it appears, that the general practice required, and the nature of the thing disposed the Lawgiver to ascribe his laws to the inspiration of some God. 2. As to the famous auros qa, it was not peculiar to the Pythagoreans, but common to all the sects of Greece, jurare in verba magistri. A device to keep them distinct and separate from each other; and a compendious way of arguing amongst those of the same school. It would then have been ridiculous to have urged its authority to any out of the sect; more so, to the common people; and most of all, to them, upon public and practical matters; the aurès pa being used only in points of speculation, and in the schools of philosophy. Indeed, so unlucky is this argument, that, on the contrary, the reader will be apt to conclude, that this very circumstance of Zaleucus's ascribing his laws to Minerva, was one of the things that gave rise and credit to the report of his being a Pythagorean. And, doubtless, it would have much weight with those who did not carefully enough attend to the chronology. For Zaleucus, in this, might be thought to follow both the example and the precept of Pythagoras, who himself pretended to be inspired by Minerva; and taught it to his scholars as the most efficacious way of establishing civil justice, to propagate the opinion of the Gods having an intimate intercourse with mankind*. But notwithstanding the defect of this argument, the learned critic, as we said, proves his point with great clearness, that Zaleucus was earlier than Pythagoras: and, in conclusion, draws the inference abovementioned, in these terms: It was generally reported Zaleucus See Jamblichus's Life of Pythagoras, p. 147. edit. Kust. was was a Pythagorean; it is proved he was not. This will refute the book itself. For if any intimation was given in the book, that the author was a Pythagorean, the imposture is evident. "And yet it is hard to give any other reason, that should induce the later "writers to call him a Pythagorean." Some impostor, therefore, made a system of laws under the name of Zaleucus, and in it gave a broad hint that he was a scholar of Pythagoras. Here he rests his point. If, then, it be not hard to give another reason, that should induce the later writers to call him a Pythagorean, his long discourse to prove Zaleucus the earlier of the two, is of no kind of use to convict the pretended laws of imposture. I have already hinted at another not improbable reason, which was his having the same inspiring Goddess with Pythagoras: And this will be much strengthened by the observation, that Minerva became the peculiar patroness of the Pythagorean Lawgivers, on account of the assistance she had given to their master. To which we may add these further circumstances, that the laws were in Doric (and supposing them genuine, they certainly were so) which idiom was peculiar to the Pythagoric school*: and, that the whole proem of Zaleucus's laws was formed agreeably to the precepts of Pythagoras in this matter; who directs, that, next after the worship of the Gods, Damon, and Parent worship should be enjoined t. Now, later writers, seeing these two visible marks of a Pythagorean, might, without further reflection, be reasonably disposed to See note [B] at the end. † Μετὰ δὲ τὸ θεῖόν τε καὶ τὸ δαιμόνιον, πλεῖσον αποιεῖσθαι λόγου γονέων. Jamb. Vit. Pyth, c. xxx. p. 148. think Zaleucus of that sect. But, as the learned critic has well made out, from sure chronological evidence, that this was a mistake, we must seek for some other cause of the uniformity between them; which I take to be this: Zalewu, when Pythagoras flourished, was in the highest repute in Greece for legislation; which might incline this philosopher to imitate him, both in his inspiring Goddess, and in the procm of his laws: so that posterity only mistook the copy for the original. This they might very well do; for Pythagoras and his sect had soon engrossed all the glory in the practice of lawgiving: and this leads me to another probable cause of the common opinion of Zaleucus's being a Pythagorcan: The character of this sect, as. will be seen hereafter, was so great for legislation, that after-ages thought nothing could be done to purpose in that way, which had not a Pythagorean for its author. So, besides Zaleucus, the ancients supposed Charondas, Numa *, Zamolxis †, Phytius, Theocles, Elicaon, Aristocrates, nay the very DRUIDS, the legislators of Gaul, and, in a word, all the eminent Lawgivers who lived any where about the time of Pythagoras, to be instructed by him. But will the learned Critic say, that, therefore, all these Legislators were imaginary persons, and did not give laws to their several cities? This notion, arising from Pythagoras's great character and reputation, was nursed up and improved by his followers themselves, to beget honour Quinetiam arbitror propter Pythagorcorum adinirationem, Numam quoque regem Pythagoreum à posterioribus existimatum. Tull. Tusc. Disp. lib. iv. c. 1. Edit. Ox. 4to. T. II. F. 331. Herod. lib. iv. c. 95. Edit. Gale. Ammian, Marcell. lib. xv. c. 9. p. 75. Edit. Gronov. fol. 1693 to to their master; as, in fact, appears from several passages in Jamblichus's life of that Philosopher. So that was there no more in it than this; as Zaleucus's Institutions were in great repute, we might very naturally account for the mistake. But, lastly, it is indeed very true (as the learned Critic suspected) that the principal ground of the report of Zaleucus being a Pythagorean, was from some passages in the system of laws ascribed to him. He is only too hasty in his conclusion, that therefore these must needs convict the system of a cheat. What hurried him on, was his supposing, that no such report could be gathered from passages in the system, but such as must be an intimation that the author was a Pythagorean: and that there is no difference between giving and taking an intimation. If, then, this report might be gathered from passages which contained no intimation, and if the reader might understand that to be such, which the writer never intended; the consequence will be, that the credit of these fragments will remain unshaken, though we grant the learned Critic his whole premises, and all the facts he contends for. It seems, then, to be certain, that the report of Zaleucus's being a Pythagorean arose principally from a passage in his system of laws. And it was not difficult to discover what it was: Zaleucus in his preface speaks of an EVIL GENIUS or Dæmon, AAIMON KAKOƐ, as influencing men to wickedness. This, though a notion of the highest* antiquity, whose origin ̓Αρισοτέλης δ ̓ ἐν πρώτῳ περὶ φιλοσοφίας, και πρεσβυτέρες εἶναι (Μώργος) τῶν Αἰγυπτίων· καὶ δύο κατ ̓ αὐτὲς εἶναι ἀρχὰς, ἀγαθὸν δαίμονα, και ΚΑΚΟΝ VOL. I. ΔΑΙΜΟΝΑ. origin and author are much disputed, yet became at who ΔΑΙΜΟΝΑ. Diog. Laert. Vit. Phil. Procr. Seg. 8. Edit. Amstel. * Πυθαγόρας τῶν ἀρχῶν τὴν μὲν μονάδα θεὸν, καὶ τ ̓ ἀγαθὸν ἥτις ἐσὶν † Οἱ μὲν Πυθαγορικοὶ διὰ πλειόνων ὀνομάτων κατη[ορῶσι, τῷ μὲν ἀγαθῶ |