[683] Machiavel, in the twenty-ninth chapter of his Discorsi sopra T. Livio, examines the question, “Which of the two is more open to the charge of being ungrateful,—a popular government, or a king?” He thinks that the latter is more open to it. Compare chapter fifty-nine of the same work, where he again supports a similar opinion.

M. Sismondi also observes, in speaking of the long attachment of the city of Pisa to the cause of the emperors and to the Ghibelin party: “Pise montra dans plus d’une occasion, par sa constance à supporter la cause des empereurs au milieu des revers, combien la reconnoissance lie un peuple libre d’une manière plus puissante et plus durable qu’elle ne sauroit lier le peuple gouverné par un seul homme.” (Histoire des Républ. Italiennes, ch. xiii, tom. ii, p. 302.)

[684] Dêmosthenês, Olynth. iii, c. 9, p. 35, R.

[685] This is the general truth, which ancient authors often state, both partially, and in exaggerated terms as to degree: “Hæc est natura multitudinis (says Livy); aut humiliter servit aut superbe dominatur.” Again, Tacitus: “Nihil in vulgo modicum; terrere, ni paveant; ubi pertimuerint, impune contemni.” (Annal. i, 29.) Herodotus, iii, 81. ὠθέει δὲ (ὁ δῆμος) ἐμπεσὼν τὰ πρήγματα ἄνευ νοῦ, χειμάῤῥῳ ποταμῷ ἴκελος.

It is remarkable that Aristotle, in his Politica, takes little or no notice of this attribute belonging to every numerous assembly. He seems rather to reason as if the aggregate intelligence of the multitude was represented by the sum total of each man’s separate intelligence in all the individuals composing it (Polit. iii, 6, 4, 10, 12); just as the property of the multitude, taken collectively, would be greater than that of the few rich. He takes no notice of the difference between a number of individuals judging jointly and judging separately: I do not, indeed, observe that such omission leads him into any positive mistake, but it occurs in some cases calculated to surprise us, and where the difference here adverted to is important to notice: see Politic. iii, 10, 5, 6.

[686] Thucyd. ii, 65. Ὅποτε γοῦν αἴσθοιτό τι αὐτοὺς παρὰ καιρὸν ὕβρει θαρσοῦντας, λέγων κατέπλησσεν πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ φοβεῖσθαι· καὶ δεδιότας αὖ ἀλόγως ἀντικαθίστη πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ θαρσεῖν.

[687] Such swing of the mind, from one intense feeling to another, is always deprecated by the Greek moralists, from the earliest to the latest: even Demokritus, in the fifth century B. C., admonishes against it,—Αἱ ἐκ μεγάλων διαστημάτων κινεόμεναι τῶν ψυχῶν οὔτε εὐσταθέες εἰσὶν, οὔτε εὔθυμοι. (Democriti Fragmenta, lib. iii, p. 168, ed. Mullach ap. Stobæum, Florileg. i, 40.)

[688] The letters of Bentley against Boyle, discussing the pretended Epistles of Phalaris,—full of acuteness and learning, though beyond measure excursive,—are quite sufficient to teach us that little can be safely asserted about Phalaris. His date is very imperfectly ascertained. Compare Bentley, pp. 82, 83, and Seyfert, Akragas und sein Gebiet, p. 60: the latter assigns the reign of Phalaris to the years 570-554 B. C. It is surprising to see Seyfert citing the letters of the pseudo-Phalaris as an authority, after the exposure of Bentley.

[689] Pindar. Pyth. 1 ad fin, with the Scholia, p. 310, ed. Boeckh; Polyb. xii, 25; Diodor. xiii, 99; Cicero cont. Verr. iv, 33. The contradiction of Timæus is noway sufficient to make us doubt the authenticity of the story. Ebert (Σικελίων, part ii, pp. 41-84, Königsberg, 1829) collects all the authorities about the bull of Phalaris. He believes the matter of fact substantially. Aristotle (Rhetoric, ii, 20) tells a story of the fable, whereby Stêsichorus the poet dissuaded the inhabitants of Himera from granting a guard to Phalaris: Conon (Narrat. 42 ap. Photium) recounts the same story with the name of Hiero substituted for that of Phalaris. But it is not likely that either the one or the other could ever have been in such relations with the citizens of Himera. Compare Polybius, vii, 7, 2.

[690] Polyæn. v, 1, 1; Cicero de Officiis, ii, 7.

[691] Plutarch, Philosophand. cum Principibus, c. 3, p. 778.

[692] The less these problems are adapted for rational solution, the more nobly do they present themselves in the language of a great poem; see as a specimen, Euripidês, Fragment. 101, ed. Dindorf.

[693] Vol. i, ch. xvi.

[694] Diogen. Laërt. i, 23; Herodot. i, 75; Apuleius, Florid. iv, p. 144, Bip.

Proclus, in his Commentary on Euclid, specifies several propositions said to have been discovered by Thalês (Brandis, Handbuch der Gr. Philos. ch. xxviii, p. 110).

[695] Aristotel. Metaphys. i, 3; Plutarch, Placit. Philos. i, 3, p. 875. ὃς ἐξ ὔδατος φησὶ πάντα εἶναι, καὶ εἰς ὕδωρ πάντα ἀναλύεσθαι.

[696] Aristotel. ut supra, and De Cœlo, ii, 13.

[697] Aristotel. De Animâ, i, 2-5; Cicero, De Legg. ii, 11; Diogen. Laërt. i, 24.

[698] Aristotel. De Animâ, i, 2; Alexander Aphrodis. in Aristotel. Metaphys. 1, 3.

[699] Apollodorus, in the second century B. C., had before him some brief expository treatises of Anaximander (Diogen. Laërt. ii, 2): Περὶ Φύσεως, Γῆς Περίοδον, Περὶ τῶν Ἀπλανῶν καὶ Σφαῖραν καὶ ἄλλα τινά. Suidas, v. Ἀναξίμανδρος. Themistius. Orat. xxv, p. 317: ἐθάῤῥησε πρῶτος ὦν ἴσμεν Ἐλλήνων λόγον ἐξενεγκεῖν περὶ Φύσεως συγγεγραμμένον.

[700] Irenæus, ii, 19, (14) ap. Brandis, Handbuch der Geschichte der Griech. Röm. Philos. ch. xxxv, p. 133: “Anaximander hoc quod immensum est, omnium initium subjecit, seminaliter habens in semetipso omnium genesin, ex quo immensos mundos constare ait.” Aristotel. Physic. Auscult. iii, 4, p. 203, Bek. οὔτε γὰρ μάτην αὐτὸ οἶόν τε εἶναι (τὸ ἄπειρον), οὔτε ἄλλην ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ δύναμιν, πλὴν ὡς ἀρχήν. Aristotle subjects this ἄπειρον to an elaborate discussion, in which he says very little more about Anaximander, who appears to have assumed it without anticipating discussion or objections. Whether Anaximander called his ἄπειρον divine, or god, as Tennemann (Gesch. Philos. i, 2, p. 67) and Panzerbieter affirm (ad Diogenis Apolloniat. Fragment. c. 13, p. 16,) I think doubtful: this is rather an inference which Aristotle elicits from his language. Yet in another passage, which is difficult to reconcile, Aristotle ascribes to Anaximander the water-doctrine of Thalês, (Aristotel. de Xenophane, p. 975. Bek.)

Anaximander seems to have followed speculations analogous to those of Thalês, in explaining the first production of the human race (Plutarch Placit. Philos. v, 19, p. 908), and in other matters (ibid. iii, 16, p. 896).

[701] Aristotel. De Generat. et Destruct. c. 3, p. 317, Bek. ὃ μάλιστα φοβούμενοι διετέλεσαν οἱ πρῶτοι φιλοσοφήσαντες, τὸ ἐκ μηδενὸς γίνεσθαι προϋπάρχοντος· compare Physic. Auscultat. i, 4, p. 187, Bek.

[702] Simplicius in Aristotel. Physic. fol. 6, 32. πρῶτος αὐτὸς Ἀρχὴν ὀνομάσας τὸ ὑποκείμενον.

[703] Diogen. Laërt. ii, 81, 2. He agreed with Thalês in maintaining that the earth was stationary, (Aristotel. de Cœlo, ii, 13, p. 295, ed. Bekk.)

[704] Diogen. Laërt. ix, 18.

[705] Diogen. Laërt. ix, 22; Stobæus, Eclog. Phys. i, p. 294.

[706] Sextus Empiricus, adv. Mathem. ix, 193.

[707] Aristot. Metaphys. i, 5, p. 986, Bek. Ξενοφάνης δὲ πρῶτος τούτων ἑνίσας, οὐθὲν διεσαφήνισεν, οὐδὲ τῆς φύσεως τούτων (τοῦ κατὰ τὸν λόγον ἑνὸς καὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὕλην) οὐδετέρας ἔοικε θιγεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸν ὅλον οὐρανὸν ἀποβλέψας τὸ ἓν εἶναί φησι τὸν θεόν.

Plutarch. ap. Eusebium Præparat. Evangel. i, 8. Ξενοφάνης δὲ ὁ Κολοφώνιος ἰδίαν μέν τινα ὁδὸν πεπορευμένος καὶ παρηλλαχυῖαν πάντας τοὺς προειρημένους, οὔτε γένεσιν οὔτε φθορὰν ἀπολείπει, ἀλλ᾽ εἶναι λέγει τὸ πᾶν ἀεὶ ὅμοιον. Compare Timon ap. Sext. Empiric. Pyrrh. Hypotyp. i, 224, 225. ἐδογμάτιζε δὲ ὁ Ξενοφάνης παρὰ τὰς τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων προλήψεις, ἓν εἶναι τὸ πᾶν, καὶ τὸν θεὸν συμφυῆ τοῖς πᾶσιν· εἶναι δὲ σφαιροειδὴ καὶ ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀμετάβλητον καὶ λογικόν, (Airstot. de Xenoph. c. 3, p. 977, Bek.). Ἀδύνατόν φησιν (ὁ Ξενοφάνης) εἶναι, εἴ τι ἐστὶν, γενέσθαι, etc.

One may reasonably doubt whether all the arguments ascribed to Xenophanês, in the short but obscure treatise last quoted, really belong to him.

[708] Clemens Alexand. Stromat. v, p. 601, vii, p. 711.

[709] Aristot. Metaphysic. i, 5, p. 986, Bek. μικρὸν ἀγροικότερος.

[710] Xenophanês, Fr. xiv, ed. Mullach; Sextus Empiric. adv. Mathematicos, vii, 49-110; and Pyrrhon. Hypotyp. i, 224; Plutarch adv. Colôtên, p. 1114; compare Karsten ad Parmenidis Fragmenta, p. 146.

[711] See Brandis, Handbuch der Griech. Röm. Philosophie, ch. xxii.

[712] Herodot. iv, 95. The place of his nativity is certain from Herodotus, but even this fact was differently stated by other authors, who called him a Tyrrhenian of Lemnos or Imbros (Porphyry, Vit. Pythag. c. 1-10), a Syrian, a Phliasian, etc.

Cicero (De Repub. ii, 15: compare Livy, i, 18) censures the chronological blunder of those who made Pythagoras the preceptor of Numa; which certainly is a remarkable illustration how much confusion prevailed among literary men of antiquity about the dates of events even of the sixth century B. C. Ovid follows this story without hesitation: see Metamorph. xv, 60, with Burmann’s note.

[713] Cicero de Fin. v, 29; Diogen. Laërt. viii, 3; Strabo, xiv, p. 638; Alexander Polyhistor ap. Cyrill. cont. Julian. iv, p. 128, ed. Spanh. For the vast reach of his supposed travels, see Porphyry, Vit. Pythag. 11; Jamblic 14, seqq.

The same extensive journeys are ascribed to Demokritus, Diogen. Laërt. ix, 35.

[714] The connection of Pythagoras with Pherekydês is noticed by Aristoxenus ap. Diogen. Laërt. i, 118, viii, 2; Cicero de Divinat. i, 13.

[715] Xenophanês, Fragm. 7, ed. Schneidewin; Diogen. Laërt. viii, 36: compare Aulus Gellius, iv, 11 (we must remark that this or a like doctrine is not peculiar to Pythagoreans, but believed by the poet Pindar, Olymp. ii, 68, and Fragment, Thren. x, as well as by the philosopher Pherekydês, Porphyrius de Antro Nympharum, c. 31).

Consult also Sextus Empiricus, viii, 286, as to the κοινωνία between gods, men and animals, believed both by Pythagoras and Empedoklês. That Herodotus (ii, 123) alludes to Orpheus and Pythagoras, though refraining designedly from mentioning names, there can hardly be any doubt: compare ii, 81; also Aristotle, De Animâ, i, 3, 23.

The testimony of Hêrakleitus is contained in Diogenes Laërtius, viii, 6; ix, 1. Ἡρακλεῖτος γοῦν ὁ φυσικὸς μονονουχὶ κέκραγε καί φησι· Πυθαγόρης Μνησάρχου ἱστορίην ἤσκησεν ἀνθρώπων μάλιστα πάντων, καὶ ἐκλεξάμενος ταύτας τὰς συγγραφὰς, ἐποιήσατο ἑαυτοῦ σοφίην, πολυμαθείην, κακοτεχνίην. Again, Πολυμαθίη νόον οὐ διδάσκει· Ἡσίοδον γὰρ ἂν ἐδίδαξε καὶ Πυθαγόρην, αὖθις δὲ Ξενοφάνεά τε καὶ Ἑκαταῖον.

Dr. Thirlwall conceives Xenophanês as having intended in the passage above cited to treat the doctrine of the metempsychosis “with deserved ridicule.” (Hist. of Greece, ch. xii, vol. ii, p. 162.) Religious opinions are so apt to appear ridiculous to those who do not believe them, that such a suspicion is not unnatural; yet I think, if Xenophanês had been so disposed, he would have found more ridiculous examples among the many which this doctrine might suggest. Indeed, it seems hardly possible to present the metempsychosis in a more touching or respectable point of view than that which the lines of his poem set forth. The particular animal selected is that one between whom and man the sympathy is most marked and reciprocal, while the doctrine is made to enforce a practical lesson against cruelty.

[716] Herodot. i, 29; ii, 49; iv, 95. Ἑλλήνων οὐ τῷ ἀσθενεστάτῳ σοφιστῇ Πυθαγόρῃ. Hippokratês distinguishes the σοφιστὴς from the ἰητρὸς, though both of them had handled the subject of medicine,—the general from the special habits of investigation. (Hippokratês, Περὶ ἀρχαίης ἰητρικῆς, c. 20, vol. i, p. 620, Littré.)

[717] See Lobeck’s learned and valuable treatise, Aglaophamus, Orphica, lib. ii, pp. 247, 698, 900; also Plato, Legg. vi, 782, and Euripid. Hippol. 946.

[718] Plato’s conception of Pythagoras (Republ. x, p. 600) depicts him as something not unlike St. Benedict, or St. Francis, (or St. Elias, as some Carmelites have tried to make out: see Kuster ad Jamblich. c. 3)—Ἀλλὰ δὴ, εἰ μὴ δημοσίᾳ, ἰδίᾳ τισὶν ἡγεμὼν παιδείας αὐτὸς ζῶν λέγεται Ὅμηρος γενέσθαι, οἱ ἐκεῖνον ἠγάπων ἐπὶ συνουσίᾳ καὶ τοῖς ὑστέροις ὁδόν τινα βίου παρέδοσαν Ὁμηρικήν· ὥσπερ Πυθαγόρας αὐτός τε διαφερόντως ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἠγαπήθη, καὶ οἱ ὕστερον ἔτι καὶ νῦν Πυθαγορεῖον τροπὸν ἐπονομάζοντες τοῦ βίου διαφανεῖς πῃ δοκοῦσιν εἶναι ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις.

The description of Melampus, given in Herodot. ii, 49, very much fills up the idea of Pythagoras, as derived from ii, 81-123, and iv, 95. Pythagoras, as well as Melampus, was said to have pretended to divination and prophecy (Cicero, Divinat. i, 3, 46; Porphyr. Vit. Pyth. c. 29: compare Krische, De Societate a Pythagorâ in urbe Crotoniatarum conditâ Commentatio, ch. v, p. 72, Göttingen, 1831).

[719] Brandis, Handbuch der Geschichte der Griechisch. Rom. Philosophie, part i, sect. xlvii, p. 191.

[720] Ælian. V. H. ii, 26; Jamblichus, Vit. Pyth. c. 31, 140; Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. c. 20; Diodorus, Fragm. lib. x, vol. iv, p. 56, Wess.: Timon ap. Diogen. Laërt. viii, 36; and Plutarch, Numa, c. 8.

[721] Isokratês, Busiris, p. 402, ed. Auger. Πυθαγόρας ὁ Σάμιος, ἀφικόμενος εἰς Αἴγυπτον, καὶ μαθητὴς τῶν ἱερέων γενόμενος, τήν τε ἄλλην φιλοσοφίαν πρῶτος εἰς τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἐκόμισε, καὶ τὰ περὶ τὰς θυσίας καὶ τὰς ἁγιστείας ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς ἐπιφανέστερον τῶν ἄλλων ἐσπούδασε.

Compare Aristotel. Magn. Moralia, i, 1, about Pythagoras as an ethical teacher. Dêmokritus, born about 460 B. C., wrote a treatise (now lost) respecting Pythagoras, whom he greatly admired: as far as we can judge, it would seem that he too must have considered Pythagoras as an ethical teacher (Diogen. Laërt. xi, 38; Mullach, Democriti Fragmenta, lib. ii, p. 113; Cicero de Orator. iii, 15).

[722] Jamblichus, Vit. Pyth. c. 64, 115, 151, 199: see also the idea ascribed to Pythagoras, of divine inspirations coming on men (ἐπίπνοια παρὰ τοῦ δαιμονίου). Aristoxenus apud Stobæum, Eclog. Physic. p. 206; Diogen. Laërt. viii, 32.

Meiners establishes it as probable that the stories respecting the miraculous powers and properties of Pythagoras got into circulation either during his lifetime, or at least not long after his death (Geschichte der Wissenschaften, b. iii, vol. i, pp. 504, 505).

[723] Respecting Philolaus, see the valuable collection of his fragments, and commentary on them, by Boeckh (Philolaus des Pythagoreers Leben, Berlin, 1819). That Philolaus was the first who composed a work on Pythagorean science, and thus made it known beyond the limits of the brotherhood—among others to Plato—appears well established (Boeckh, Philolaus, p. 22; Diogen. Laërt. viii, 15-55; Jamblichus, c. 119). Simmias and Kebês, fellow-disciples of Plato under Sokratês, had held intercourse with Philolaus at Thebes (Plato, Phædon, p. 61), perhaps about 420 B. C. The Pythagorean brotherhood had then been dispersed in various parts of Greece, though the attachment of its members to each other seems to have continued long afterwards.

[724] Plutarch, De Isid. et Osirid. p. 384, ad fin. Quintilian, Instit. Oratt. ix, 4.

[725] Empedoklês, ap. Aristot. Rhetoric. i, 14, 2; Sextus Empiric. ix, 127; Plutarch, De Esu Carnium, pp. 993, 996, 997; where he puts Pythagoras and Empedoklês together, as having both held the doctrine of the metempsychosis, and both prohibited the eating of animal food. Empedoklês supposed that plants had souls, and that the souls of human beings passed after death into plants as well as into animals. “I have been myself heretofore (said he) a boy, a girl, a shrub, a bird, and a fish of the sea.”

(Diogen. L. viii, 77; Sturz. ad Empedokl. Frag. p. 466.) Pythagoras is said to have affirmed that he had been not only Euphorbus in the Grecian army before Troy, but also a tradesman, a courtezan, etc., and various other human characters, before his actual existence; he did not, however, extend the same intercommunion to plants, in any case.

The abstinence from animal food was an Orphic precept as well as a Pythagorean (Aristophan. Ran. 1032).

[726] Strabo, vi, p. 263; Diogen. L. viii, 40.

[727] Diogen. Laërt. ix, 18.

[728] Herodot. iii, 131; Strabo, vi, p. 261: Menander de Encomiis, p. 96, ed. Heeren. Ἀθηναίους ἐπὶ ἀγαλματοποιΐα τε καὶ ζωγραφικῇ, καὶ Κροτωνιάτας ἐπὶ ἰατρικῇ, μέγα φρονῆσαι, etc.

The Krotoniate Alkmæon, a younger contemporary of Pythagoras (Aristotel. Metaph. i, 5), is among the earliest names mentioned as philosophizing upon physical and medical subjects. See Brandis, Handbuch der Geschicht. der Philos. sect. lxxxiii, p. 508, and Aristotel. De Generat. Animal. iii, 2, p. 752, Bekker.

The medical art in Egypt, at the time when Pythagoras visited that country, was sufficiently far advanced to excite the attention of an inquisitive traveller,—the branches of it minutely subdivided and strict rules laid down for practice (Herodot. ii, 84; Aristotel. Politic, iii, 10, 4).

[729] See the analogy of the two strikingly brought out in the treatise of Hippokratês Περὶ ἀρχαίης ἰητρικῆς, c. 3, 4, 7, vol. i, p. 580-584, ed. Littré.

Ἔτι γοῦν καὶ νῦν οἱ τῶν γυμνασίων τε καὶ ἀσκησίων ἐπιμελόμενοι αἰεί τι προσεξευρίσκουσι, καὶ τὴν αὐτέην ὁδὸν ζητέοντες ὅ,τι ἔδων καὶ πίνων ἐπικρατήσει τε αὐτέων μάλιστα, καὶ ἰσχυρότερος αὐτὸς ἑωϋτοῦ ἔσται (p. 580); again, p. 584: Τί οὖν φαίνεται ἑτεροῖον διανοηθεὶς ὁ καλεύμενος ἰητρὸς καὶ ὁμολογεομένως χειροτέχνης, ὃς ἐξεῦρε τὴν ἀμφὶ τοὺς κάμνοντας δίαιτάν καὶ τροφὴν, ἢ κεῖνος ὁ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς τοῖσι πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποισι τροφὴν, ᾗ νῦν χρεόμεθα, ἐξ ἐκείνης τῆς ἀγρίης τε καὶ θηριώδεος εὑρών τε καὶ παρασκευάσας διαίτης: compare another passage, not less illustrative, in the treatise of Hippokratês Περὶ διαίτης ὀξέων, c. 3, vol. ii, p. 245, ed. Littré.

Following the same general idea, that the theory and practice of the physician is a farther development and variety of that of the gymnastic trainer, I transcribe some observations from the excellent Remarques Rétrospectives of M. Littré, at the end of the fourth volume of his edition of Hippokratês (p. 662).

After having observed (p. 659) that physiology may be considered as divided into two parts,—one relating to the mechanism of the functions; the other, to the effects produced upon the human body by the different influences which act upon it and the media by which it is surrounded; and after having observed that on the first of these two branches the ancients could never make progress from their ignorance of anatomy,—he goes on to state, that respecting the second branch they acquired a large amount of knowledge:—

“Sur la physiologie des influences extérieures, la Grèce du temps d’Hippocrate et après lui fut le théâtre d’expériences en grand, les plus importantes et les plus instructives. Toute la population (la population libre, s’entend) étoit soumise à un système régulier d’éducation physique (N. B. this is a little too strongly stated): dans quelques cités, à Lacédémone par exemple, les femmes n’en étoient pas exemptées. Ce système se composoit d’exercices et d’une alimentation, que combinèrent l’empirisme d’abord, puis une théorie plus savante: il concernoit (comme dit Hippocrate lui-même, en ne parlant, il est vrai, que de la partie alimentaire), il concernoit et les malades pour leur rétablissement, et les gens bien portans pour la conservation de leur santé, et les personnes livrées aux exercices gymnastiques pour l’accroissement de leurs forces. On savoit au juste ce qu’il falloit pour conserver seulement le corps en bon état ou pour traiter un malade—pour former un militaire ou pour faire un athlète—et en particulier, un lutteur, un coureur, un sauteur, un pugiliste. Une classe d’hommes, les maîtres des gymnases, étoient exclusivement adonnés à la culture de cet art, auquel les médecins participoient dans les limites de leur profession, et Hippocrate, qui dans les Aphorismes, invoque l’exemple des athlètes, nous parle dans le Traité des Articulations des personnes maigres, qui n’ayant pas été amaigris par un procédé régulier de l’art, ont les chairs muqueuses. Les anciens médecins savoient, comme on le voit, procurer l’amaigrissement conformément à l’art, et reconnoitre à ses effets un amaigrissement irrégulier: toutes choses auxquelles nos médecins sont étrangers, et dont on ne retrouve l’analogue que parmi les entraineurs Anglois. Au reste cet ensemble de connoissances empiriques et théoriques doit être mis au rang des pertes fâcheuses qui ont accompagné la longue et turbulente transition du monde ancien an monde moderne. Les admirables institutions destinées dans l’antiquité à développer et affermir le corps, ont disparu: l’hygiène publique est déstituée à cet égard de toute direction scientifique et générale, et demeure abandonnée complètement au hasard.”

See also the remarks of Plato respecting Herodikus, De Republicâ, iii, p. 406; Aristotel. Politic. iii, 11, 6; iv, 1, 1; viii, 4, 1.

[730] Valerius Maxim. viii, 15, xv, 1; Jamblichus, Vit. Pyth. c. 45; Timæus, Fragm. 78, ed. Didot.

[731] Porphyry, Vit. Pythag. c. 21-54; Jamblich. 33-35, 166.

[732] The compilations of Porphyry and Jamblichus on the life of Pythagoras, copied from a great variety of authors, will doubtless contain some truth amidst their confused heap of statements, many incredible, and nearly all unauthenticated. But it is very difficult to single out what these portions of truth really are. Even Aristoxenus and Dikæarchus, the best authors from whom these biographers quote, lived near two centuries after the death of Pythagoras, and do not appear to have had any early memorials to consult, nor any better informants than the contemporary Pythagoreans,—the last of an expiring sect, and probably among the least eminent for intellect, since the philosophers of the Sokratic school in its various branches carried off the acute and aspiring young men of that time.

Meiners, in his Geschichte der Wissenschaften (vol. i, b. iii, p. 191, seq.), has given a careful analysis of the various authors from whom the two biographers have borrowed, and a comparative estimate of their trustworthiness. It is an excellent piece of historical criticism, though the author exaggerates both the merits and the influence of the first Pythagoreans: Kiessling, in the notes to his edition of Jamblichus, has given some extracts from it, but by no means enough to dispense with the perusal of the original. I think Meiners allows too much credit, on the whole, to Aristoxenus (see p. 214), and makes too little deduction for the various stories, difficult to be believed, of which Aristoxenus is given as the source: of course the latter could not furnish better matter than he heard from his own witnesses. Where Meiners’s judgment is more severe, it is also better borne out, especially respecting Porphyry himself, and his scholar Jamblichus. These later Pythagorean philosophers seem to have set up as a formal canon of credibility, that which many religious men of antiquity acted upon from a mere unconscious sentiment and fear of giving offence to the gods,—That it was not right to disbelieve any story recounted respecting the gods, and wherein the divine agency was introduced: no one could tell but what it might be true: to deny its truth, was to set bounds to the divine omnipotence. Accordingly, they made no difficulty in believing what was recounted about Aristæus, Abaris, and other eminent subjects of mythes (Jamblichus, Vit. Pyth. c. 138-148)—καὶ τοῦτό γε πάντες οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι ὅμως ἔχουσι πιστευτικῶς, οἶον περὶ Ἀρισταίου καὶ Ἀβάριδος τὰ μυθολογούμενα καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τοιαῦτα λέγεται ... τῶν τοιούτων δὲ τῶν δοκούντων μυθικῶν ἀπομνημονεύουσιν, ὡς οὐδὲν ἀπιστοῦντες ὅτι ἂν εἰς τὸ θεῖον ἀναγηται. Also, not less formally laid down in Jamblichus, Adhortatio ad Philosophiam, as the fourth Symbolum, p. 324, ed. Kiessling. Περὶ θεῶν μηδὲν θαυμαστὸν ἀπιστεῖ, μηδὲ περὶ θείων δογμάτων. Reasoning from their principles, this was a consistent corollary to lay down; but it helps us to estimate their value as selectors and discriminators of accounts respecting Pythagoras. The extravagant compliments paid by the emperor Julian in his letters to Jamblichus will not suffice to establish the authority of the latter as a critic and witness: see the Epistolæ 34, 40, 41, in Heyler’s edit. of Julian’s letters.

[733] Aulus Gell. N. A. iv, 11. Apollonius (ap. Jamblich. c. 262) alludes to τὰ ὑπομνήματα τῶν Κροτωνιατῶν: what the date of these may be, we do not know, but there is no reason to believe them anterior to Aristoxenus.

[734] Thucyd. viii, 54. τὰς ξυνωμοσίας, αἵπερ ἐτύγχανον πρότερον οὖσαι ἐν τῇ πόλει ἐπὶ δίκαις καὶ ἀρχαῖς, ἁπάσας ἐπελθὼν, etc.

On this important passage, in which Thucydidês notes the political clubs of Athens as sworn societies,—numerous, notorious, and efficient,—I shall speak farther in a future stage of the history. Dr. Arnold has a good note on the passage.

[735] Justin, xx, 4. “Sed trecenti ex juvenibus cum sodalitii juris sacramento quodam nexi, separatam a ceteris civibus vitam exercerent, quasi cœtum clandestinæ conjurationis haberent, civitatem in se converterunt.”

Compare Diogen. Laërt. viii, 3; Apollonius ap. Jamblich. c. 254; Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. c. 33.

The story of the devoted attachments of the two Pythagoreans Damon and Phintias appears to be very well attested: Aristoxenus heard it from the lips of the younger Dionysius the despot, whose sentence had elicited such manifestation of friendship (Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. c. 59-62, Cicero, De Officiis, iii, 10; and Davis ad Cicero, Tusc. Disp. v, 22).

[736] Plutarch, Philosoph. cum Principib. c. i, p. 777. ἂν δ᾽ ἄρχοντος ἀνδρὸς καὶ πολιτικοῦ καὶ πρακτικοῦ καθάψηται (ὁ φιλόσοφος) καὶ τοῦτον ἀναπλήσῃ καλοκᾳγαθίας, πολλοὺς δι᾽ ἑνὸς ὠφέλησεν, ὡς Πυθαγόρας τοῖς πρωτεύουσι τῶν Ἰταλιωτῶν συγγενόμενος.

[737] I transcribe here the summary given by Krische, at the close of his Dissertation on the Pythagorean order, p. 101: “Societatis scopus fuit mere politicus, ut lapsam optimatium potestatem non modo in pristinum restitueret, sed firmaret amplificaretque: cum summo hoc scopo duo conjuncti fuerunt; moralis alter, alter ad literas spectans. Discipulos suos bonos probosque homines reddere voluit Pythagoras, et ut civitatem moderantes potestate suâ non abuterentur ad plebem opprimendam; et ut plebs, intelligens suis commodis consuli, conditione suâ contenta esset. Quoniam vero bonum sapiensque moderamen nisi a prudente literisque exculto viro exspectari (non) licet, philosophiæ studium necessarium duxit Samius iis, qui ad civitatis clavum tenendum se accingerent.”

This is the general view (coinciding substantially with that of O. Müller,—Dorians, iii, 9, 16) given by an author who has gone through the evidences with care and learning. It differs on some important points from the idea which I conceive of the primitive master and his contemporary brethren. It leaves out the religious ascendency, which I imagine to have stood first among the means as well as among the premeditated purposes of Pythagoras, and sets forth a reformatory political scheme as directly contemplated by him, of which there is no proof. Though the political ascendency of the early Pythagoreans is the most prominent feature in their early history, it is not to be considered as the manifestation of any peculiar or settled political idea,—it is rather a result of their position and means of union. Ritter observes, in my opinion more justly: “We must not believe that the mysteries of the Pythagorean order were of a simply political character: the most probable accounts warrant us in considering that its central point was a mystic religious teaching,” (Geschicht. der Philosophie, b. iv, ch. i, vol. i, pp. 365-368:) compare Hoeck. Kreta, vol. iii, p. 223.

Krische (p. 32) as well as Boeckh (Philolaus, pp. 39-42) and O. Müller assimilate the Pythagorean life to the Dorian or Spartan habits, and call the Pythagorean philosophy the expression of Grecian Dorism, as opposed to the Ionians and the Ionic philosophy. I confess that I perceive no analogy between the two, either in action or speculation. The Spartans stand completely distinct from other Dorians; and even the Spartan habits of life, though they present some points of resemblance with the bodily training of the Pythagoreans, exhibit still more important points of difference, in respect to religious peculiarity and mysticism, as well as to scientific element embodied with it. The Pythagorean philosophy, and the Eleatic philosophy, were both equally opposed to the Ionic; yet neither of them is in any way connected with Dorian tendencies. Neither Elea nor Kroton were Doric cities; moreover, Xenophanês as well as Pythagoras were both Ionians.

The general assertions respecting Ionic mobility and inconstancy, contrasted with Doric constancy and steadiness, will not be found borne out by a study of facts. The Dorism of Pythagoras appears to me a complete fancy. O. Müller even turns Kroton into a Dorian city, contrary to all evidence.

[738] Niebuhr, Römisch. Gesch. i, p. 165, 2nd edit.; O. Müller, Hist of Dorians, iii, 9, 16: Krische is opposed to this idea, sect. v, p. 84.

[739] Varro ap. Augustin. de Ordine, ii, 30; Krische, p. 77.

[740] Apollonius ap. Jamblichum, V. P. c. 254, 255, 256, 257. ἡγεμόνες δὲ ἐγένοντο τῆς διαφορᾶς οἱ ταῖς συγγενείαις καὶ ταῖς οἰκειότησιν ἐγγύτατα καθεστηκότες τῶν Πυθαγορείων. Αἴτιον δ᾽ ἦν, ὅτι τὰ μὲν πολλὰ αὐτοὺς ἐλύπει τῶν πραττομένων, etc.: compare also the lines descriptive of Pythagoras, c. 259. Τοὺς μὲν ἑταίρους ἧγεν ἴσους μακάρεσσι θεοῖσι. Τοὺς δ᾽ ἄλλους ἡγεῖτ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἐν λόγῳ, ἐν ἀριθμῷ.

That this Apollonius, cited both by Jamblichus and by Porphyry, is Apollonius of Tyana, has been rendered probable by Meiners (Gesch. der Wissensch. v. i, pp. 239-245): compare Welcker, Prolegomena ad Theognid. pp. xlv, xlvi.

When we read the life of Apollonius by Philostratus, we see that the former was himself extremely communicative: he might be the rather disposed therefore to think that the seclusion and reserve of Pythagoras was a defect, and to ascribe to it much of the mischief which afterwards overtook the order.

[741] Schleiermacher observes, that “Philosophy among the Pythagoreans was connected with political objects, and their school with a practical brotherly partnership, such as was never on any other occasion seen in Greece.” (Introduction to his Translation of Plato, p. 12.) See also Theopompus, Fr. 68, ed. Didot, apud Athenæum, v, p. 213, and Euripidês, Mêdêa, 294.

[742] Xenophon, Memorab. i, 2, 12; Æschines, cont. Timarch. c. 34. ὑμεῖς, ὦ Ἀθηναῖοι, Σωκράτην μὲν τὸν σοφιστὴν ἀπεκτείνατε, ὅτι Κριτίαν ἐφάνη πεπαιδευκὼς, ἕνα τῶν τριάκοντα.

[743] This is stated in Jamblichus, c. 255; yet it is difficult to believe; for if the fact had been so, the destruction of the Pythagoreans would naturally have produced an allotment and permanent occupation of the Sybaritan territory,—which certainly did not take place, for Sybaris remained without resident possessors until the foundation of Thurii.