"to those qualities, by whose aid mortals arrive thither, such as REASON, VIRTUE, PIETY, and "GOOD-FAITH*."

* Ad divos adeunto castè; pietatem adhibento; opes amovento. Qui secus faxit, Deus ipse vindex erit.- -Divos, & eos qui cœlestes semper habiti, colunto: & ollos, quos endo cœlo inerita vocaverint, Herculem, Liberum, Esculapium, Castorem, Pollucem, Quirinum. Ast olla, propter quæ datur homini adsensus in cœlum, mentem, virtutem, pietatem, fidem, earumque laudum delubra sunto. De Legg. lib. ii. c. 8. Edit. Ox, 4to. T. III. pp. 142, 43.

NOTES

NOTES

APPERTAINING TO

THE FIRST AND THIRD

SECTIONS

OF

ВООК II.

P. 308. [A]

ανθρωποφυέας

VALLA explains the word av proquías by ex

hominibus ortos; and, I think, rightly. But our learned Stanley, in his notes to the Persians of Eschylus, understands it otherwise: and that it rather signifies humana forma præditos. I suppose it appeared harsh to him, that any one could imagine the Gods had human natures; but the meaning is explained above. Yet the ingenious writer of the Letters concerning Mythology, p. 217. sides with our countryman, and understands arpwoguns to signify,-made like a man-or, of the shape and figure of a man. But if we regard the literal meaning of the two simples which make up this compound, we cannot avoid understanding it to signify, being of man's nature. How then does this learned writer support his criticism? By a passage

1

a passage from Hecateus; who, on pretty much the same occasion, uses (as he supposes) avlpwwóμoppos, in the place of ανθρωποφυής; and άνθρωπομόρφος, he thinks, all will agree, must signify, of the shape and figure of a man. No, not if his own method of interpretation be right for, if avopwopuns (transferred from the literal, to the figurative sense) must signify of man's form, then arpwéμoppos so transferred, must signify of man's nature. But it is not true, that Hecatæus ases ανθρωπόμορφος in the place of ανθρωποφυής. The propositions of Herodotus and Hecatæus are different, and therefore we may well suppose these two words, in the predicate of each, to be different. Herodotus, speaking of the PERSIANS, says, they had no statues of their Gods, because they did not believe, with the Greeks, that the Gods had human natures [åv◊pwπopuéxs]. And Hecatæus, speaking of MOSES, says, he permitted no images of the Gods, because he did not hold, with the Gentiles, that God had a human form [artpwwóμoppor]. And their use of different words, as we shall now see, was with accuracy and discernment; for they were asserting different things. The question between the Persians and the Greeks (who worshipped many Gods in common) was, whether these Gods were partakers of human nature, av◊pwπoquéas; that is, whether they were dead men deified. But the question between Moses and the Gentiles, was, whether the God of the universe had a human form, ávlрwπóμopfos; not whether the gods had human natures; for these Gods, the Jews had nothing to do with; they worshipped only the one God: and several of the Gentiles, who had some knowledge of this one God,

God, imagined he might have a human form. So that we see, the use of these two terms, on the same occasion, is so far from shewing their signification to be the same, as the learned writer supposes, that the occasion demonstrably shews their signification to be different. Let me only observe, it appeared so evident to Eusebius, that the custom of making the statues of the Gods in human form was an indication of their original from mortality, that he says, ὅ γέ τοι ἀληθὴς λίγο βοᾷ καὶ κέκραίε, μονονεχὶ φωνὴν · ἀφιεὶς, θνητὲς ἄνδρας μαρτυρῶν γεγονέναι τὲς δηλωμένες. Ευαγί. προπαρ. β. γ.

P. 335. [B]. This we are told by Jamblichus: his words are, λέγεται τοίνυν ὡς φωνῆ χρῆσθαι τῇ πατριά ixásois wagńlyeλλo, Vit. Pythag. 194. Kust. Ed.-Dr. Bentley understands them to signify, that every one should use his own mother-tongue. And, indeed, without reading the context, one could scarce avoid giving this sense to the passage. VIZZANIUS,—that every one should use the mother-tongue of Crotona; which was the Doric. Of these, the learned Critic says, which is the true, perhaps all competent readers will not be of one mind, p. 386. But I believe there will be no great difference of opinions amongst those who weigh the following reasons:

1. Jamblichus adds, τὸ γὰρ ξενίζειν ἐκ ἐδοκίμαζον; by which I understand him to mean, that the Pythagoric sect did not approve of a foreign or stranger dialect. For if he meant, not the sect in general, but the particulars of which it was composed, the several provincial Greeks who entered into it, no dialect could be called foreign to one or other of them: if he meant the

Sect,

Sect, which we may suppose had a dialect peculiar and consecrated to the Community, all, but that, was foreign to it; and the expression becomes proper and pertinent.

2. Jamblichus, in the same place, tells us, that Pythagoras valued the Doric above the other Greek Dialects, as most agreeable to the laws of harmony, Τὴν δὲ Δώριαν διάλεκτον ἐναρμονίαν εἶναι : Now having made the essence of the soul to be harmony, it was no wonder he should chuse a dialect, which he supposed approached nearest to its nature; that the mind and tongue might go together.

3. Pythagoras secms here to have imitated his master Orpheus, from whom, as we shall see hereafter, he borrowed much of his philosophy; for Jamblichus tells us, that the old writings that went under the name of Orpheus, were composed in Doric.

4. But, lastly, a passage in Porphyry's Life of Pythagoras seems alone sufficient to determine this matter: Porphyry, giving the causes of the decay of the Pythagòric philosophy, assigns this for one, that their commentaries were written in Doric. Επειτα διὰ τὸ καὶ τὰ γεΓραμ préva Aweidi relęáptas, p. 49. Kust. Ed. This is the μένα Δωρίδι clearest comment on the words in question, and determines them to the sense contended for. One would wonder, indeed, that so learned a Critic could take them in any other. But the secret was this, Dr. Bentley having pretended to discover, that Ocellus Lucanus did not write his book in the common dialect, as it is now extant, but in Doric; (Dissert. upon Phalaris, &c. p. 47.) his adversaries (Dissert. examined, p. 54.) charge him with having stolen this discovery from Vizzanius. This, Dr. Bentley flatly denies; (Dissert. defended, p. 384.)

But