Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

mirers, more properly his idolaters, is confidered as a philosopher, a divine and a poet.

The political philofophy of the Greeks is the next object of attention, but we are now ftepping from the fallacious ground of fable to that of real hiftory. If we except Triptolemus, (the reputed pupil of Ceres) Draco, Solon, and Lycurgus are names familiar to us, and their inftitutions well known. The feven wife men of Greece, who attained that title for the pithy fententiousness of their tenets, are alfo noticed with due refpect. Thales alone, the founder of the Ionic school, is reserved for a more particular account. Of Efop, the fuppofed Phrygian, our author fays little but what is already known, or begins to be doubted. If fuch a perfon really existed, he was the copyist only of the author of fome eaftern apologues.

The philofophy of Greece, confidered as a fyftem, commenced with Thales of Miletus, of Phoenician extraction, who, as usual in that time, travelled into Egypt to obtain the knowledge which Europe was yet ignorant of. That Thales or Pythagoras remained in Egypt is uncertain; that they could not acquire their knowledge from the Egyptians is by no means doubtful. Thales, in particular, taught them to measure the height of the Pyramids by the fhadow they caft, and was acquainted with the obliquity of the ecliptic; fubjects which the Egyptians fcarcely ever heard of, and whofe boafted philo fophy only confifted in measuring the height of the Nile, and whofe acquifitions were almost wholly confined to the records of the events which followed the different heights. That we may finish this fubject at once, we muft obferve, that the priests of Egypt, to whom the philofophers of Greece were fo much indebted, muft either have acquired their knowledge in other countries, or travellers must have gone beyond this celebrated region. The acquifitions of Thales render this fubject more clear. It is certain that he travelled to Egypt for knowledge, and that he attained what the Egyptians were ignorant of: he muft confequently have proceeded farther, or have had other tutors. From the vicinity of the Red Sea, and the certainty of its being freely navigated, the access to India was eafy, and from India or Affyria only could he at that period have obtained the peculiar knowledge of mathematics and astronomy, which he first taught the Grecians.

The foundation of his philofophy has occafioned fome difcuffion; water is the first principle of every thing. What was the vypov of Thales has been doubted: fome fuppofe it to be the Chaos, the principle of all before every thing was created; but, when we advert to the fource of his philofophy among the Bramins, we shall no longer look for an allegorical meaning,

K 2

ing, but take in a fimple fenfe, what, perhaps, is equally trac in a philofophical one. Let us felect, however, our author's

account:

Thales held, that the first principle of natural bodies, or the firft fimple fubftance from which all things in this world are formed, is water. By this he could not mean to affert that water is the efficient caufe of the formation of bodies; but merely, that this is the element from which they are produced. It is probable, that by the term Water, Thales meant to exprefs the fame idea which the cofmogonists expreffed by the word Chaos, the notion annexed to which was, as we have fhewn, a turbid and muddy mafs, from which all things were produced. Concerning the grounds of his opinion we have no fatisfactory information. The reasons which have been given, fuch as that all animals and plants are produced and fupported by moisture, and the fun and other celestial fires are nourished by vapours, are mere conjectures, which were perhaps never thought of by Thales.

It has been a fubject of much debate, whether Thales, befides the paffive principle in nature, which he called Water, admitted an intelligent, efficient caufe. They who have maintained the affirmative have refted their opinion upon fundry aphorifms concerning God, which are afcribed by ancient writers to this philofopher, particularly the following: that God is the moft ancient being, who has neither beginning nor end; that all things are full of God, and that the world is the beautiful work of God. They alfo lay great ftrefs upon the teftimony of Cicero, who fays, that Thales taught, that water is the firft principle of all things, and that God is that mind which formed all things out of water. They who are of the contrary opinion urge, that the ancients (and among thefe Cicero himself, though not very confiftently), aferibe to Anaxagoras the honour of having firft reprefented God as the intelligent caufe of the universe; and add, that the evidence in favour of Thales refts only upon traditional teftimony, which may be oppofed by other authorities. Perhaps the truth is this; that Thales, though he did not exprefsly maintain an independent mind as the efficient cause of nature, admitted the ancient doctrine concerning God, as the animating principle or foul of the world. This fuppofition perfectly agrees with, the language afcribed to him concerning the Deity, particularly that the world is animated, oxor; and that all things are full of God. And this is not inconfiftent with the notion, that water is the art principle in nature, if by the term principle we understand, not the agency which framed the world, but the first matter from which it was produced. A principle of motion, wherever it exists, is, according to Thales, mind. Hence he taught that the magnet, and amber, are endued with a foul, which is the cause of their

attracting

attracting powers. The foul, in all beings (as Ariftotle represents his doctrine) is a moving power, having the caufe of motion within itself, and is always in action. It was one of his tenets, that all nature is full of demons, or intelligences proceeding from God. It is easy to conceive, that thefe opinions might have been derived from the notion, that the deity is the foul of the world, and the fource of all motion and intelligence.

Concerning the material world, Thales taught, that night existed before day; a doctrine which he probably borrowed from the Grecian theogonies, which placed Night, or Chaos, among the first divinities. He held, that the ftars are fiery bodies; that the moon is an opaque body illuminated by the fun, and that the earth is a spherical body placed in the middle of the universe.'

It is a little fingular that his tenets refpecting dæmons, and the night preceding the day, fhould not have fuggefted to the hiftorian the eastern fource of his doctrines. The latter oCcurs in the Mofaic cofmogony, and the evening and the morning were the first day.'

Anaximander, a fcholar of Thales, and a Milefian alfo, added little to his mafter's philofophy, and feems to have corrupted his aftronomical knowledge by vifionary fancies. Later authors have differed about the meaning of his arsipov, which аперова Cicero has rendered by infinitas. Brucker feems inclined to admit, that it was almoft fynonymous with the typov of Thales, and all the ancient philofophers concluded it to be matter. There is, however, little doubt that he intended by this term to exprefs the Almighty power; nor is Brucker correct in saying that Anaximenes, his fcholar, confidered the amepov as air, for Diogenes Laertius exprefsly fays, lib. ii. fe&t. iii. Tutos (Αναξιμένης) άρχην αερα ειπε, ΚΑΙ τὸ ἄπειρον. Lactantius was equally in an error, when he fuppofed that Cleanthes adopted the doctrine of Anaximenes in the following line:

Tum pater omnipotens fæcundis imbribus æther.

That Jupiter was fynonymous with the air was a common tenet of ancient philofophy, nor is there the leaft evidence that it was derived from Anaximenes. The air, the heavens, and the God of heaven were, with the Pagans almost in every age, fynonymous. Anaxagoras understood the amor better, and explained it more judiciously. But we cannot itay to trace all the variations of the different philofophers of the fame school. Socrates was at firft a follower of the Ionic philofophers; but, leaving the empty difquifitions refpecting the origin of things, he endeavoured to improve the minds of men, to inculcate the focial duties, and, in every refpect, to make mankind happier and better. The whole of the account before us

[merged small][ocr errors]

is, however, a studied panegyric, which carries its own refutat on, and which even the ufual caprice of the Athenians can fca cely ender credible. It would require a volume to confider this fubject fully, and we fhall only remark that, with the utmost veneration for the character and the precepts of Socrates, we do not think his life was irreproachable, nor his laft scene entirely confiftent. Of the opinions of Socrates we can only notice his idea of fubordinate agents, which no one ought rafhly and haftily to defpife; for, while we fee the Almighty act in this world by second caufes, who can fay of what nature thefe caufes are. It is one of thofe fubjects, which we have had occafion to obferve, mocks the inveftigation of the human reafon, and leads us, when purfued, to confufion or abfurdity.

After mentior ing Xenophon, Efchines, Simon, and Cebes, followers of Socrates, who did not diftinguish themselves by founding fects, Brucker proceeds to trace the different schools which arofe from the doctrines of Socrates. The fects of leffer fame were the Cyrenaic, the Megaric, and the Æliac: thofe of greater celebrity were, the Academic and the Cynic; branching refpectively into the Peripatetic and the Stoic. The principal philofopher, and the chief fupport of the fect eftablished at Cyrene, was Ariftippus, a zealous disciple of Socrates, a man of polished manners, an accommodating difpofition, and an eafy familiarity: fome of his tenets, as lefs known, we fhall transcribe:

• Perceptions alone are certain; of the external objects which produce them, we know nothing. No one can be affured, that the perception excited in his mind by any external object is fimilar to that which is excited by the fame object in the mind of another perfon. Human nature is fubject to two contrary affections, pain and pleasure, the one a harth, the other a gentle emotion. The emotions of pleasure, though they may differ in degree, or in the object which excites them, are the fame in all animals, and univerfally create defire. Thofe of pain are, in like manner, effentially the fame, and univerfally create averfion. Happiness confifts not in tranquillity or indolence, but in a pleafing agitation of the mind, or active enjoyment. Pleafure is the ultimate object of human purfuit; it is only in fubferviency to this, that fame, friendship, and even virtue, are to be defired. All crimes are venial, becaufe never committed but through the immediate impulfe of paffion. Nothing is juft or unjust by nature, but by cuftom and law. The bufinefs of philofophy is to regulate the fenfes, in that manner which will render them most productive of pleafure. Since pleasure is to be derived, not from the paft or the future, but the prefent, a wife man will take care to enjoy the prefent hour, and will be indifferent to life or death.'

His fucceffors were few, and of inconfiderable credit, for the diftance of Cyrene from Athens neither rendered a sect famous, nor followers numerous. The Megaric fect, whose chief was Euclid of Megara, and one of whofe ornaments was the famous Diodorus, who by the well known fyllogifm denied the existence of motion, were merely Sophifts: yet, in fome points, Stilpo of Megara deferved a better title. The philofophers of the fchool of Elis, and afterwards of Eretria, were more legitimate followers of Socrates in opinions, though fcarcely, if we can trust the appellations of Menedemus, who was often called cur and madman, in manner. Thefe, however, we must leave to attend to the more importants fects; the firft of which is the Academic.

The Academic fect was founded by Plato, and fupported by his credit. On this part of the hiftory we fhall be concife, for we cannot eftimate fully the character of the founder of the Academic fect, nor trace with propriety the influence of his opinions, till we have paid more attention to Pythagoras. We ought not to blame Dr. Enfield for following the arrangement of his profeffed prototype Brucker, nor the German hif torian, for pursuing the steps of his predeceffors. If we were, however, to examine the fubject fully, as we may perhaps be tempted to do, we could fhow, that to purfue the narrative in accounts of different fchools, is rather to detail the history of philofophers than to relate that of the fcience. The error is particularly confpicuous in the part of the hiftory now before us. The philofophy of Plato was a mixture, often an improper and heterogeneous one, of the doctrines of Pythagoras and Socrates; fo that, as we have faid, it is difficult to estimate this author's merit properly, till we have confidered the very. intricate fubject of the Pythagorean fyftem. It is enough, in the prefent inftance, to remark that the life of Plato is related with precision and propriety, and the character of the philofopher vindicated from fome of the afperfions thrown on it. There is undoubtedly in Plato an air of myfticifm and refinement which perplexes or difgufts; but, in his moral dialogues, where he is chiefly a Socratic, his wifdom flows in language fo clear and elegant, his doctrines are fo ftrictly and unexceptionably moral, that, if eftimated by thefe qualities alone, we almost admit what the idolatry of his followers has often infiited on, that he was infpired. His works are, however, unequal: he fometimes ftruggles to convey a meaning, and the whole evaporates in words. He refines on his fu

fubftance is loft; and clouds his opinion by a pomp of Le guage, a cloud which almoft feems defignedly raifed to obfeare the poverty of the idea. That Plato had drawn from the f

K4

cred

« AnteriorContinua »