precisely on those periods when the general science was at the lowest point, and on those characters, who have done least for the advancement of knowledge. Socrates, for example, the most remarkable person in the whole history of philosophy, has, strictly speaking, no place whatever in a work written on this plan; since he made no attempt whatever to solve the terrible question; while the visionaries of the Alexandrian school, who built up a vast 'castle in the air,' of the wildest imaginations, on the basis of a false theory on the origin of knowledge, must receive an attention exactly proportioned to their want of real merit. If it were proper to select one branch of philosophy, as the leading topic in a summary review of the whole science, it strikes us, that the moral relation existing between man and the universe would be more suitable for this purpose, than the intellectual one, as being of itself of far more practical importance, and as naturally fixing the attention on the most instructive and agreeable parts of the inquiry. It may be remarked, however, that the correct taste and sound judgment of M. de Gerando have led him to avoid, in a great measure, any inconvenience of the kind alluded to by deviating, as occasion required, from a too strict adherence to his plan; and it would perhaps be difficult, on any system, to compress within the compass of a work of this extent a greater mass of valuable matter relating to the general subject, than we find in the one before us.

For the purpose of introducing the necessary order in the arrangement of his materials, our author has distinguished five successive periods in the progress of intellectual and moral science, and has divided his entire work into the same number of corresponding sections. The first period comprises the time anterior to Socrates; the second terminates at the age of Cicero; the third describes the decline and fall of philosophy, and ends with the close of the seventh century; the fourth brings us to the epoch of Descartes and Bacon; and the fifth to our own times. The four first occupy the work before us; the fifth is reserved for the subsequent division of the entire treatise, of which the second edition is not yet published. The new matter, contained in the present edition, consists principally of copious annotations appended to each of the chapters. We shall not of course be able, iv

the compass of an article, to follow M. de Gerando through the whole course of his interesting researches; but shall endeavor to give the reader an idea of his manner, and of the contents of his work, by a notice of some of the most interesting passages, accompanied with occasional extracts.

The materials for a history of the first of the periods above distinguished are extremely scanty. Very little information has come down to us respecting the doctrine of the two schools, then principally in vogue, commonly called the Ionic and Italian, or their respective founders, Thales and Pythagoras; and the little we have can hardly be received with implicit credit. Aristotle tells us, that even in his time nothing was known of Thales except by tradition; and there is great reason to suppose, that the common accounts of the opinions of these extraordinary men were transmitted by persons, who did not understand them, and who substituted their own crude imaginations for the juster views of their masters. Thus the leading principle attributed to Thales is, that water is the first cause or principle of everything, and he has accordingly been regarded by many as an atheist. It is known, however, that his attention was chiefly directed to physical science, and his celebrated axiom doubtless meant nothing more, than that the changes we find to have taken place in the structure of the globe were produced by the action of water. This was an ancient tradition current among the oriental sages, to whom the first Greek philosophers were probably indebted for most of these notions; and we even can see the traces of it in the account of the creation in Genesis, where the chaotic mass which existed before the introduction of order, is represented as consisting of water. 'The earth was without form and void, and the spirit of God moved upon the waters.' Thales was therefore not an atheist, but a Neptunian. Pythagoras, on the other hand, is represented as placing the first cause and essence of everything in numbers. One is the active principle, or the Divinity; two the passive principle, or matter; and so of others. These assertions, literally taken, convey no idea whatever, and are wholly unintelligible. They are, therefore, probably conclusions drawn by an inferior disciple of the great Samian from some leading doctrine of an entirely different cha

racter.

M. de Gerando inclines to the opinion, that Pythagoras had personified the abstract notions of the numbers, and converted them in his imagination into independent and substantial beings. Such a system would resemble pretty nearly the heresy of certain philosophers, refuted by Seneca, who considered the four cardinal virtues as so many living animals; and we can hardly bring ourselves to believe, that a person of the superior intellect, which we know Pythagoras to have possessed, could have possibly adopted it; notwithstanding the remark of Cicero, that there is no absurdity so glaring, that it has not been maintained by some philosopher at one time or another. The probability is, that Pythagoras, who had a correct notion of the solar system in its general features, intended to imply by the doctrine in question, that the laws which regulate the universe, and determine the motions of the heavenly bodies, correspond with the properties of numbers, and may be expressed by them. Democritus, on the other hand, who has come down to posterity with the title of the laughing philosopher, attributed the same phenomenon to the operation of an independent principle of motion existing in each of the atoms, or monads, comprising the universe, in consequence of which, they form themselves naturally into separate revolving spheres, or whirlpools, and thus produce the appearances we see. These two philosophers had, therefore, anticipated to a certain extent, the systems of Descartes and Newton. The remark was made by Condorcet, in his sketch of the Progress of the Human Mind, and is quoted with approbation by M. de Gerando, although, as we have observed before, he seems disposed in another passage to put a different construction on the Pythagorean doctrine of numbers. The system attributed to Democritus is so absurd, that if it had not since been seriously maintained by Descartes and others, one might be tempted to imagine, that the good humored sage merely intended, in proposing it, to act up to his general character, and make himself merry at the expense of his disciples. Heraclitus, whose serious wisdom, in regard to moral subjects, is supposed to have formed a remarkable contrast with the instructive mirth' of the sage of Abdera, and who is commonly known as the weeping_philosopher, appears to have been, in physical science, a Vulcanian, and held, in opposition to Thales, that fire, and not

water, is the universal principle. Perhaps the continual contemplation of his favorite element made his eyes look red, and gave rise to the popular opinion, that he was addicted to the melting mood. He was, also, surnamed the Obscure; but Aristotle tells us, that the difficulty of understanding his works was owing entirely to the want of any proper punctuation. Hippocrates, the physician, is said to have been a disciple of Heraclitus, and is justly ranked among the most distinguished philosophers of this period. Empedocles of Agrigentum is another of the great names belonging to it, but we know little, with certainty, of his life or opinions. He is represented by several writers, as having lived in a state of perpetual enthusiasm, and as having wrought miracles; but if he had really possessed this gift, it is hardly probable that he would have 'leapt fondly into Etna's flames,' in order to be thought a god.

Anaxagoras, surnamed Nous, or Intelligence, the friend of Pericles, probably the master of Socrates-Anaxagoras seems, upon the whole, to have been the greatest character of this epoch; or, at least, is the one whose greatness is best attested by authentic evidence. The enthusiastic approbation with which he is mentioned by M. de Gerando is equally honorable to both.

'We now arrive,' says our author, at the epoch of the illustrious Anaxagoras, whose memory was held in such just and unanimous respect by all antiquity. Even now, through the long course of intervening ages that separate us, we salute him with feelings of gratitude and joy. Considering the importance and grandeur of the notion of an intelligent first cause, which he was the first to publish, his name would well deserve to mark a period in the history of philosophy. The Ionic school, in which he was instructed, had conceived the idea of a first cause, or principle of order, which they called the soul of the world, but they supposed it to be in some way confounded and identified with the matter of the universe. Anaxagoras was the first, who established with distinctness and precision the separation between them. He taught, that the universe is an effect entirely distinct from the cause that produced it. This cause has nothing in common with any other being. It is one and eternal. It acts upon the world as the artist upon his materials. Power had before been considered as the principal attribute of the first cause; Anaxagoras added that of intelligence. This glorious and invaluable truth had not been, before his time,

demonstrated with fulness and precision. The mass of mankind had always entertained some notions of it, by the mere effect of the natural religious instinct. Those, who thought more deeply, had perceived that the chain of effects must terminate in a first cause; that this cause must produce these effects by action, and that action supposes a being endowed with thought and will; but they had not stated the argument in a methodical way, nor had they drawn their conclusions directly from a view of the general harmony of the universe. This merit was reserved for Anaxagoras. He was the first, who clearly perceived and distinctly taught, that the appearances of the universe are all connected together and form one system; that order is the chain which unites, and the supreme law which governs them; that this universal system, thus connected, supposes a single directing principle, or in other words, an omniscient and almighty mind.'

Such were the sublime notions of Anaxagoras, and his life appears to have done honor to the purity and elevation of his principles.

'He possessed,' says our author, a considerable fortune, but disdained sensual pleasures, and gave himself up exclusively to the search after truth. He was accustomed to say, that the noblest occupation of man was the contemplation of heavenly things, and the study of nature. When he was reproached with indifference to the welfare of his country, he replied, lifting his hands towards heaven, "Oh no! my country is very dear to me.' He supported the persecutions, to which he was subjected, with courage, and without discontinuing his labors in the cause of truth. This philosopher was a great admirer of Homer, and called him the teacher of justice and virtue. From this poet, he probably derived the majestic eloquence, that adorned his conversations and his writings. He resided at Athens in habits of intimate association with Pericles and Euripides. There too he met with Phidias, and lived much in his society. These two immortal geniuses were attached to each other by affinity of character, and doubtless derived great assistance in their various pursuits from their mutual intercourse. They were the first persons, who took a correct view of the real dignity of art and science, and who discovered the secret of the true sublime and beautiful in moral and in sensible objects. They found it to consist in the union of the divine and human, the ideal and the real. In the writings of Anaxagoras, the notion of a higher intelligence diffused a religious light over the whole face of nature; while the same great conception beamed in beautiful forms from under the chisel of Phidias; and inspired him in the execution of those master pieces of art, which have been the admiration and delight of all succeeding ages.'