principle of good to the universe, and is nothing besides good; and as a self-motive nature, which is nothing besides self-motion, is the cause of motion to all things; so all things proceed from being itself, and all united natures receive their union from _the one_, abstracted from all things.
Hence (such is the absolute dominion of unity), continued quantities would have no existence without its participation; for when they are divided, so far as they lose unity, they change their being into some other form. Hence, the bodies of plants or animals, which are each of them one, when they fly from unity, and are dissipated into multitude, immediately lose the essence they formerly possessed, and become something else; which new state of being they likewise possess so far as they are one. Add too, that health then flourishes in the corporeal frame, when the body is conciliated into one; then beauty flourishes, when the power of one connects the members into proportion and consent; and then virtue reigns in the soul, when the soul is reduced into one similitude with that which is divine.
5. But let us now investigate the nature of numbers. All number, according to the Pythagoreans, originates from unity and the indefinite duad; the first having the relation of form, and the second, that of matter to all the orders of numbers. But they likewise divided number into two kinds, essential and monadic. The essential number they considered as first subsisting in the intelligible world, together with being, and from thence distributed into all the various gradations of forms. But the monadic, or that which is composed from certain units, they justly considered as nothing more than the image of essential number. And with respect to the numbers which the human soul participates, these from its imperfect condition have a middle subsistence; i. e. they exist in a vital, gnostic, and speculative, but not in an operative manner. Hence, when receiving one thing with another, we affirm, that they are two, as a dog and a man, or two men; or when we compute more than two, as ten, and say that there is a decad of men, this number is not essential to the two or ten individuals, nor is it to be conceived as subsisting in sensible natures; but it is purely quantity. But when we distribute this ten, into units, we produce the principle of quantity, and generate a subject in opinion[10], capable of participating the essential decad of our soul.
But when, considering man in himself, we affirm that he is a certain number, as the duad, composed of animal and rational, we do not observe one mode in this predication; but so far as by a discursive operation of the soul, we numerate, we effect a particular quantum; but so far as the subjects are two, and at the same time both one (since one fills the essence of both, and in both unity is contained), we pronounce another, and an essential number: and this duad is not of a posterior origin, nor alone signifies a certain quantity, external to the subject, but a duad subsisting in the essence of man, and containing his nature. For here we do not produce a number by a discursive operation, while we pursue essential natures. But when we number any ten things, which are not connected by any conciliating unity, like a choir, or an army, then this decad, which we predicate of the ten particulars, subsists alone in our numerating soul, which renders the ten individuals in opinion, a definite quantum. But in a choir, or an army, essential number is participated exclusive of that which subsists in our soul. And if it be enquired how number subsists in the human soul, we must say, that the soul, by her self-moving energies, procreates number, while she numerates, and by this energy, causes the existence of quantity; in the same manner as in walking, we give rise to a certain motion. Thus, monadic number, or a collection of units of various kinds, subsists in opinion, in a manner correspondent to that of geometrical figures; and by this means participates the essential number of the soul. For as a triangular figure in the phantasy, is the recipient of a triangular nature, or of triangle itself; so every three units in opinion, receive the essential triad of the soul, and, by this means, form a definite quantum.
In short, as in every being we may discern the resemblances of matter and form, so in the pentad, or any other number, the five units, which are the subject of participation, and the quantity of the number, originate from the duad; but the form, that is the pentad itself, from unity. For every form is an unity, which unites its subject quantity, and connects it with its ideal species. It is, therefore, requisite to understand, that the two principles of mathematical numbers are resident in our souls, with which every mathematical number is co-existent; I mean unity, comprehending in itself all the forms of numbers, and which corresponds to unity in intellectual natures; and the duad, endued with a generative power, of a formless nature, and of infinite virtue; and which is called boundless, on account of its being the image of never-failing and intelligible duality. Hence, the unity of the soul, with a never-ceasing energy, continually distinguishes and forms all the orderly processions of her numbers, suffers no vacuum to intervene, and leaves no quantity formless and innumerable. Hence too, no essential number of the soul, as for instance, the pentad, is composed from substance and accident, as a white man; nor from genus and difference, as man from animal and biped; nor again, from five unities mutually touching each other, like a bundle of wood; nor from things mixt, like water and wine, nor from things subsisting by position, in the manner that stones compose a house; nor lastly, does it subsist like things numerable; for it is not because they are composed from indivisible units, that they possess any thing besides units. For many points are indivisible, yet quantity is not produced on this account; but because they participate of two natures, the one corresponding to matter, and the other to form. Lastly, it is not proper to say, that the number seven (and so of any other number), is composed from the triad and the tetrad; for units, indeed, composed with units, form a subject adapted to the reception of the heptad, or the ideal and essential number seven; but the definite numerical quantity seven, is formed from so many units, and the ideal heptad.
Hence, as the soul of the shipwright gives form to the timber, from her inherent art; so the numerative soul, from the unity endued with the relation of a principle which she possesses, gives form and subsistence to all her inherent numbers. But there is this difference between the two, that the shipwright’s art is not essential to our nature, and requires manual operation, because it is conversant with sensible matter; but the numerative art is essentially inherent in the soul, and is therefore present with all men, and possesses an intellectual matter, which it easily forms without the assistance of time. And this, perhaps, is what deceives many, who think that the heptad is nothing more than seven units. For the imagination of the vulgar, unless it first perceives a thing destitute of ornament, and afterwards the operations of the adorning artificer supervening its nature; and lastly, beholds the thing perfect, and invested with form, cannot be persuaded that it possesses two natures, the one formless, but the other endued with an energetic and forming power.
And here it is necessary to observe, that though unity is the form of all arithmetical forms, yet it is chiefly the form of the decad.
For what unity is simply to all the series of numbers, that the decad is to the following hundreds, thousands, and millions; from whence, according to a secondary progression, it is denominated unity. As intellect, therefore, is the form of all things, but especially of the soul, so unity, though it is the idea of all numbers, yet especially of the decad. But the reason why the Pythagoreans extended ideal numbers no farther than ten, is because this number is the ultimate perfection of beings, containing all things in its omniform nature.
For all proportion subsists within the number ten; the arithmetical in a natural progression of numbers from unity; the geometrical in the numbers 1, 2, 4, and 1, 3, 9, and the harmonical in the numbers 2, 3, 6, and 3, 4, 6. And since the causes of all things are contained in numbers, as far as to the decad[11], it is superfluous to suppose exemplars of the following numbers.
If it should be asked in what manner we must conceive number as subsisting in the intelligible world, we answer, with the great Plotinus, that we must conceive it as subsisting in being itself, with a power of impelling it to the production of multitude. “Hence (says he, Ennead vi. lib. vi.) number is either the essence or the energy of being, and animal itself, and intellect is number. But, perhaps, we must call being, number united (ἀριθμὸς ηνωμένος), but beings, number evolved, or unfolded; (ἐξεληλεγμένος ἀριθμὸς) intellect, number moving in itself; (ἀριθμὸς ἐν ἐαυτῶ κινούμενος) and lastly, animal, number comprehending (ἀριθμὸς περιέχων.“) It was in consequence of this reasoning, that the Pythagoreans called ideas numbers; because the gradual evolution of these from ineffable unity, produced all the beautiful variety of forms. Their exalted conceptions of numbers, likewise, originated from the same sublime theory. Hence, [12]Pythagoras, in the sacred discourse, calls number “_the ruler of forms and ideas_.” But [13]Philolaus, “_the commanding and self-begotten container of the eternal duration of mundane concerns_.” And [14]Hippasus, and all those who were called ἀκουσματικοὶ (or such as were yet under the probation of the quinquennial silence), “_the first exemplar of the mundane fabric, and the judiciary instrument of its artificer_.”
6. And here I cannot but take notice, with regret, of the very unphilosophical mistake committed by that great mathematician Dr.
Barrow[15]: I say, with regret, on account of the extraordinary obligations I am under to his writings, for my proficiency (whatever it may be) in mathematical learning. But respect must yield to the truth.
“Unity, says he, is not indivisible. (For how ex. gr. can 2/6 added to 4/6 be equal to unity, if unity be indivisible and incomposed, and represent a point) but rather only unity is properly divisible, and numbers arise from the division of unity.” Here the Doctor evidently confounds sensible units, which are the subjects of vulgar practical arithmetic, with those units which are the objects of science.
Every individual sensible object, is indeed an unit, so far as it participates the connecting and conciliating power of an immaterial _one_: but the unity which stands at the top of speculative arithmetic, is perfectly indivisible, or arithmetic would cease to be a science. The truth of this is evident from Euclid’s definition: “Unity (says he) is that according to which each of the things which are, is called one.” But if unity be a composite, the definition is false; since a composite, or a certain multitude, can never be the cause of unity, but the contrary. And that this immaterial _one_ subsists in sensible natures, has, I hope, been sufficiently proved in the preceding part of this discourse. But the Platonic Theo[16] of Smyrna, fully establishes the indivisibility of unity, as follows: “Unity is terminating quantity, the principle and element of numbers, which remains undiminished by the most immense multitude of subtractions, and being deprived of all number, continues firm and fixt, because it is impossible for division to proceed beyond the bound of unity.
Thus, if we separate any one corporeal substance into parts, the _one_ again becomes _many_; and by subtracting the several parts, we end in one part; and from this remaining part, again divided, arises multitude; and by taking away every part, we again arrive at _one_. So that _one_, considered as _one_, is incapable of diminution, and perfectly indivisible. On the contrary, every number is diminished by division, and is separated into parts less than itself; as the number 6 into 3 and 3, or into 4 and 2, or into 5 and 1. But unity in sensible particulars, if divided, is diminished after the manner of body, and by section is distributed into parts less than itself: but it receives increase after the manner of number; for instead of the one, multitude is produced. In this sense, therefore, is unity indivisible; for nothing is divided into parts greater than itself. But that which is cut into parts greater than the whole, and into parts equal to the whole, is divided as number. Thus, for instance, if any one sensible body is divided into six parts, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, these shall be equal to the whole; but by a section into 4 and 2, it is divided into parts greater than the whole, considered as _one_; for 4 and 2 considered as numbers, exceed unity, and the body was supposed to be one. Unity, therefore, as number is perfectly indivisible. But unity is called by the Greek word μονάς, only, or alone, either because it remains immoveable, and does not desert itself, nor surpass the bounds of its nature (for it remains the same, however multiplied into itself, through an infinite progression) or because it is placed separate and apart from the multitude of other numbers, it is denominated the _monad_, or _one_.”
In consequence of this very mistaken hypothesis, which opposes not only all the wisdom of antiquity, but the sublimest truths, the Doctor asserts, that an arithmetical cypher is the principle of numbers; and that it is analogous to a point in geometry. Just as if a cypher, which is nothing more than a mark expressive by its position with numbers, of a certain quantity, had a real existence, and was productive of number: when, at the same time, any other arbitrary character would serve the same purposes, if applied in a similar manner. It must surely afflict every thinking mind, to see how dreadfully the mechanical system of philosophy, which has been so long in fashion, enslaves and perverts the minds of its votaries; for there cannot, I think, be a more egregious instance of its fatal tendency, than the present, in which _nothing_ is considered as the foundation of that noble science, arithmetic; which was deservedly placed by the ancients, in the first rank of the mathematical disciplines. Such a foundation, indeed, _may be_ proper to the _mechanical philosophy_, but is very ill adapted to support the solid fabric of the arithmetical science. But let us attend to the arguments of this most learned man, in defence of so strange an assertion, “A cypher, or arithmetical nothing (says he) is really the bound of every number coming between it and the numbers next following, but not as a part. A cypher being added to, or taken from a number, does neither increase nor diminish it; from it is taken the beginning of computation, while itself is not computed; and it bears a manifest relation to the principal properties of a geometrical point.” But in what manner are we to conceive the _nothing_ which intervenes between any two numbers, to be their term or boundary? For Euclid defines a term to be the extremity of any thing; implying by the extremity, something belonging to that of which it is the bound. But how can a cypher, or _nothing_, in any respect belong to number, or _something_? For if _nothing_ be a boundary, merely from its intervention, a point existing between any two disjoined lines, though at the greatest distance from each, must be their common boundary, which is evidently absurd. Besides, what relation does it bear to a point, which is endued with a generative power, by its flux forming the simple extension of a line, and, at the same time, every where limiting its progression, and subsisting in infinite capacity in its every part? Where are the real and divine properties to be found in an arithmetical nothing, which Proclus, in the following Commentaries, exhibits in a point? And how can computation originate from a mere non-entity?
But a little consideration will convince us, that this Saracen, or Indian cypher, is nothing more than an arbitrary character, invented for the purpose of facilitating computation. For, suppose the letter (_a_) to be placed in its stead, and to signify, when connected with the mark for unity, ten, or ten multiplied by one; when connected with the mark for two, ten multiplied by two, and so on. And again, when placed twice after unity, let it express the second power of ten, or one hundred, in this manner, _a a_; when thrice connected, one thousand, or the third power of ten, and so on: shall we say, in consequence of this, that (_a_) is the bound of numbers, and the principle of arithmetic? Or, shall we not rather say, that it is an arbitrary symbol, like any other algebraic character, having no real connection with numbers, and depending, for its existence and application, entirely on the will of its inventor. But this opinion is too absurd to need any farther refutation.
7. It may here, perhaps, be expected, that I should explain how, in the language of Syrianus[17], “divine number proceeds from the immortal retreats of unity, until it arrives at the divine tetrad[18];” and that I should unfold the properties of the tetractys, according to the Pythagoreans; but an undertaking of this kind, would not only far exceed the limits of this dissertation, but, perhaps, in the present age, might be justly deemed, by the lovers of wisdom, a prostitution and profanation of the most exalted truths. Enough, I hope, has been said to excite the curiosity, and rouse the attention of the thinking and liberal part of mankind; and those who understand what is here briefly delivered, may apply themselves, with advantage, to Proclus on Plato’s Theology, where they will find all the mysteries of numbers unravelled; and to the works of the great Plotinus, who will lead them into the penetralia of the most recondite wisdom. But, in perusing the works of these great men, the reader must not expect to find the sublimest truths explained in a familiar manner, and adapted, like many modern publications, _to the meanest capacities_. For this, indeed, is impossible to be effected. “Mankind (says Petvin[19]), are not to be made any more truly knowing than happy by another’s understanding.--There is no man can at once convey light in the higher subjects, to another man’s understanding. It must come into the mind from its own motions, within itself: and the grand art of philosophy, _is to set the mind a-going_; and, even when we think nothing of it, to assist it in its labour.” After which he observes, that “the ancients never attempt to lead us into knowledge, by a continued chain of reasoning; on the contrary, they write in such a manner, as to force us to think for ourselves.” And, previous to this, he remarks, “that there are certain truths acquired by a long exercise of reason, both in _particular_, and likewise in those subjects that are most _general_, as much, perhaps, out of the reach of the greatest mathematician, as Sir Isaac Newton’s speculations are above the capacity of some that are now called mathematicians.” The truth of this observation is sufficiently evinced, in Plato’s definition of a philosopher (in his Sophista), “The philosopher (says he) is the man who sufficiently sees one idea every way extended through many, every one of them lying apart; and many ideas different from one another, externally comprehended under one.--And farther, one idea, throughout all manys, wrapt up in one; and many ideas, every way separate or discreet. This is to have the knowledge to discern how ideas, as they are general, agree and disagree.” Now, he who thinks that a perception of this kind may be acquired by barely reading an accurate discourse on the nature of ideas, composed in intelligible terms, without, at the same time, employing a long course of profound meditation, and patient thought, knows but little the difficulty of the task, and until he changes his opinion will never be the wiser. But the folly and presumption of men, with respect to this sublime philosophy, is really unpardonable; for there are very few who conceive that much previous instruction is requisite to its acquisition; but almost every man decides peremptorily on the most abstract speculations, and reckons himself sufficient for the most profound investigations. In the sciences and arts they are willing to proceed to perfection by gradual advances; but they consider philosophy as easy, of instant access, and hastily approach to her embraces with an assured confidence of success.
Though, like unhappy Ixion, through their presumption, instead of a goddess, they grasp nothing but an empty cloud. Plato was so sensible of this truth, that, in his seventh epistle to Dion, he expressly affirms, that he neither has written, nor ever will write explicitly concerning these sublime speculations; “For a thing of this kind (says he) cannot be expressed by words, like other disciplines, but by a lasting familiarity, and conjunction of life, with this _divine object_, a bright light[20] on a sudden, as it were leaping from a fire, will illuminate the soul, and there preserve and nourish its splendor. He adds, that a publication of such concerns, is alone useful to a few of mankind, who from some small vestiges previously demonstrated, are sufficiently sagacious to their invention. But it will fill others partly with a base contempt, and partly with a rash and vain confidence, as if they had now learned some very excellent things.” He then subjoins the following instance of the difficulty attending such an undertaking: “There are three things (says he), from which science must necessarily be produced; but the fourth is science itself. And it is requisite to establish the fifth as that which is the object of knowledge, and has a true existence. One of these is the name of a thing; the second its definition; the third the resemblance; the fourth science. Now take each of these, desiring to learn what we have lately asserted, and think concerning them all, in a similar manner. A circle is called something, whose _name_ we have just expressed. After this follows its definition, composed from nouns and verbs. For that which every where is equally distant from the extremes to the middle, is the definition of that which we signify by the name of a round, and a circumference, and a circle. But the third is the circle which may be painted, or blotted out, which may be made by a wheel, or destroyed. None of which affections, the circle itself, which each of these respects, suffers, as being of a different nature. But the fourth is science, and intellect, and true opinion about these. And this again must be established as one whole, which neither subsists in voice, nor in corporeal figures, but in intellect and intelligence. It is therefore manifest, that this fourth is different from the nature itself of the circle, and again different from the three we have previously mentioned. But among the number of these, intellect, by its relation and similitude, proximately adheres to the fifth, while the rest are more remote from its nature. The same may likewise be affirmed of a straight and crooked figure, of colour, and of the good, the beautiful, and the just. And again, of every body, whether fashioned by the hand, or the work of nature, whether fire or water, and the rest of this kind; likewise of every animal, and the manners of animals; and of all actions and passions. For unless, among these, some one, after a manner, receives that fourth, he will never perfectly participate the science about the fifth.” He then proceeds to shew in what respect each of the preceding four are different from the fifth. “Every circle (says he) which by the hands of men is either painted, or fashioned by a wheel, is plainly contrary to our fifth. For it every where participates of the right-line. But we must affirm, that the circle itself has neither more nor less of any thing whatever; that is, it possesses in itself, nothing of a contrary nature. Besides, none of these are endued with any stability of name. For nothing hinders our applying the appellation of straight to that which we now denominate round, and calling the straight by the denomination of the round; nor will there be any less stability in these, when their names are changed into the contrary. The same reasoning is likewise true of definition, since it is composed from nouns and verbs, which possess no stability. And in a variety of ways, it may be proved, that no one of these four is certain and firm.” Now, this fifth division of Plato’s entirely respects ideas, considered as flourishing in intellect; by a conjunction with which, we acquire true intelligence, and the perfection of human knowledge. The first three of the preceding are obnoxious to various mutations; the fourth less; but the last is perfectly stable and invariable. The three first are rather conversant about the qualities of things, about the image and shadow; the fourth raises us to the participation of truth; but the fifth to truth itself, and permanent essence. In the first degrees almost all are conversant; in the fourth a few; in the fifth, all the gods, but a very small part of mankind, as it is asserted in the Timæus. The four first may be known, indeed, without the fifth, confusedly; but from the knowledge of the fifth they become perfectly manifest, as effects from the knowledge of their cause. But we cannot, by any means, attain to the apprehension of the fifth, unless we have been first accurately conversant with the rest; for from our imperfect condition we are compelled to rise from difference to identity, from multitude to unity, and from shadow to substance. While we investigate the knowledge of things, if we are alone desirous to apprehend their resemblance (which is the case with the multitude) we shall be placed in the third degree, and may easily acquire the object of our pursuit. But if we should fortunately possess the true philosophical genius, which is rare in the extreme, and aspiring to the fifth degree, should, by a happy event, attain to its conjunction, though such a contact is clearer and more certain than all knowledge; yet it is difficult to express it in words, and to manifest it to others. And the reason of this is obvious: first, because words are wanting, which exactly correspond to the essence of a thing, since these are only the symbols of shadows. Secondly, because we speak with those, who are alone conversant with shadows, and are on this account derided by them, when they find that our fifth does not, by any means, accord with material resemblances, which they consider as the only realities.
8. And here a question very naturally presents itself for our solution, whether the soul, while united with the body, is able to perceive ideas, without the assistance of the phantasy, For it seems difficult to apprehend how the soul, thus depressed and weighed down with the terrene mass, should be able to raise herself to the supernal light of ideas, and become united with their refulgence. The opinion of the Peripatetics is well known, that some phantasm must always accompany intelligence; but this is denied by the Platonists, and I think with great reason. For the operations of intellect are not dependent on the phantasy, though the perceptions of the latter proceed from the energies of the former. Besides, as Plotinus beautifully observes, our most vigorous energies are accompanied with the least animadversion; and there is no absurdity in supposing that by increasing the force of intellectual energy, we may speculate free from all imagination; since the phantasms attending our conceptions, became weak in proportion as the intellectual sight increases in vigour. On this account, the Platonists affirm, that the moral virtues free us from the vehemence of perturbations; but the contemplative from imagination, and the senses. Hence too, the sciences may be called living waters; in which the wings of the soul being dipt, her feathers, which were either separated or broken by her lapse into body, are repaired, and restored to a resemblance of their former perfection. For the wings are the powers of the soul, leading to intelligibles: but the feathers are as well the natural instincts to good and truth, as reasons inserted in the soul; which either fall off, or are broken by her descent into body, and conjunction with its ruinous bonds. But these are repaired and invigorated by the sciences, which, like living streams, flowing from the fountains of ideas, restore life and perfection to the soul.
Hence Plato, in the Phædrus, asserts that these wings of the soul are increased by every thing which confers to supernal elevation; as beauty, wisdom, and the like; and by a convenient metaphor, in the same dialogue, he considers the chariot of the souls lives, her charioteer, and the horses by which her car is drawn; and lastly, every thing which contributes to the elevation of the soul, and her conjunction with intellect and ideas. We may therefore conclude, that this conjunction is possible to be effected, though it is rarely obtained; and that it is a flight too arduous and sacred for the groveling and sordid; a splendor too bright for the sensible eye; and a contact too ineffable to be described by the unstable composition of words.
But I cannot conclude this section, without soliciting the reader’s attention to a comparison of the difference between the ancient philosophy, and that invented by Mr. Locke, and the moderns. According to Mr. Locke’s system ideas are formed from sensible particulars, by a kind of mechanical operation; so that truth is something by its nature, posterior to sensation, and entirely dependent on it for existence.
According to Plato, ideas are eternal and immaterial beings, the originals of all sensible forms, and the fountains of all evidence and truth; so that on this system truth ranks among the first, and not in the last of things; and would still retain its nature, though the corporeal senses were no more. According to Mr. Locke, the soul is a mere _rasa tabula_, an empty recipient, a mechanical blank.
According to Plato, she is an ever-written tablet, a plenitude of forms, a vital and intellectual energy. On the former system, she is on a level with the most degraded natures, the receptacle of material species, and the spectator of delusion and non-entity[21]. Hence, her energies are nothing but somnolent perceptions, and encumbered cogitations; for all her knowledge terminates in sense, and her science in passion. Like a man between sleeping and waking, her visions are turbid and confused, and the phantoms of a material night, continually glide before her drowsy eye. But on the latter system, the soul is the connecting medium of an intelligible and sensible nature, the bright repository of all middle forms, and the vigilant eye of all cogitative reasons. Hence she is capable of rousing herself from the sleep of a corporeal life, and emerging from this dark Cimmerian land, into the regions of light and reality. At first, indeed, before she is excited by science, she is oppressed with lethargy, and clouded with oblivion; but in proportion as learning and enquiry stimulate her dormant powers, she wakens from the dreams of ignorance, and opens her eye to the irradiations of wisdom. On Mr. Locke’s system, the principles of science and sense are the same, for the energies of both originate from material forms, on which they are continually employed. Hence, science is subject to the flowing and perishable nature of particulars; and if body and its attributes were destroyed, would be nothing but a name. But on the system of Plato, they differ as much as delusion and reality; for here the vital, permanent, and lucid nature of ideas is the fountain of science; and the inert, unstable, and obscure nature of sensible objects, the source of sensation. On Mr. Locke’s system, body may be modified into thought, and become an intelligent creature; it may be subtilized into life, and shrink, by its exility, into intellect. On that of Plato, body can never alter its nature by modification, however, it may be rarefied and refined, varied by the transposition of its parts, or tortured by the hand of experiment. In short, the two systems may be aptly represented by the two sections of a line, in Plato’s Republic. In the ancient, you have truth itself, and whatever participates of the brightest evidence and reality: in the modern, ignorance, and whatever belongs to obscurity and shadow. The former fills the soul with intelligible light, breaks her lethargic fetters, and elevates her to the principle of things; the latter clouds the intellectual eye of the soul, by increasing her oblivion, strengthens her corporeal bands, and hurries her downwards into the dark labyrinths of matter.
Nor is it wonderful there should be so great a difference between the two systems, and so much in favour of the ancients, if we consider the great advantages these ancients possessed over the moderns in every thing which contributes to the advancement of philosophy. For, in the first place, they lived in an age when abstract investigations were in the greatest request, and the professors of such pursuits in the highest estimation. Besides this, they united the most exalted abilities with the most unwearied attention and obstinate perseverance; they devoted their whole lives to the search of truth; and relinquished every thing which might be an obstacle to its acquisition. We may add, likewise, the advantages of a language extremely philosophical; and a freedom from the toil of learning any tongue but their own. Now the reverse of all this is the portion of the moderns: for in the present age, abstract speculations are ridiculed; and its professors despised. The pursuit of truth is considered as perfectly consistent with ordinary avocations, and is rather prosecuted as a relief from the toils of business than as a thing desirable for its own sake, and of the greatest dignity and worth. Hence, a few years desultory application at a college, where language is one of the first objects of attention, qualifies a modern for philosophy, raises him above Pythagoras and Plato, and persuades him, with presumptuous confidence, to enter the lists against these venerable heroes. And lastly, all modern languages are barbarous with respect to the Greek; falling far short of its harmony and energy, its copiousness and propriety. If such then be the true state of the case, what judgment must we form of men who, with all these disadvantages, philosophized without the assistance of the ancients, despising their works, and being ignorant