternity, although not very important, reckoned himfelf indifpenfibly bound to perform it, in the precife manner and time he had engaged. Arrefted by his word given, he could not turn afide to do any other office, which his country or his neighbours might requeft of bim, if that demand put him out of the way of acquitting himfelf of his promife *. Lyfis meets his friend Euryphamus going to worfhip in the temple of Juno, and is afked by him to wait at the gate, until he had performed his adoration, and fhould return to him. He promifes to do fo. Wrapt up in fome deep meditation, Euryphamus forgets the appointment he had made, and departs by another entry. In expedtation of his appearance, Lyfis had taken his feat upon a {tone bench, and remained there all the hours of the day, and through thofe of the night. His name being accidentally mentioned next morning, in the prefence of Euryphamus, the interview with him was recollected by the latter. He repairs to the temple, and finds him there, keeping his ftation, and ftill waiting ® Diogen. Laert. ibid.

Saer. waiting his return with all compofure. In this inftance, there was tef- _ tified, perhaps, more refpeâ to a friend, and a confidence in his punctuality, than a fenfe of ftri& obligation. But if it was a Pythagorean maxim to put an ordinary and accidental promife upon an equality with the engagement of an oath, which is alledged to have been the cafe, it muft be looked upon as a byperbole in morals, and to have inferred van rious improprieties in conduê. An oath or vow was either a deliberate, voluntary, and public aé& of religion, or was pronounced upon fome extraordinary occafion, and fuch as was fufficient to introduce it. All that was accounted facred among men was called to witnefs the fincerity of it; and therefore, although a perfon fwore to his own hurt, he was not to think himfelf at liberty to retract. It would feldom interfere with any call to public or private duty; or, if it did, its folemnity would makeit publicly known. But promifes among friends are often requefted and granted upon flight occafions, and with no referve or ceremony. Unlefs, then, the Pythagoreans be fuppofed to have been as {crupulous in giving promifes as they were religioufly ftri& in the obfervance of them, they muft have been frequently thrown into difagreeable fituations, and committed errors in moral behaviour, more culpable than thofe incurred in other focieties, where a proper diftin@ion was made with refpeét to the obligation of the greater and lefler moralities. „There are other precepts of a frivolous kind imputed to Pythagoras, or delivered as articles of his moral difcipline, which may be reckoned more worthy of the Pythagerites, or mimics, of his fchool,than of the true Pythagoreans. We can, indeed, difcover no foundation for them in thofe fragments which bear the names of fome of his earlieft difciples, and appear to be genuine reliéts of their writings : Nor does Hierocles,in his commentary on the Golden Verfes, give ground to fuppofe that: fuch embrios of religious or moral doftrine had credit amongft the more intelligent of the fect. Some of them, as we may underftand from Por. phyry, were no more than prefcriptions for health, or for the rendering the body more freely fubfervient to the energies of the mind. The enjoined abftinence from beans moft probably proceeded from no other reafon, notwithftanding the various fictions reported with refpe& to it. Venerated as the name of Pythagoras was among his difciples, and its authority

Paar If. authority required for every fpecies of doctrine, yet this did not prevent various miftakes and corruptions of it from taking place *. It is not agreed among antient authors, whether any philofophic treatifes he had written were preferved after his death; and, by feveral of them, it is obferved hat he committed nothing to writing. But, if it fhould be allowed that there were extant fuch commentaries of his as Diogenes Laertius + mentions, upon the authority of Heraclitus, the philofopher, who, in his . books, gave the titles of them, it feems that they had been loft at an early period. Befide uncommon accidents to which they were liable from the cataftrophe of his followers, Porphyry takes notice of its{ being an unfavourable circumftance that they were written in the Doric diale&, which had a peculiar obfcurity ; and that tranfcripts of them into other dialeêts were made by thofe who were not true Pythagoricks. Hence enfued a mifapprehenfion of many of his precepts, and a ridicule of their perverted meaning §. The poet Epicharmus, who was only a common hearer of his public difcourfes, and not of his college, took the liberty to defcant, in fportful verfe, upon fome of the moft abftrufe points of his philofophy. It is alledged, and with probability, that, at firft, every literary compofition, by any of the difciples of Pythagoras’s fchool, had his name prefixed to it: But this ufage had been foon laid afide, moft likely on account of the abufe to which it was turned. Although antiquity has tranfmitted his golden verfes as the moft genuine fummary of his moral doétrines, they are evidently not of his compofition. Some of the ver- _ fes were probably taken from his mouth |}, but the greater part appear to be recolle&ed fentences, turned into numbers by Lyfis or Philolaus, : or them both ; who, in contradiction to fiËtitious or faulty compilements of their mafter’s precepts, might find it neceflary to publifh a juft abftra& of them **. From the latter of them came that Collec? of Pythagoras’s. philofophy which was moft efteemed, and that Plato thought well purchafed for forty minae. The theory of the fciences, divine and human, taught ® Vide Lucian, Platarch, Cicero. + De Vita Pythag. p. 205. et feq. - + Ibid. in Vita. § Jamblicus in capit. ult. 1 Diogen. Laert. in Vita Philolai, lib. 5. ** Porph. de Vita Pythag. p. 208.

Sscr.L OFANCIENTIGREECE. taught by. this celebrated philofopher, was further illuftrated by:the pus. blications of Timaeus af Loertis, Ocellus Lucanus, Archytas, and other eminent difciples of his Italic fchoal. . Notwithitanding the great. fubverfion of the Pythagorean fchools that. has been mentioned, fill. fome fcattered vefliges of them were preferved. In thefe, both:teachers-and difciples were found,.who fupported the re-: putation, although they could, not revive the fplendour, of: their fed. The unenvied privacy to which they were reduced, joined to the virtu- ous fimplicity of their manners, contributed to their duration; and *, according to Diogenes Laertius, we muft reckon. nineteen. generations ; from Pythagoras, until his retainers. totally difappeared, or were ab... forbed in other feds, whofe principles. bore fome analogy to their own. . While a remnant:of them fubfifted, ‚they were beheld with veneration,like. the fequeftrated prieits of fome once famous, but forfaken fhrine. “ At this day,” fays Ifocrates, “ wemore admire a Pythagorean in his, “ filence, than a perfon who difcourfesin the moft eloquent manner.” Although contemplative and ftudious, a true Pythagorean was attentive, and feelingly alive to every aft of duty, and generous fervice, to all of his tribe. The tie of friendfhip amongft individuals of the felt, was equal ta every proof of its conftancy. Damon + and Pythias contended which of them fhould diein place of the other. In youth, the ftudies, — the exercifes, and amufements of the friends were the fame, and tallied through every period of age. An indiffoluble fympathy was the confequence, which ceafed not altogether in death. The image of the departed friend was fought for, and contemplated, as far as might be, in fome living character. The provifions made for the general benefit of the fet, teftified not only the prevalence of friendly affections, but of the warmeft benevolence amongft its members. ‘lhe aged and infirm had comfortable receffes affigned them. The credit of the fraternity ferved the accidental neceflities of every individual; and his wilful fe. ceflion from it, or the breach of his facred engagements, could only deprive him of thefe privileges. In this cafe, if he had contributed any thing * In Vita Pythag. ad nem, + Valerius Maxim. lib. 4. quart. edit.

Parl thing to the public ftock, it was returned to him ; but his alienation was confidered as a fad walk into the grave. His atera! death was deplored; and his obfequies were folemnly performed, as of one more swofully dead, than he who only falls a corporeal viétim to mortality. So far we have attempted to trace, nut what may be called a hfe of Pythagoras, which, perhaps, never was, and now cannot be compiled without an intermixture of fables or vague conjetures. An eflay only has been made, to give the outlines of his genius and chara£ter, and to join with them fome explications of the difeipline of his fchool, and of particular tenets of his philofophy, which otherwife might have been omitted, and could not, without frequent and improper digreflions, be introduced into the following general differtations on the principles, theological and moral, which not only diftinguifhed the Pythagorean fet, but were partly ingrafted into the fyftems of the moft admired philofophers in the academies of Athens. SECT.

Seer.. E C T. 65 II. Preliminary reafoning of the Pythagoreans.—Their argument for the Incorporeal Nature being the Original Principle in the Univerfe ;—and why they Philofophifed by Numbers.—Views of Theories in Theology and Morals. WO natures of things, the incorporeal and corporeal, were held by the Pythagoreans as together conftituting the univerfe. They, therefore, defined philofophy to be the fcience of things divine and human, or of objects intelligible by the mind, and of thofe perceived by the fenfes. In difcufling the queftion, into which of thefe two component parts of the univerfe, its principle might, moft rationally, be refolved, they held it to be an evident truth, that bodies could never be the principle of bodies. All of them, faid they, apparent to us, are compounded; and, therefore, in none of them is to be difcerned a firft principle. To alledge, that the minute particles of bodies, although they efcape the fenfes, may have the form of principles, is a vague affertion, and, when confidered, leads to no conclufion. For, if we fuppofe any fpecies of body to be analyfed, and its fmalleft particles to be reduced into thofe which are fmaller ; yet, whether thefe be called atoms, or invifible quantities, we can fill conceive a further diminution of them, and that to proceed in an endlefs feries. There is, therefore, no principle of originality either apparent or conceivable in bodies ; and thofe who infift upon it, are only right in faying, that it is unapparent and obfcure. But they ought to go further, in order to difcover the truth, and acknowledge, that, if fuch a principle obtains in the univerfe, it is to be found in the incorporeal nature, or that genus of being which is comprehended only by the mind; otherwife it muft be concluded, that

Paar Il. the world is without a principle *. It is added by Sextus Empiricus, who ftates the Pythagorean argument at greater length, that Epicurus, who is known to have held the eternity of atoms, and denied all incorporeal fubftance, was obliged to confefs, that we acquire the idea of body, by combining in our minds its fenfible qualities of extenfion, figure, and folidity; without which conception it could be no intelli. gible thing. But, if a mental idea of body neceflarily precedes the knowledge of body, the incorporeal and intelligent nature muft be inferred to have effence prior to the corporeal and unintelligent+ ; and as bodies, apparent and fenfible, are conftituted of thofe which are unapparent, fo the intelligible ideas of them muft have their original in beings incorporeal, and poflefled of intelligence ; which are, therefore, to be concluded the only principles of things in the world. In attempting to give any rational account of the conftitution of the world, whether it be fuppofed to have been eternal, or to have been generated, all philofophers have found it neceffary to form certain concep. tions of the fubftances that do exift, and to exprefs, in the moft perfpi. cuous manner they can, their ideas of them. Some held all fubftances to be no more than an aflemblage of what others called the qualities af bodies, and therefore contented themfelves with taking only a colle@ive view of thefe qualities } ; while the Pythagoreans thought it more phi» lofophical to confider them feparately by themfelves, as objects intelli gible to the mind. Thus, faid they, the extenfion ef body may be canceived. * Sext. Empir. Adverf. Mathem. in cap, de Numero, lib. 9. p. 425. fol. edit. + Notwithilanding the above argument ufed by the difciples of the Pythagorean. fchool, it muft be admitted, that they generally feppofed matter unformed, which was not body, to have been eternal, or, at leaft, pre-exiftent in time to the cenfitution of the world. That this was their hypothefis, appears from the aeeaunt to be given of the formation of the world, according to Timaeus Locras ; and it muft be owned to have been the common delufion of the ancient ph Bofophers. We call it a delufon ; becaufe no idea can be conceived of matter witheut any form ; nor is it explained by them in any other way, but by faying what is was not, and making it a chimera, void of all properties, and yet fo far qualified to be the fubjedt of them. $ Porphyrius in Vita Pythag. p. 202.

ceived without its figure, and both thefe properties feparate from its weight. A line, a fuperficies, a folid, are furely different conceptions, — although all of them be found together in the dimenfion of body. Yet each of then comes under the predicament of numbers. A line, as. confidered by mathematicians, confifts of feveral points ; and its length is determined by the number of them. A fuperficies is compofed of feveral lines, and a folid of feveral furfaces*. Number, therefore, is a primary idea, antecedent even to that of a conceivable fubftance, or the conftituent properties of body. It is ever occurring to the mind; for each idea is one, and, when joined to another, it is more. As the Pythagoreans held incorporeals, or intelligibles, to be the principles of all things, they reckoned that their effential differences could not be fo diftin&ly and philofophically expreffed in any language, as in that of numbers: For how, faid they, is the firft principle of the univerfe underftood, in its identity and individuality, to be reprefented to the mind swith a propriety equal to what the monad holds forth; and, if alterity be found in nature, the duad, as it may be called, is a no lef expreflive epithet, when taken not according to the common conception of the arithmetical number two, confifting of one, and one, but of one, and another, or what is indefinite; and therefore not properly number, but its fource or beginning. In this manner, they reckoned the cleareft diftinétion was made between the incorporeal and indivifible firft caufe, end peflive matter, the fubjeCt of its operation; which being divifible - ‘and alterable, had the capacity of producing the triad, the firft diftin® aumerical idea, or quantity afcertained, and particularly terminated, having a beginning, a middle, and an end. It may be aflerted, therefore, that Pythagoras, and his immediate fucceflors, by no means entertained the vifionary notions of a phyfical and generative power in num. bers, which their followers, in a fubfequent age, abfurdly adopted, to the fhame of philofophy; and that the former infifted upon the fcience of numbers only as fubfervient to the abftra& and intelle&ual contemplation of the principles of things, which they maintained to be incorporeal, and in conjunétion with body, to be fufceptible of multitude and magnitude, ® Porphyrius in Vita Pythag. lib. 4. p. 104. 105.

Paar II. magnitude, identity, and diverfity, equality and inequality. It has been reported, fays ‘Theang, as cited by Stobaeus, by many of the Greeks, that Pythagoras taught that numbers were * principles; but his dottrine was, not that things originated from them, but according taghem. The treating philofophical fubje&ts according to mathematical ideas, and particularly thofe of arithmetic, was not fo much exploded even in Ariftotle’s+ time; but that he, who overfpread the whole ground of philofophy with metaphyfical and logical terms, chofe to explain the four faculties of the foul in the Pythagoric manner. The underltanding, fays he, correfponds to the unite, knowledge to the number two, opinion to three, or the triangular fuperficies, and fenfe to the quaternion, or folid figure. The idea annexed by the Pythagoreans to the quaternion, was, however, a very different one. The author of the Golden verfes fwears by his mafter Pythagoras, who had tranfmitted to his difciples f the knowledge of the Tetraétys, which is the fource of nature, ever flowing on in generation. Hierocles, in his commentary upon the verfes, underftands by the myftic number four, the Deity himfelf, the fountain of everlafting order in the world. But in what fenfe is he the quaternion? This, adds he, muft be learned from the facred book, afcribed to Pythagoras, in which the Deity is held forth as the number of numbers. He then defcants upon the perfection of the unite, as the principle of all the numbers, and having the powers of them all; and obferves further, that the whole power of the Decad, which is the finite interval of number, ‚was firft difcoverable in the four, which, taken together with the three numbers antecedent to it, made up ten. After fuch fpeculations on the virtue and efficacy of the quaternion, he concludes it to bind together all beings, the natural elements and feafons, the ages of human life, and of human focieties. It is fubjoined, that the intelligent God is, after this manner, the caufe of the fenfible one, or the animated world. By all this, if any thing be intelligible, we may underftand it to be an ef. fay * Stobaei Eclog. Phyf. lib: 1. p. 27. Theano was Pythagoras’s fpoufe, who took the government of the fchool upon his death, and wrote fome philofophictreatifes, which remained. + Arift. de Anima, lib. 1, cap. 2. +, Aurea Car. verf lin. 47. 48. cum Hieroclis Comment.

Secr. H. fay on the myfterious Theurgy, as it was called, or the operation of the Deity in the fabric of the heavens and the earth, and on the fubjeét of which, we have, in the fragment of Timaeus Locrus *, the following dif- „fertation, together with other principles of the Pythagorean philofophy. There were two caufes of all things, mind and neceflity; the one, of fuch as are done with reafon, and the other, of thofe which are produced by power, and according to the capacity of bodies. The principle of the fair, and the beft things in the world, is called God; whilft other adventitious caufes are to be referred to neceflity. Before the generation of the world, form, or the idea of it, and matter void of fhape, but fu‘feeptible of it, coexifted with God, who wife, as well as good, faw what was to be done in order to produce a regular fyftem of things. He imparted that form to the mafs of matter; which gave it a definite conftitution, and rendered it one whole, and perfeét; being uniform, and alfo moft comprehenfive, from its rotundity, and fromits circular motions, adapted to that perpetual duration for which it was defigned by him. For ‚he who made it fair, not after the model of any thing done before, but „according to his own intelligible idea, willed thatit fhould be fo perma-. „ment, as to be diffolvable by no’ other caufe but that of his own volition. : As, therefore, a good parent, can have no motive or inducement to de- -ftroy what has been procreated by him, efpecially when it bears the Stamp of pulchritude upon if, the world remains, as it was formed by its maker, unaltered, and exempted from change. The more it may be _ reckoned to have this perfe@ion, as it was endowed with life, and the infufion of an all-informing and intelligent foul; a foul fo contempered, as to confift of idea individual, or unity, and dividual effence, or num‚ber. Hence the world is found to contain two different powers, or prin- ciples of motion, which may be diftinguifhed by the names of thefame, : and of another ; the firft being conftant, and the fecond variable. The eonjoining thefe two powers, whether in the foul of the world, or in the . vifible creation,.was an intricate operation; but effeCtuated according to the powers of harmonic numbers. Here, then, the wide ftep was made ‘ * Timaeus Locrus de Anima Mundi. Qftav. edit. Amftelodami, p. 544, _ into. Ia Opufculis Mythol. Phyüc. Ethic.

Paar II. into philofophyfing, in the myftic ftyle that has been exemplified, and which threw fuch obfcurity upon the doctrine of the Pythagorean fchools, that the infcription upon the ftatue of the. Egyptian Ifis, or Minerva, wrapt around with a thick fhroud, was faid to become them, “ who “ can penetrate through my veil.” Refigning, therefore, the inveftigation of the numerical faculties to thofe who can be amufed with them, we fhall only here fubjoin, from the fame author, fo much of his account of the fyftem of the world as may ferve to introduce that of Plato, afterwards to be given, which is no more than an enlarged view of the fame principles. The foul of the material world, which is its greateft ornament, muft be conceived to have had all its endowments prior to its infufion into a fubject void of all qualities. For, whatever in the univerfe is more adorned, and more eminently qualified than another, muft be concluded to be the more ancient, and to have the precedence in originality. Time, indeed, is but coeval with the generated world ; yet in fuch a manner, that it may be conceived to be the image of that time ungenerated, which is called eternity. As'the conftitution of the world, furnifhed with an enlivening foul, demenftrated the operation of its parent and founder, fo the-generation of animals, fubjeâ to mortality, but capable of continuing their fpecies, teftified a fimilarity of defign, and a completion of like admitable workmanfhip. ‘The procreation and cuftody of all living fubftances, under the law of mortality, was, indeed, committed to Nature; who, as the appointed diftributer and nourifher of animal life, performs her work in every region of alterity ; making fouls dow into bodies, fome from the fun and moon, and others from the wander. ing ftars; but her power ftops at that which, in the human compofition, poflefles identity, and which being the effence of the rational part, re. mains the fame as it was given by the fupreme ruler of the world, to be the type and fignature of wifdom to thole of the human race, who, along with this good deftiny, make it the ftudy of their life how to ule it aright. - Fa the myftical detail of the origin of all rational fouls, fuch as the human, their exiftence before their connection with bodies, is evidently delivered as a Pythagorean dottrine. They are reprefented, not as generated

Sect. IL GREECE, 71 rated by Nature, but as individual portions of the intelligent foul of the world, which being contethpered with the elementary effences, ‚were configned to Nature’s charge for diftribution into mortal bodies, and coalition with them. Therefore they were, in a manner, coeval with their original, and the production of the world; which, according to this philofophy, befide human fouls, contained a multiplicity of other intelligencies converfant with bodies, and acting in the celeftial and terref. trial fpheres, in various capacities, and with the feveral denominations of heroes and demons; the earth being accounted the refidence of certain inferior divinities, as well as of men. Evident it is, that the immortality of human fouls could be inferred, by neceflary confequence, from the doëtrine of their pre-exiftence; and that the argument with refpe& to this important point, inftead of a prolix difcuffion, might be reduced to this fhort ftate: Whatever fubftances had co-exifted with the world, and were not generated from any adventitious forms, or accidents of body, could not be affeéted by corporeal viciflitudes, and corruptibility ; but the rational fouls of men are fuch fubftances ; therefore they are not fubje& to corruption with the body, but immortal. The doétrine of the tranfmigration of human fouls into the bodies of other animals, by way of penal fuffering, and correction for their vices, is mentioned by Timaeus Locrus, not as a tenet of the Pythagorean philofophy, adapted to rational minds, but a fictitious one, calculated to ftrike the grofs, and otherwife indocile minds of the multitude. He ranks it with the fables of Homer; which having a religious or moral tendency, might be reckoned allowable deceptions, and properly enough employed to deter the impious and profligate from their lawlefs and pernicious prattices. This, fays he, is no more than what is often done by the phyfician in his healing art. Difeafes which yield not to gentle, and what may be called more falubrious remedies, are expelled by thofe which are more effectual, but fevere and violent. Therefore, to imprefs truth, which is the fanity of the foul, upon certain impenetrable minds, they muft be told of ftrange punifhments abiding them, fuch as the tranfmigration of their fouls from one animal body into another, in which every one fhall meet the chaftifement due to his depravation. But, with refpe& ta the fuffering of fouls, there can, in reality, be no ‚other

Paar II. other than what Nemeftis, in adequate judgment of their demerit, has determined for them; and which, in the fecond circuit, or the return of the foul into the regions of air *, the furies, and other terreftrial demons, the infpeétors of human affairs, are impowered to infliét; :having this charge from the fupreme God, the difpofer of all things. We alfo find in Hierocles’s commentary +, a fimilar difapprobation of the Metempfichofis, which is declared to be a miftaken and irrational opinion, implying a degradation of the fuperior nature into the inferior, which the order of the univerfe forbids; and that can be underftood only in a metaphorical fenfe, when vice is faid to debafe man to the brutal condition. j ‘The author laft mentioned has alfo given, in the explanation of his text, the Pythagorean doctrine with regard to the future felicity of thofe fouls which have adorned themfelves with. virtue and truth, and thus completed their purification from -corporeal paffions. It amounts to a kind of deification. Liberated from the body, fays he, the enlightened and purified foul fhall become an immortal god, -no more obnoxious to death or corruption. But, its elevation to divinity was to be underftood in a limited fenfe, and in connection with other points of the Pythagorean-theology. It was a principle in it, that fpecies does not coincide with fpecies ; but every diftin& nature remains under its peculiar law. Thus, in the three fixed orders of beings, the immortal gods, the heroes by nature, and the terreftrial demons, together with human fouls, the perfeétion of each of them is not placed in the change of its effence, or in its tranfmutation into a ftate of being fuperior to that which it occupies, but in the proportional and comparative likenefs which all of them, in their feveral ranks, bear to the fupreme God. : In the firft of them, this refemblance was faid to be of conftant duration, always the fame in degree; in the fecond, to be no lefs perpetual, but, not ever in equal meafure; and, in the third, to have neither conftancy in the one way, nor invariability in the other. Yet the human foul was to be confidered as having attained a deified condition, when, ip conjunction with its. fubtile vehicle, it mounted to its pure aetherial place, fuperior to that of j terreftrial _ * Diogen. Laert. lib. 5. + Hierocles Comment. in Verf. 52.53.

Secr. II. GREECE. 73 terreftrial and perifhable bodies; and from thence never to defcend again to the {phere of mortality and corruption, It is in allufion to this retreat of purified fouls, according to the Pythagorean principle, into the regions of aether, fuppofed to be below the celeftial fpheres, but above the fublunary one, that the poets * fing of their taking flight from hence, and being reunited, each of them to its proper {tar; which, in more philofophical language, was exprefled, by their recovering their primaeval ftate, being refolved into their original principle, and harmonifing with the foul of the world. ‚We enter not into a more particular account of the fphere of the triple ‘ world, as it was called, and which the Pythagoreans diftinguifhed by the names of the inferior, fuperior, and fupreme. The explication which ancient authors give of this arrangement of the univerfe, is marked with obfcurity, and a confiderable diverfity of opinion. Even the terms they employ in defcribing it are varied, according to the indiftin& conceptions they had of a theory fo dark and abftrufe. Yet, before concluding the fubjeét, it is proper that one remark fhould be added to what has been {aid of the three orders of intelligent and rational being found in the univerfe. Among them, it feems, of the fame order, and who poflefled the fame eflence, it was imagined that fome natural diftin@ion took place, fo as to infer fubordinate degrees of virtue and excellence, according to the higher or lower places in the celeftial fphere, aflıgned them for habitation, by the will of the Deity. Hence, we find Hiegoctes afferting, that, in the firft of thefe clafles, as well as in the other two, fome of thofe he ftiles immortal Gods were more, and fome lefs, divine than others +. From this doGrine we may trace the introduétion of thofe fantaftic fpeculations about the moral attributes and qualities of thefe divinities, their agency in the globes and ftars of heaven, and the influence they were fuppofed to derive, to the fublunary and terreftrial * world, which, by the later Pythagoreans, were carried into all the abfur- K dities ® Virgil, who in feveral paffages alludes to the Pythagorean philofophy, has, in in his Georgics, the verfe well known to every reader of the claflics: Nec morti effe locum, fed viva volare, Sideris in numerum. + Hieroclis Comment. V. 1. cap. 1.

PHILOSOPHY Part II. dities of judicial aftrology and divination. The veltiges of thefe and other corruptions of this philofophy, which was early :propagated through the eaftern nations, are obfervable among them to this day. But, in whatever manner they explained what they called the condition, chorus, and order, that obtained in the fixed ftars, and in the feven planets, they - diftinguifhed from them the fuper-etherial or fupreme world, as that which comprehended them and all other things within itfelf; having the effence of fempiternity, and being replete with all principles, the fum of which was found in one divine mind. ‘Without reference to time or place, without diftinétion of its genus, it could not be properly called by any name, unlefs that of the all-governing throne of the Deity was applicable to it. But this much may fuffice as a fketch of the theory of the world as it was conceived by the :Pythagoreans, and which we will find refumed and infifted upon, at greater length, in the account of the Platonic philofophy. The general principles of the ethical, or what was called the practical part of the Pythagorean fyftem, come now to be delineated. a oo, All philofophy, at firft, and for a courfe.of time, was comprehended under the general name of Phyfics, which has been fince more fully exprefled by the compound word Phyfico-theology. Until about Socrates’s age, there was no divifion of it into phyfics, properly fo called, and dialettic, and ethics. Theology and morals were generally treated under one head ; and, in the Pythagorean fchool, they were not diftinguifhed further, than as the one was confidered to be the foundation of the other. Piety and the worfhip of the gods. was taught as the fundamental principle of moral difcipline. Bur it may be reckoned the peculiarity of this philofophy, not only that the precept was at firft given with. out the reafon. of it, but that a certain degree of moral and virtuous pradtice was required of the difciple, before he was deemed qualified te underftand or to relifh theoretical principles, relative to. the general na. ture and conftitution of things, and productive of wifdom and mental improvement, not human only, but divine *. For as the blemifhed eye, fays Hieroeles, or one accidentally ftained, endures not, until it be . ® Hieracles in Proemio.ad Aur. Carm.. cleanfed,,

_Sscr, Il. cleanfed, the view of bright objeéts, fo neither does the foul, which has not the purification of virtue, behold with fteadinefs the beauty and fplendour of truth. ° . Upon this axiom, the philofophy of human life, or the moral difcipline of An, was reduced by the Pythagoreans into two parts, the “purifying and the perfective one. By the firft was underftood the delivery of the foul from corporeal impurities ; by the fecond, its advancement to conformity to the great. original, which is the divine image. In the fcale of beings, when an afcent is to be made by individuals of one clafs of them, fmaller things muft precede the greater. We mutt firit be men, and then divinities. The civil virtues known and praélifed, ftamp:upon us the former character ; but fcience and contemplation af. fimulate us to the latter *. Nature has made the human body fuch an inftrument, that it may be accommodated to different kinds of life ; yet the habits it moft contradts ferve to-difcover that temper of the foul which is moft predominant, and may be reckoned the openings of its propenfities to the practice. either of virtue or vice. ‚The analogy that may be traced between the powers of the body in the beft condition, and the moral faculties of the foul, is moft remarkable; and the correfpondence of the one to the other is fo manifeft; that the great lines of the virtues may be faid to have their fimilitudes in thé bodily accomplifhments. “In this comparative view, the virtue of tempetance is:fimilar to. health; prudence to acutenefs of fenfe, fortitude to vigour, and juftice to the beauty and fymmetry of the whole body. It is therefore.a primary dictate in ethical philofophy, that the order inftie tated by nature ‘in the corporeal part of: thie Human. conftitution has a reference and a conneétion with that fuitable to thé mind, and that the perfection of both, and the means of promoting it, are alike and harmonious +. : The feeds of virtue, as incitements to acquire this perfeétion, are indeetl:imparted by nature ; but neither the middle nor the end of the neceflary: progreflion is attainable without labour and diligent ftudy. Hence the-helps to advancement are to be “fought after ; and the fame prudence which difcovers the ufefulnefs of exercife and medicine to the Ke body, © Timaeus Loc. Opufcal. ibid. p, 564 “+ Ibid … *

PRILOSOPHY: Parril body, points out the neceffity and benefit of philofophical inftrution and difcipline to the foul. To allay anger, and abate vehement defire, to liberate the foul from the turbulence of paflion, is no lefs proper and advantageous, than to keep the body.cool, to preferve the equal temperarice of the blood, and to expel the humours which are p@icious to the animal frame. By what method the latter purpofe may be accomplifhed, belongs to that branch of praêtical fcience to fhow, which relates to diet and medicine, and may be called the Therapeutic. ' Difpafitions to good or ill, to virtue or vice, arifé not only from indulged habits, bat alfo are derived to us from our parents, and the ele: ments of which we-are compofed ; at leaft, the depravities or defe@e found in either of thefe have their effe@ upon us. But the ills that are in nature, of whatever kind they be, have their mitigations or their remedies ; and the means to be ufed for the fanity of the body are not more afcertained, nor more efficacious, than what true philofophy prefcribes for the human foul. To underftand what aliment or medicine may beft fupport or relieve the one, or what rule of reafon or prudence may prove beneficial to the other, the conftitution of both mufl be ftudied with attention. : we inquire into that of-the tatter *, we fhall find jt to confit of threes parte ; reafon; irafcible paffion, and cupidity. Reafon has fabjefted to it knowledge; paffion, the bravery offtrength; cupidity, appetite. When thefe three are brought to coalefce, and be ac ene with each other, virtue and concord are produced in the.fouk Bat, if their motions be incoherent and tumultuary, vice and difeord are neeeflarily generated. Since byvirtue is generally underftood that which perfetts any thing in its kind, or raifes it to the bigheft pitch of excel letice, human virtue + muft be reckoned, and defimed to be the perfection of man’s nature. But this perfection is unattainable, unlefs the miad, or rational faculty of the foul, govern that which is void of reafon ; for, by the one we are enabled to jduge of the natume of objec, and confider their efic&ts ; while tha other fubjeds us to the power of every impelling and blind appetite er pañion. | . The dominion of the firft * Fragmenta Pythag. ex Fheage in Opufculis Mythol. ibid. p. 681. ; Maximus. ‘Tysivs Diflent. 8 oStar. edit. + Frag. ex Thurio Opukc. ibid. 689,

Seer. 97 firft tends to produce tolerance and continence *, without which, neither tbe labour neceflary in human life can be fuftained, nor the good.of which it is fufceptible procured. By its influence, the gratification of appetite is moderated, cupidity is turned into temperance, and the impulfe of paflion into fortitude; and that compofure of the jarring parts of the human conftitution + takes place, which is the refult of juftice, or the difpofing of all of them in their due proportions. When the term Juftice is ufed in this peculiar fenfe, it is to be under. ftood as fignifying a branch of that fupreme law of reafon, which, extending through all the conftituent parts of the univerfe, combines them together as a whole ; while to each particular part its proper place and fun&ion are afligned. By it, whatfoever is nobler and better in its propertiesf and attributes has the afcendency above that which is of inferior and meaner qualities. That which moves of: itfelf is preferred to that which is moved ; that which conftantly ads, to what is ever acted upon ; and that which is divine and eternal, to what is human and created. Therefore, as God bears rule in the world, fe ought reafon and mind to prefide in the foul of man. The conformity of the human conftitution to this. law does not imply the rejection of any of its parts, but only their faitable diftribation and a@tion. The irrational paflions, as . ufeful, and the appetites as neceflary, have their fubordinate place and office. Submiflive to reafon, or in concert with it, they give that ani. mation and vigoer to the intelligent faculties, which contributes to their laudable operation, and their fuccefs§. As ingredients of the human eonftitution, they ave parts of a whole, which are to be arranged, but not fet afide. Unlike as they. appear to be, to the intelligent principle, they may yet be fo regulated, as to harmonife with it. In the vifibleworld, harmony is produced, not by the feparation of the elements from. each ether, but by their due mixture. To remove from the human: body all eold or heat, or all moifture or drynefs, in the participation of which its proper temperament confifts, would not be to promote but to . . deftroy: ® Ex Theage, p. 689. + Hieroc. Comment. in Carm. Ver. 13. 14.. + Fragm. ex Critone, p. 619.3 ibid. ex Archyt. p. 677.. § Ibid. ea Theag. p. 691. 6 695,

PART IL deftroy its health. The fame rule is applicable to the foul. The extinétion of the paffions, as it would unhinge its conftitution, would be deftru@ive ofits altive powers. The affeétions and paflions may indeed be confidered as the matter out of which the human virtues themfelves are formed *, fince, in the due government of them, the moral qualities are beheld. It is the fufferance of pain, and the moderation of pleafures, which chiefly hold forth thefe difpofitions to view, as having excellence and propriety in them. But, for fuch virtuous exertions, reafon, or the counfel of the mind, would prove unequal, were it.not for the fupport which the natural paflions afford. Fortitude arifes from them +, and excites us to de. fy and furmount difficulties. In like manner, the powerful inftin& for felf-prefervation enables us to countera& the immoderate defire of plea. fure. Nor yet, upon this account, is the luftre of virtue tarnifhed, but rather is fet off to greater advantage, like a picture, the more illuminated by the mingling of light and fhade. It proves that thereis no obftruétion to the harmony of the world {, but that all things, according to their nature, bear a part in it‘; and efpecially that whatever is conneéted with the. rational faculties of the foul is made refponfive to reafon’s voice; and to conform, iin fome degree, to its excellence and dignified office. Thereis, it muft be owned, a fenfe of decency, which approves it as a general rule in every moral a@ion, that virtue is placed § in a mean between extremes, and chiefly between excefs in that which is eafy and agreeable to us, and defeét in what is troublefome and laborious. To eftimate the too much and the too little, muft, in various cafes, prove difficult. Hence the mixed charaêter, participating of one or other of the extremes that is fo commonly found in human life, and which, in the ethics of a more rigid philofophy, would be pronounced a proof of the failure of all haman virtue. It obtains, however, more frequently from a miftake of the mean to be obferved, and the decorum to be attended to, in moral condué, than from a wilful trefpafs upon what is proper ® Ex Theage, p. 683. in Carm. ver. 12. 13, + Ex Metopo. p. 686. § Ibid. ex Theage, p. 69. 93. t Hierocles

Secr. proper and virtuous. 79 Befides, it is to be confidered, that the moral qualities of fortitude and temperance are not exerted, as has been faid, but in fome concurrence with the natural paffions, and therefore they are the more liable to run into the extremes. In comparifon with prudence and juftice, they are virtues of a lefs perfe& kind, which admit of fome variations, from what may be reckoned, in certain cafes, the meafure of their energy, and yet they ceafe not to be virtues, in a higher or lower degree. All then that philofophy can prefcribe with refpe@ to their due exercife, is, to be in the habit of attention to decorum in every particular and important action. Evident it is, that infenfibility and languor are no lefs * inconfiftent with true virtue, than the immoderate incitement of paflion, or perturbation of the mind. But when, as far as may be done, the mean between thefe is ftudied, the way to virtue will be found, as well in the fmooth courfe of Neftor’s life}, as in the toilfome one of Ulyffes. Thofe philofophers, who would refine upon this point, weigh paflive fortitude againft temperance or fufferance of what is painful, againft moderation in what is agreeable and pleafant, and infift that the former is a nobler fource of virtue than the latter, ought to refle&, that in both characters there is an admiflion of what is lefs excellent in its nature, of the taint of paffion in the one, and of want of defire or infenfibility in the other. Let us, then }, be contented to fpeak of human virtue, according as it is found in human nature, and acknowledge that it is, in general, a certain concord of the irrational with the rational part of our frame, and that the exercife of it is beft difcovered, when our averfion to pain, and our defire of pleafure, are alike regulated by a fenfe of decorum. Befide prudence, which may be called the fource or leader of the virsues, befide the faculty that refifts difficulties §, and that which reftrains defire, it is requifite that the moral temper and difpofition be approved and chofen by the will of the mind, otherwife the character of virtue cam never be truly embraced, and much lefs. properly fuftained. It muft be known and regarded as the real good of the mind, in order to its be. coming: . Ibid. + Ex Archyta, p. 693. § Ez Metopo. p. 695. et ex Archyta, p. 695. + Ex Theage, p. Gag

Parl. coming defireable; and then, as the body’s good is fought after, for its own fake, fo alfo will that of the rational foul be purfued. In the happinefs of human life, the good of each is a neceflary ingredient, although the laft, by nature and eftimation, be more excellent than the firft. But to attain its greateft felicity, there muft likewife be a concurrence of good deftiny. The utmoft degree of beatitude competent to man muft indeed ever fall fhort of that of the divinity, as that which is acquired mutt be inferior to that which is effentially poffeffed *, and that which depends on certain aéts, accompanied with circumftances, muft yield to that which has always in itfelf perfe& energy, and an all-difpofing power. The human faculties, which have been mentioned, when harmonioufly exerted, produce virtue, which is the perfection of human nature ; but it is not, therefore, by neceflary confequence, the perfection of the happinefs of human life in all its conditions. Virtue itfelf, in order to its complete exercife, requires a certain favourable ftation, and a fphere ot action adapted to it; but this a propitious deftiny only can provide. Laudable ever, and fo far as his ative powers go, the virtuous man mut be deemed happy ; yet ftill he would partake more of felicity in a more fortunate arrangement of external things. From this confideration +, it is not to be inferred, that virtue, which confifts in the free and independent ats of the mind, fhould reckon upon the outward advantages of fortune as her life-guards, without which fhe cannot be confpicuous. Such reliance upon them fhe does not acknowledge. What is eligible to her is no more than, by the opportunity they may afford, to enlarge her activity, and, with the increafe of her beneficent abilities, to augment the felicity the brings to her votaries. - By two things, therefore, the happinefs of human life is perfected; by moral difcipline {, and good deftiny. The one, like health and vi. gour of body, qualifies the man to a& well his part, whatever his external condition be : the other fo accommodates circumftances to his laudable performances, that fuccefs, and its fure attendant complacence, are * Ex Euryphamo, p. 665. Ex Archyta, p. 678. + Ibid. p. 667. t Ex Thurio, p. 661.

are the refult *. In few words, human felicity is the ufage of virtue in good fortune. The eftimate of the actual attainment of it is not to be made from fingle acts, or a few particular events, but from the general tenor of the one, and the collective fum of the other. Accidental variations there may be found in both, which yet, like the ftops in mufic, hinder not the progrefs of the concords, and their iffue in the beft harmony. In the conduct of human life, there cannot be too much reafon ufed, or too much virtue performed ; yet, in the circumftances attend. ing it, there may be imparted a fuperfluity of external goods, or what may be called an excefs of good fortune; which is always dangerous, and eften hurtful to the pofleflor. But here the oeconomy of Providence is worthy to be obferved +. The deity, ever wife and watchful of man’s greateft good, has only put in his power that accomplifhment of his nature, in the ufe of which he cannot err or exceed. Virtue is affigned as his fure guide to happinefs; while, with refpe&t to the fituations of life, in which it is to be exercifed, whether in more or lefs outward profperity, a referve is found to take place, and a difpofing power is kept in the hands of deftiny. In thofe of man, who never can be a fufficient, and would generally be a partial judge, it could not in reafon be placed: he, therefore, remains unaflured whether his virtuous ads | may be allowed all the extent he may with, or be followed with that meafure of fuccefs and felicity they may deferve. Yet of this he cannot complain, if he admits it as a principle, that virtue is eligible for its own fake, as well as on account of the good it produces. There is, however, one external condition of human life, to which beatitude, as the confequence of virtue exercifed in it}, appears to be chiefly or only annexed. It is that of focial and civil life enjoyed in a free and well regulated commonwealth. Such feems to. be the order of divine deftiny, with refpe& to man, that, disjoined from fociety, he fhould: vanilh, as it were, out of being ; and that, notwithftanding all the pro. penfities and powers he has to relifh it, and to form a part of its harL ® Ibid. p. 68a + Ex Euryphamo, p. 668. mony,. + Ibid. p. 666.

Part IL mony, he fhould exift no more * than a creature is fuppofed to do, when, though alive, it is bereft of all its natural faculties. Without fociety, conftituted in its beft political form, without connection with a commonwealth, the model of order and equity, no good of nature’s gift can be truly enjoyed, nor any acquired one be poffeffed with fecurity. But under the aufpices of a republican government, every private benefit has a double relifh, and is enhanced in its value. As an equal right, com. mon to every one of the community, it is participated of without envy or fear, being undetached from, and accounted fubfervient to, the public good. In a fimilar manner, every advantage derived to the ftate redounds to the profit, or to the credit of its individual members. In refpect of all exterior advantages, life, in fuch a community, may be reckoned the poffeflion of Amalthea’s horn of plenty, fo celebrated by the poets. But it is ftill more to be efteemed in another point of view: It is Virtue’s fchool, and her fanétuaryt. There, morals and manners, fuch as become men and citizens, are ftudied, and exhibited with honour and applaufe. There, right reafon and piety being cultivated, the fanctity of the virtues is maintained, while facred and juft laws operate with all their authority and benign influence. Among the proofs of man’s fuperiority above other animals in capacity and intelligence, there is none in which he difcovers fuch knowledge of the world he inhabits {, or fo fignally imitates the wifdom of its founder, than in the inftance he gives of his penetration and ability in making civil government exift in its nobleft and beft form, which is only to be found in a republic. His applying names to things diftinctive of their fpecies, or his invention of letters, for the filent fpeech of the mind, cannot be accounted more worthy of admiration. To be the founder of a political ftate, in which laws and not men rule, is the high. eft attainment of human wifdom. To live with virtue, and to die, in fuch a conftitution, may be reckoned that circumftance which confummates human felicity §. Deprived of this happy addition to his lot in life, even the virtuous man has reafon to regret his deftiny, if not as quite unfortunate, at leaft as unfavourable. 5 ut * Ex Hippodomo Thurio, p. 662. p. 666. + Ibid. p. 663. $ Ex Hippod. Thur. p. 653. t Ex Euryphamo,

Sect. Il. GREECE 83 But if, in human life, a compenfation for the want of this difagreable deftiny can be found, it is that of contemplation, or-the exercife of that intelleQual power of the foul, which may be compared to the eye of the body *, @ it comprehends things in wholes, or entire compofitions ; whilft its perceptive faculty apprehends them fingly, or by tranfition from one part of them to another. It may alfo be diftinguifhed from the reafoning faculty, when following, ftep by ftep, the information of the fenfes, and their flow and lame experience of things, it arrives only at a probable, but no certain judgment with refpeët to them. This + fuperior light of the mind, which well may be reckoned of divine original, opens the fource of knowledge in a way more immediate and di-ftin&, by bringing forward objects that are wholes in themfelves ; and, being fo confidered by the mind, claim its firft attention. As, in common reafon, the idea of a whole is prior to that of a part, fo that of the conftitution of the world, or of the univerfe, is antecedent to any con. ception of its component parts. ‘The latter can be fuppofed to have no exiftence but in reference to the former. If there were no formed world, there could neither be fun, nor moon, nor ftar, of any denomination ; but becaufe there is a world, conftituted as it is, thefe things are not only feen, but known for what they are. In like manner, what could be underftood of an eye, an ear, or a limb, without the previous knowledge. of an animal, of which thefe might be the proper members. The conception of a general cortftitution of things, or of whole natures, is therefore the foundation of all true knowledge, or wifdom, properly fo called: And, if we would extend this contemplation farther, we muft fay, that, as the whole is to the part, in refpeët of precedency, fo is the virtue of the whole to the virtue of the part, in refpect of power and efficacy. As the world could not have exifted without conftitutional harmony, fo neither could it continue in its ftate without the conftant energy of that principle: But the recognition of it as a truth, that the world is ruled by one principle, leads on the intelligent mind to the difcovery } of Deity, or the exiftence of that being, in whom the fitnefs L 2 © Ex Euryph. ibid, Ÿ Ibid. pag. 734. + Ex Archyta de fapientia, p. 732.

Part IL, of order and harmony, or reafon, in its perfeétion, ever refides. Without this knowledge, wifdom halts; but he is the wife man*, and above all others moft converfant in truth, who having thus comprehended the univerfe, or the whole of being, under one principle, arf@ referred its efficiency to one caufe, is farther able to trace its arrangement into fpecific natures, and difcover what diftinguifhes them from, and how they are fubordinate to, one another; and, while fo diverfified, what fingular tie conneëts them with the whole. To fuch contemplation the human foul is prompted by its innate defire of knowledge; which, unfatisfied with the furvey of earthly objects +, feeks to inveftigate thofe of celeftial dignity, and to recreate itfelf with the conception of forms that are of a permanent and divine nature. How much may the thought of the brevity of human life difpofe man to indulge this fpeculation ; and how forcibly does the confideration of its many natural and moral evils enjoin it as a proper refource? Thefe can, indeed, be no more diffembled than they can be altogether avoided. Such as beftow little thought upon them, or affe&t to overlook them, are more apt than others to be overwhelmed with their unexpected affault. But, furely, it is fit that we fhould know ourfelves, and what is allotted to man in his prefent condition ; out of which, as “it is not permitted to any to withdraw himfelf without the leave of his commander, fo it is indecent and unmanly to be always deploring its diftreffes and calamities. By the adept in wifdom, none of them are unreckoned upon: ‘They are known to be concomitants of his corporeal : habitation, and of the foul’s remiflion into a temporary exile. Comfortable it isto reflet, that it is to be endured only for a {pace of time, which is as a point, or as nothing, compared with eternity. He, therefore, takes courage, not from ignorance, or infenfibility of human evils, but from obferving a divine deftination with refpeët to them; and, efpecially, that they can have a pernicious efficacy folely upon the wilful , flaves * Ex Stobaei Sententiis, in Serm. I. de Virtute, pag. 23. fol. edit. Comment. in ve 49. 50 51e + Cicero de Seneétute, fol. edit. p. 416. Hieroclis + Ex Hipparch. pag. 660. Hieroc. in Aur. Car. v. 46. 47. 45.

Sect. IL. GREECE. 85 flaves of fenfe and corporeal paflion *. The remedy is put in his own power; and the foul, which yet bears the traits of her high original, longs to apply it. Inftru@ive, and, therefore, fo far agreeable, fhe knows her fhort peregrination here may be rendered. From it the learns what it is to be enveloped in a mafs of grofs and corruptible matter ; where the perception of fenfible things is only delufive, and that of thofe which have the character of truth, is obfcured or loft. She feels what mifery arifes from the failure of reafon’s light +, and the dominion of the unruly and irrational appetites. From their tumult fhe makes an effort to efcape, by the faculty the retains of felf-recolleétion. Its repeated acts fufpend the career of the paflions, and produce that happy attainment of the proficients in true philofophy, internal tranquillity, to which all vulgar fouls are ever ftrangers. This mental tranquillity may be confidered as the afcent of the foul, from the denfe air of the earth, to that of the unclouded and ferene aether. Congenial fhe feels it to herfelf; and introduétive of the recognifance of her native faculty of contemplation, Such feeble difcoveries of truth as fhe had been before enabled to make, from the preca. rious information of the fenfes, and which fhe could underftand to be only fimple judgments of their experiences, fhe finds now to be the openings of her own intelleétual powers, and that all human fcience is to be confidered as the flower of thofe feeds of knowledge originally planted in her. Let us here attend to what Nature has done for the animals placed far below the rank of man. Do they borrow their fagacity from abroad; or is it required of them to feek it from external objets? No. Nature has inftrudted the individuals of every fpecies in all points relative either to their particular prefervation, or to the general good of their kind. How utterly improbable is it, that this providence of nature fhould not take place with refpe& to mankind, but that they fhould be left to find out, by help of their fenfible perceptions alone, not only the openings to knowledge, but all the conclufions of reafon, and the principles of abftraét fcience? If the latter were not the product * Hieroc. in Aur. Car. v. 17. 18. 19. 28. 8vo edit. pag. 289. + Ibid. pag. 293. + Maxim. Tyrius, Dijf.

Part II. produ of the human intellect, aéting of itfelf, the former could be turned to no rational account, or refle& upon the foul the light of truth, and the evidence of general and {cientific knowledge. Whenceis it, that whatis called natural genius is found fo different in its degrees among men, that fome underftand at once *, and as it were by a glance of thought, what others do not comprehend but with the greateft ftudy and application? Howis it, that the true poet is faid to be born fuch; the mufical genius to require no matter; and the wife lawgiver, and the able commanderin the field, to have each of them his peculiar talent, beftowed by Nature, with little aid from ftudy or initruction? Were fuch reputable endowments to be acquired by labour and induftry, they would not be fo rarely exemplified. But no exertion of pains is fufficient to fupply what all men agree in faying, the gods only can give. Intelle is, indeed, originally the fame in all men; and, were it not fo, the moft intelligent would hardly correfpond in their idea of any one truth. But the corporeel prifon of the foul admits of great variations; and, as the matter compofing it is mutable, fo the bodily organs are diverfified. In fome they are eafily moved; in others more : flowly. In many they are fo grofs, that the foul is feldom roufed to any refleGtion. But, from the awakening + which philofophy gives, her intelleQual powers revive; and her conceptions following clofe to one another, appear more like the retracing of ideas formerly known, and exertions of the memory, than as difcoveries of fcience newly made, in confequence of a train of progreflive reafoning. Such a reminifcent faculty may well be fuppofed to.appertain to the foul, pre-exiftent as fhe has been in another ftate, where the natures of things were contemplated, not by intermiflive and. partial-views, but intuitively, and by wholes. A reafon, therefore, may be afligned, why the poets reckon memory (Mnemofyne) to be the nurfe, or mother of the mufes t. They are the daughters of Jove, and the fame- with the fciences;. but it is memory that produces them to men, and afcertains their due order and harmony. The * Maxim. Tyrius, Differt. 28. pag. 293. $ Heñod in Theog. v. 52 + Ibid. 298.

The human or civil virtues, perfected by juftice, have been faid to bear analogy to that eternal law of reafon, and order, which combines the fyftem of the univerfe. ‘The contemplative mind affumes them in this illuftrious point of view. Regarded not merely as the dictates of *, but as prinprudence, which have decorum and utilityin human life ciples co-ordinate with the wifdom of the univerfe, and portions of it ; their tendency to elevate the foul poffefled of them to the life of the gods, becomes manifeft ¢. The heights of perfection and felicity attainable by virtuous fouls have no other limitation except what the law of their being prefcribes. Sufficient to beatitude thefe attainments muft be, which extend to the happieft qualification their ftate can admit. . But, while virtue and knowledge thus exalt the human foul, vice and ignorance degrade it. can be found. In the latter, neither principle aor confiltency Disjoined from what is true, uniform, and juft, in the conftitution of the univerfe, they are neceflarily involved in a profcription from good, which only can arife from conformity to virtue and truth, the fixed principles of union and harmony in the moral world. Hence the vicious are feen precipitated into various evils, that bring on their ruin; rolling like heavy ftones upon a declivity, which, along with the difcompofure they may give to other bodies, fail not to be dafhedin pieces by their own weight. Here, then, we may conclude the account of the Pythagorean philofophy, which exhibited a theory of the univerfe reduced to a fyftem complete in its phyfical and moral parts, but little refembling any one that iffued from the mafters or difciples of the Ionic fchool. It had, in. deed, evident marks of a foreign original, from the manner in which it was taught, and the peculiar difcipline it prefcribed. With a fublimity of ideas in theology that furpaffed the beft of the Grecian theories, it appeared to recede too far from fimplicity, and to err by a fuperfluity of principles and doëtrines. Along with exalted conceptions of an eternal mind or deity, it held forth a fyftem of godsof undetermined power; and an infufion of a rational foul into the world, which rendered it an intelligent ® Aurea Carm. Verf. 45. 46. 47. cum Hieroc. Comment. $ Ibid. Verf. 70. 71.

gent being, while nature was fill required to aët her part. Paarll Thefe, and. other tenets, arranged with method, and a fhew of confiftency, proved the complicated fyftem to be the refult of long and deep ftudy, and the production of thofe foreign colleges of philofophy and literature, which had fubfifted for generations, and with which Pythagoras was for fo many years converfant. Whether the exceptionable parts of it may be regarded as additions, which it is natural to fuppofe thefe learned men would make to a more primitive, fimpler, and purer theology, to the knowledge of which, in Egypt efpecially, they might have accels, belongs not to our fubjeét particularly to inveftigate. Without entering into thefe elaborate difcuffions, to which this queftion has given room, the probability is, that the Mofaic Scriptures, and other prophetical writings under the Jewifh difpenfation, could not be unknown to the priefts of Egypt, Chaldaea, and other adjacent countries, What ufe they ‘made of them is another point, which cannot, perhaps, be more truly determined, than by faying, that they would affume from them fuch theological ideas and moral doctrines as they could beft accommodate to their own favourite fyftems. That they would hold themin contempt, or neglect them, as the Grecians and Romans afterwards did, is ex. tremely improbable. In thefe early ages, knowledge, wherever it could be found, was eagerly fought after, and not defpifed; neither was the Jewifh nation then in that low eftimation among the neighbouring kingdoms, to render their antiquities or their religious and civil knowledge unworthy of regard. This degraded charaéter, they, in fubfequent times of their depreflion, and from the pride of conquering nations, incurred. What we here alledge the Egyptian priefts might do, with refpe& to the Mofaic writings, was certainly much pratifed in regard to their own ftore of erudition and fcience. The proofs already given will be followed with other evidence, how common among nations this fort of plagiarifm was, when the rarity of knowledge inaseafed the vanity of being, accounted originalsin it. We cannot, therefore, afcribe more to the philofophical genius of Py. thagoras, than that it enabled him to difclofe a theory of the univerfe, wrapt in myfteries, taught in the moft abftract manner, and fill perhaps wanting, in the hands of its mafters, that finifhing which he was "qualified

Sect. qualified to give it. 89 That he might methodife, and, in fome refpects, extend and improve its general principles, is probable; that he modified them in the moral and political part, fo as to bring them nearer to. the genius and tafte of his countrymen, appears a certainty. But, with all the illuftrations and improvements this philofophy received from Pythagoras, or his ableft difciples, it was ftill accounted in the other Grecian fchools a borrowed fyftem, and was not thoroughly known or ftudied among them, until Plato gave it-a place in his Dialogues; with fuch embellifhments, however, as his invention fuggefted. Blended with his philofophy, it became lefs diftinguifhable from it ; and, as the fe& declined, its original doctrines were corrupted, or, by a motley fuperftruêture induced upon them, rendered extravagant and abfurd. Yet the ancient fame of its difciples revived their inveftigation; and, from the fketch given of them upon the authorities cited, we may judge that they well merited this attention and labour. Not only are feveral of the principles and doétrines held forth, important, inftructive, and entertain: ing to the human mind, but they are fupported upon arguments that difcover a profundity of thought and reflection upon the univerfe, the different natures of the beings that compofe it, and the fpecial, yet uniform and harmonious laws by which they are governed. Above all, the placing the confummation of wifdom in the knowledge of one eternal and incorporeal principle, the primary and efficient caufe of all that is orderly and beautiful in the univerfe, and the refolving the moral * difcipline of the human foul into the perfection of its faculties for con» templation, and the appointed courfe of its advancement to a happy and divine condition, muft be owned fuch rational and noble fentiments as prove thofe traéts of the Pythagorean philofophy a venerable remain der of ancient wifdom and fcience. Having mentioned the difficulties that occur in chronology, in afcertaining the period of Pythagoras’s birth, and alfo that of feveral events. in his life, we fhall fubjoin to this fe@ion, not any eflay upon this perplexed point, but fuch an account of the computation by Olympiads, and’ of the aera to which it refers, and the term of years included in each of its periods, called an Olympiad, as may render intelligible thofe dates of chronology

Paar I. chronology which will, in the fubfequent pages, be frequently announced*, * The aera to which, as a fixed date in time, the chronological reckoning by Olympiads referred, was that of the inftitution of the Olympic games, celebrated in honour of Jupiter Olympius, at Elis, a city in the Peleponnefus of Greece. This aera was eonvenient on account of the regular return of the folemnity of thefe games within alimited time. But it happened unfortunately for this fcheme of chronology, that fcarcely any event recorded in hiftory was of a more uncertain and undetermifiable date, than the commencement of the Olympic games. Venerated as they were in Greece, and their origin reckoned an important piece of knowledge in its antiquities, no inveltigation availed to fix either the time or occafion of their infitution. The account given of the latter circumftance in Herodotus, lib. 8. alluded to by Pindar, Olympion ode 2. and followed by Diodorus Siculus, lib. 4. who afcribe their firft celebration to Hercules the fon of Alcmena, is rejected and confuted by Strabo, lib. 8.; and Paufanias, Eliacorum prior, vel lib. 5. fhows what various opinions, and all of them fabulous, were entertained upon that point. One fuppofition, with refped to it, appeared to be allowable, that thefe games were either unknown, or in no reputation before the war of Troy; fince it could not well be imagined, that Homer, who abounds with fuch narratives, would have omitted to mention them. Some evidence there was of their being celebrated, if not, after long intermiflion, re-inftituted by Iphitus, King of Elis, contemporary with Lycurgus, as mentioned by Plutarch in the life of that lawgiver. But the great uncertainty of this period ia chronology, as well as the ‘difcontinuance of the games for various years, ftill left an exa@ date of time, and the regular meafurement of certain intervals of it, in doubt or obfcurity. It was therefore fuggefted by Phlegon, the author of the computation by Olympiads, to fix upon a period, in which there appeared the leaft chronological dubiety, and the other requifite circumftance of the ftated celebration of the games might alfo be found. Such what was called the 25th Olympiad, in the common reckoning of them from Iphitus’s time, was judged to be, when Choraebus proved vi&or in the race on foot, and of which the memory was preferved in his fepulchre at Elis. From that period, the Olympic games were regularly folemnized at the end and completion of every fourth year; fo that they were generally held in the fecond month of the fifth, and continued for five days. Reckoning, then, an Olympiad a fcale of four years, and that twenty-eight of them were elapfed in that marked by Coraebus’s vidory, the only queftion was, to what aeras fixed in chronology the firt year of the firft Olympiad was to be referred. It has been generally agreed, with only the variation of a year or two, to correfpond to the 408th year from the taking of Troy; to the 19th before the building of Rome; and to the 757th or or 759th before the Chriftian aera. Computing, therefore, according to the Olympiads,

Seer. gt piads, it is plain, that Rome was built in the 3d year of the fifth of them, and Pythagoras reckoned to have been born about the 47th; his birth anfwers to the 169th year of Rome; by this rule, that the announced number of Olympiads multiplied by four, and a deduction made of nineteen years, will always give the year of the ancient Roman calendar. If, again, a given year of this epoch be fubtracted from the number aligned for the commencement of the Olympiads, or 19 years before the building of Rome, the year preceding the nativity of Chrift will be found. Thus, if the 169th of Rome be given for the birth of Pythagoras, and the fubtra@ion of it be made from 757 or 759, there will remain either 588 or 590, to mark the years before the Chriftian aera. PART