erable influence on some of the later schools, as they present a remarkable coincidence with one of the most recent theories of modern science * It is scarcely possible to refrain from smiling at the boldness with which these first adventu rers in the field of speculation, unconscious of the scantiness of their resources or of the difficulty of the enterprise, rushed at once to the losophers who belonged to it were natives of Ionia-may be said to have been founded by Thales of Miletus, a contemporary of Solon, inasmuch as he introduced a method which, notwithstanding great diversities in their theories, was retained by his successors. But how far any personal intercourse existed among them, is extremely uncertain, though, on the authority of some writers of little credit, they have been commonly represented as forming an un-solution of the highest problems of philosophy. broken chain of teachers and scholars. The point in which they agreed was, that they fixed their attention to a primeval state of things. to which they mounted by such steps as they could find, and from which they endeavoured to deduce the later order of nature. This feature, which was common to their systems, seems to betray the influence of the poetical cosmogonies, from which it was probably borrowed, though the mythical form was discarded. Whether it was from the same source that Thales derived the distinguishing tenet of his philosophy, according to which water, or some liquid element, was the origin of all things, is much more doubtful. But it is still less probable that he adopted this dogma from an Oriental mythology, though his personal connexion with Phoenicia, whence his family is said to have sprung, has been supposed strongly to favour this suspicion. Aristotle*-it would seem much more judiciously-considers it as the result of some very simple observations on the uses of moisture in the nourishment of vegetable and animal life, which were probably connected with a traditional belief that the earth rested on an abyss of waters,† bounded by the river ocean, the immediate cause of earthquakes, which were therefore ascribed to the power of Poseidon. It seems to have been by a similar process that, half a century later, Anaximenes of Miletus was led to substitute a new principle for the liquid element of Thales. To him, air, as it encompassed and sustained the earth and the heavenly bodies which float in it, appeared also as the universal source of life-the breath of the world, which animates all the beings that live in it. And it was apparently by an analogy of the same kind that fire -not the visible element, but some more subtle fluid-was preferred for the same purpose by the Ephesian Heraclitus, who, in other respects, stands apart from the other philosophers of the school an original thinker, who, by a peculiar and ingenious theory, endeavoured to reconcile the constant flux of all sensible objects with the permanency of a single intelligible substance. To him the order of nature appeared as the momentary equipoise of conflicting impulses, which he illustrated by the tension of the bow and the lyre, or by an image which, singularly enough, occurs also in the philosophical poetry of India, as the play of the infinite Being, from whom all things proceed, and to whom, in successive periods, all things return. His followers seem to have formed a separate sect, and his opinions to have exerted consid ser, in bis antipathy to the Ionians, would deprive them of all share in the glory of their most illustrious citizens, who, like Xenophanes and Anacreon, migrated to other regions. * Met., i., 3. + Plut., De Pl. Phil., iii., 15. Orig., Phil., 1. Sir J. Herschel (Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, p. 107) suggests a different occasion. But, to temper any disdainful feeling which their temerity may excite, it should be remembered that, without the spirit which prompted this hardihood, philosophy would probably never have risen from its cradle. The direction which it took towards outward objects was the most conformable to the natural tendency of the human mind, and to the peculiar character and genius of the Ionian race; and, that we may not undervalue the importance of these early attempts, or turn away from them with indifference, on account of their intrinsic futility, it may be proper to cast a look on the results to which they led, on the manner in which they affected the views of subsequent inquirers, and the influence they exerted on the public mind. With regard to the study of nature, indeed, the utmost, perhaps, that can be said in their favour is, that they did not materially check, confine, or pervert it. Most of these early philosophers were diligent as well as sagacious inquirers-a praise which has been bestowed on them by one of the most eminent of our own dayt-and enriched the knowledge of their age with some important discoveries; and though their explanations of natural phenomena are often extremely rude, it does not appear that they attempted to accommodate their observations to their systems, which, indeed, were probably not so mature as to require such a sacrifice. But in another point of view these systems were pregnant with more important consequences. Thales evolved his world out of a single simple substance, to which he attributed the power of passing spontaneously through the various transformations necessary for the multiplicity of natural productions; but he does not seem to have attempted accurately to define the nature of these transformations: and so most of his successors, who set out from a similar hypothesis, contented themselves with some vague notions or phrases about the successive expansions or contractions of the original substance. But as the contemplation of animal life had led Anaximenes to adopt air as the basis of his system, a later philosopher, Diogenes of Apollonia, carried this analogy a step farther, and regarded the universe as issuing from an intelligent principle, by which it was at once vivified and ordered-a rational as well as sensitive soul-still without recognising any distinction between matter and mind. Much earlier, however, Anaximander of Miletus, who flourished not long after Thales, and is generally considered as his immediate dis La Place's état primitif (Systême du Monde, p. 433) comes near to the apx of Heraclitus on the one side, as the up TEXVIKOV of the Stoics did on the other. + Sir J. Herschel (Discourse, p. 107). But the remarks in the next page, so far as they impute unphilosophical motives of vanity or ambition to these same inquirers, will not be readily adopted by any one who is conversant with the history of Greek philosophy. He eiple, seems to have been struck by the diffi- | One Being was the Deity.* The changes which culty of accounting for the changes which a Thales attributed to the One Being appeared simple substance must be supposed to undergo to him inconsistent with the character of the in order to produce an infinite variety of beings. Deity and unintelligible in themselves. He found it easier, in conformity with some of found it impossible to conceive that anything the ancient cosmogonies, to conceive the prim- could come into being or could cease to be; itive state of the universe as a vast chaos--for nevertheless, it does not appear that he absowhich he had no other name than the Infinite-lutely denied the reality of external objects, or containing all the elements out of which the world was to be constructed by a process of separation and combination, which, however, he considered as the result of motion, not impressed on it from without, but inherent in the mass. This hypothesis, which tended to give an entirely new direction to the speculations of the school, seems to have been treated with a neglect which it is difficult to explain, and which has raised a suspicion that some less celebrated names may have dropped out of the list of the Ionian philosophers.* But, a century after Anaximander, Anaxagoras of Clazomena revived his doctrine, with some very fanciful additions and one very important change. He combined the principle of Anaximander with that of his contemporary Diogenes, and acknowledged a supreme mind, distinct from the chaos to which it imparted motion, form, and order. The pantheistic systems of the Ionian school were only independent of the popular creed, and did not exclude it. The language of Thales and Heraclitus, who declared that the universe was full of gods,† left room for all the fictions of the received mythology, and might even add new fervour to the superstition of the vulgar. But the system of Anaxagoras seems to have been felt to be almost irreconcilable with the prevailing opinions, and hence, as we shall find, drew upon him hatred and persecution. regarded their varying aspects as mere illusions. But the precise mode in which he attempted to reconcile their multiplicity and manifold transformations with the unity and unalterable identity of the Deity, who, though all mind, was still one with the world, is a point which cannot be determined from the fragmentary remains of his works, and on which we are left to form uncertain conjectures. If, as some accounts might lead us to believe, he for this purpose made a distinction between the senses and the reason, he would have the honour of opening a new and very important field of speculation, as the earliest inquirer into the faculties of the human mind; and, at all events, he suggested the distinction, which was more strongly insisted on by his follower Parmenides. Xenophanes was not so immersed in his ontological speculations as to neglect the study of nature, and had formed a system which seems not to have been very far removed from that of Thales, as he was led by geological observations to similar conclusions on the primitive state of the world. He was the first Greek philosopher who openly rejected the popular superstition, which he referred to its true source, the tendency of man to assimilate the objects of his worship to his own nature, and he inveighed against Homer and Hesiod for attributing to the gods actions unworthy of the divine character. He also attacked several doctrines of his philosophical contemporaries or predecessors, and seems to have satisfied himself better in refuting their opinions than in establishing his own. While philosophy was thus cultivated in Ionia, two schools arose in the western colonies, of widely different characters, though both were founded by the Ionians, and one in the seat of an Ionian population. This was the Parmenides, a native of Elea, whose early Eleatic, which took its name from the town of youth seems to have coincided with the advanElea or Velia, on the western coast of South-ced age of Xenophanes, though it is not certain ern Italy, a settlement of the Phocæans, the origin of which will be hereafter noticed, and to which Xenophanes, the founder of the school, migrated, it is believed, about 536 B.C. from his birthplace, Colophon. We mention it first, because it seems to have been connected, though by a polemical relation, with the school of Thales, and its history, in one important point, presents a contrast to that of the Ionian philosophy for the Eleatic began where the other ended, with the admission of a supreme intelligence; and it even seems probable that Xenophanes was guided in the formation of his system by a religious rather than by a purely philosophical interest. As Thales saw gods in all things, so it may be said that Xenophanes saw all things in God. Aristotle described his mingled in one mass by referring to sea-shells found in midHe supported his opinion that earth and sea were once predominant thought or feeling with remark- land regions and in the bowels of mountains, to the impresable liveliness and simplicity, by saying that hesions of fish in the quarries of Syracuse, and to similar gazed upon the whole heaven, and said that the Ritter, i., p. 289. But see Brandis in the Rhein. Mus., 1., p. 118. fol. 1 According to Aristotle, De Anim., i., 5, this was the Tery expression of Thales. Herachtus conveyed the same thought in another form when he bade, his guests enter, saying, "Here, too, are gods." Aristotle, De part. anim., 25. that he received his personal instructions, pursued the same direction. But he set out, not like Xenophanes, from the idea of deity, but from the notion of being; he expressly grounded his system on the distinction between sense and reason, as means of arriving at truth, and, on the one hand, went so far as to deny the reality of time, space, and motion, while on the other hand he admitted so much of a real foundation for the appearances of nature as rendered them not unworthy of attention, and even constructed a peculiar physical theory to explain them. But it is to be lamented that in his * Met., i., 5, εἰς τὸν ὅλον οὔρανον ἀποβλέψας τὸ ἓν εἶναι ng Tov Ocóv. phenomena observed in the Isle of Paros and elsewhere. Origen., Phil., 14 This seems to imply that no preceding philosopher had made the same use of the like observations. See above, p. 212, not. t. col. 2. Ritter (1, p. 452) finds an allusion to Pythagorean doc trines, where it would seem that Xenophanes might have had Anaximander's incip v in view. The Pythagorean tenets which he is supposed to have controverted, even if they were formed so early, seem, according to Ritter's own observation (p. 356), to have been kept longer secret. other point of view-as a man who combined philosophy with religion and an ascetic morality, assumed a priestly character, possessed an insight into some secrets of nature unknown to his contemporaries, and by all these means acquired a powerful ascendant over them, and was regarded with a religious awe-Empedocles belongs to the same class with Epimenides and Pythagoras, the founder of the second, and the most celebrated of the Western schools, which, indeed, might perhaps claim precedence by a few years of the Eleatic.* We have reserved it for this place, both as less intimately connected with the Ionian schools, and because it will lead us to take a view of the political condition of some of the Greek cities in Italy which we have already mentioned. case, as in his master's, we are left in the dark after times as to demand notice here. In anas to his mode of reconciling these seemingly inconsistent views. His fellow-citizen, friend, and disciple, the courageous and unfortunate Zeno, and Melissus of Samos, who united great military talents and experience with his philosophical pursuits, chiefly exercised their dialectic subtlety in combating both the dogmas of other philosophers and the opinions of the vulgar; and though there is no reason to doubt that they were earnest in search of truth, they seem too often to have descended to sophistical paradoxes, which need all the indulgence that can be claimed for an early stage of science. Zeno himself was sometimes ranked among the sophists, whose pernicious influence we shall hereafter have occasion to notice; and thus the Eleatic school, which in its outset was distinguished by a religious philosophy, insensibly contracted a close affinity with a class of men who laboured to destroy both philosophy and religion. The history of Pythagoras is obscured by a cloud of legends, through which little can be distinguished beyond the leading outlines of his life and character. He was a native of Samos, born about B.C. 570, and by his mother's side is said to have been connected with one of the most ancient families in the island. But his father, Mnesarchus, was generally believed to origin, though it was disputed whether he was a Phoenician, or belonged to the Tyrrhenians of Lemnos or Imbrus-to a branch, therefore, of the Pelasgian race. Like uncertainty hangs over the early life of Pythagoras, the sources of his knowledge, or the aid he received in the cultivation of his mind. But there seems to be no reason to doubt that he travelled in the East, at least in Egypt, and that he derived some instruc aximander. To his stay in Egypt he was most likely indebted, not so much for any positive knowledge or definite opinions, as for hints which roused his curiosity, and impressions which decided the bias of his mind. In the science of the Egyptians he perhaps found little to borrow; but in their political and religious insti We may here mention a remarkable feature in the history of the early philosophical literature, which corresponds to the character of the several schools and systems. Of Thales it is not certainly known whether he wrote any-have been a foreigner, and not of purely Greek thing, nor whether some verses-about two hundred-which were attributed to him, contained an account of his physical doctrines, or were merely a collection of practical maxims and precepts, such as were ascribed to all those who were numbered among the Seven Sages. His younger contemporary, Anaximander, unfolded his theory in a prose work, and his example appears to have been followed by all the philosophers of the same school. The speci-tion from Pherecydes of Scyros, if not from Anmens left of their writings show that their loss is to be regretted in a literary point of view, as well as on account of the information which they would have afforded. Their style seems to have resembled that of the early historians: its simplicity was relieved by the bold poetical images in which their thoughts were frequently veiled. On the other hand, Xenophanes and Parmenides explained and defended their sys- * He was commonly classed among the Pythagoreans (see tems in verse, which scarcely deserves the Sturz, Empedocles, 3). But Ritter has established his name of poetry, though the former was the connexion with the Eleatics by a careful comparison of his remains with those of Parmenides. Perhaps the other opinauthor of several moral elegies, which were not ion was suggested by the resemblance between his characdeficient in poetical merit, and of a historical ter and that of Pythagoras. Yet, besides his doctrine conepic, perhaps the first of its kind, on the found-cerning the soul, his Sphere-god, which absorbs and assimation of Colophon and the migration to Elea. principles, which are subordinate to a higher unity, seem ilates portions of the realm of strife, and his two opposite The remains of the philosophical poems breathe to come nearer to some peculiar features of the Pythagore a strain of oracular solemnity and obscurity, an philosophy. By others, again, both ancients and modand to contemporary readers must have suppli- has been assigned to the Ionian school, as a disciple of erns (as Reinhold, Geschichte der Philosophie, i., p. 66), he ed the absence of all purely poetical appeals to Anaxagoras. He may probably be looked upon as the first the imagination and the feelings by the interest author of an eclectic system. But see Brandis, in the es of new and mysterious trains of thought, strug- say above referred to, p. 123, folio. gling in vain for an adequate expression. But a metrical vehicle did not so well suit Zeno's dialectic genius, and he adopted a more appropri-mentioned among the teachers of Pythagoras, our belief ate instrument of controversy in the dialogue, which in his hands was probably a very dry form, and utterly destitute of the attractions which were afterward imparted to it by the highest efforts of Attic eloquence. The Eleatics appear likewise to have suggested some features of the system framed about the middle of the fifth century by Empedocles of Agrigentum, which he also unfolded in a poetical form. It neither has so much philosophical interest, nor exerted such influence in Apollon. ap. Porphyr., De Vit. Pyth., 2 Tradition, indeed, can have but little weight on a point of this nature, But as to Pherecydes, the ancients appear to have been As to Anaximander and Thales, who is also most rest chiefly on the probability, whatever it may be, that he became acquainted with the persons most eminent for knowledge and wisdom in his day. With regard to Phereyes, the tradition may seem to be confirmed by anoth er, according to which he was the first Greek who taught the immortality of the soul. But no traces of an intercourse the doctrines ascribed to Pythagoras, and therefore the with Thales or Anaxunander can be discovered in any of question is one which it is equally unimportant and difficult to decide. This is still more the case as to the other alleged teachers of Pythagoras, as Bins of Priene, and ob has made some judicious remarks on this subject in his scure names, such as Creophilus and Hermodumas. Ritter Geschichte der Pythagorischen Philosophie, p. 15, folio. tutions he saw a mighty engine, such as he might wish to wield for nobler purposes. It is equally credible that he was initiated in several of the most ancient Greek mysteries, even if there should be no ground for the conjecture that he inherited some secrets of a mystic lore from Pelasgian ancestors.* We may here remark that among the various opinions which have been entertained by the learned as to the Greek mysteries, none seem more probable than that which holds them to have been the remains of a worship which preceded the rise of the Hellenic mythology and its attendant rites, grounded on a view of nature less fanciful, more earnest, and better fitted to awaken both philosophical thought and religious feeling. It is extremely doubtful how far they were ever used as a vehicle for the exposition of theological doctrines differing from the popular creed. But it seems not improbable that, in the century which followed the opening of a regular intercourse between Greece and Egypt, some attempts were made to connect the mystic legends, which were either exhibited in mimic shows or conveyed in hymns, with a sort of speculative system, which may here and there have contained some features derived from the East; and that the authors of this new learning endeavoured to recommend it by the authority of Orpheus, and other venerable names of Thracian, Lycian, or Hyperborean bards and prophets. It was now, perhaps, that the views of the initiated began to be extended beyond the present life, and that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul was made a basis for the assurance of higher privileges than had before been held out to them. Whether it was from a domestic or a foreign source that Pythagoras drew the peculiar form of this doctrine which he adopted-self, in which he discovered a contrast variousthat of a transmigration of souls-we cannot determine; Pindar's allusions seem to indicate that in his time it had been long familiar to the Greeks.t of his system, as it is almost certain that he never committed it to writing; and it is extremely difficult, in the doctrines which are called Pythagorean, to distinguish what belongs to him, and what to his disciples and their followers. We can only venture to make a few remarks on its character and tendency, so far as they may be collected with some degree of safety. It seems clear that Pythagoras not only conceived that numbers represented the essence and properties of all things, but attributed to them such a real objective existence as rendered them capable of serving as materials or elements in his construction of the universe; a process, of which no satisfactory account has yet been given, which does not imply that he confounded, first a numerical unit with a geometrical point, and then this with a material atom. He thus, on one side, pointed the way to the physical theory afterward maintained by Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus, though it is by no means certain that this was the source from which it was derived. But it is extremely improbable that either he, or any of his followers, ever caught a glimpse of the atomic theory of modern science. On the other hand, he seems to be justly chargeable with a large part of the absurdities and superstitions which claimed the sanction of his name in the latest period of Greek philosophy, and which exerted such a powerful and mischievous influence over the opinions of many succeeding ages; for, innocent as he may have been of such an intention, he probably opened a door for all these chimeras, not only in the mysterious virtue which he attributed to numbers, but likewise in the still more abstruse speculations by which he ascended to the first principles of number itly expressed by his followers as one between light and darkness, or between good and evil, and perhaps equivalent to that between mind and matter, reason and sense.' These opposite principles were represented, indeed, as subordinate to a higher unity, but also as issuing out of it. And thus the First Cause itself was drawn into the conflict, and engaged in a struggle with its own original imperfection. It is not improbable that the philosophy of Pythagoras would have been more sober, and might not have been the occasion of so many Pythagoras is said to have been the first Greek who assumed the title of a philosopher. If this was so, he probably did not intend, as has been commonly imagined, to deprecate the reputation of wisdom, but to profess himself devoted to the pursuit of it; though, on the other hand, the well-known story which explains the origin of the name, suggests an entirely false notion of his view of life so far as it implies that he re-incoherent dreams, but for the symbolical and garded contemplation as the highest end of human existence.‡ His ardent thirst of knowledge he shared with many of his contemporarics; but he was distinguished by his strong bent for mathematical studies, and for all connected with them. Several remarkable discoveries in geometry, music, and astronomy are attributed to him, and his whole philosophy was the result of this predilection. We are the less inclined to enter into an explanation Ritter, i., p. 350. But the story of the mystagogue Agfanphamous, who is said to have admitted him to the Orphic mysteries at Libethra, where he learned the rudiments of his arithmetical theology, is perhaps a fable not much more ancient than the time of lamblichus. See Lobeck, Aglaoph. ↑ Bee Dissen. on Pindar, Ol., ii., 68, and Fragm. Thren., 4. The philosopher is like the spectator at the Olympic games, who, while others are attracted by ambition or gain, comes only to gratify a liberal curiosity. See Cicero, Tusc. Disp., v., 3, and Davis's note. See Professor Powell's History of Natural Philosophy, in this Cyclopedia, p. 19, 21. mystic veil which he threw over it, and which was, perhaps, necessary for the success of his plans, though it could not secure them against the revolution by which they were at last frustrated. For the history of the human mind his institutions are, perhaps, less interesting than his philosophy; but for the history of Greece his philosophy is chiefly important, as it throws some light on the character of his institutions. The accounts which have been preserved of Aristotle, Met., i., 5, enumerates ten pairs of these opposite principles, which, according to some Pythagoreans, on account of the virtue ascribed to the number ten, included all or the most important elements of the universe. We subjoin the list, which may give some notion of the character of the system and of the ease with which it might adapt itself to the most fanciful combinations. They are: Limit and Unlimited; Odd and Even; One and Many; Right and Left; Male and Female; Still and Moved; Straight and Curve; Light and Darkness; Good and Evil; Square and Oblong. These, as the ancients perceived, are only ten different aspects of one vague idea ues.* destroyed by the Cimmerians, these artists may have taken refuge, and sought employment in Greece.‡ It will not be expected that we should enter er, of the evidence which the Homeric poems afinto the history of the fine arts in their various ford, to elevate our conceptions of the earlier branches, or that we should fill our pages with state of Greek art, descriptions have been left the names of the masters, and with the accounts to us of several elaborate works, which, though preserved by the ancients of their works. Our their date cannot, perhaps, be precisely ascerobject is only to point out the connexion be- tained, appear to belong to the period piecetween the progress of these arts, and that which ding the opening of a regular intercourse with the Greeks made during the same period in oth- Egypt, and would prove that the Greeks cannot er spheres of intellectual exertion. And for have been much indebted to the Egyptians duthis purpose it will be sufficient to observe the ring this period for instruments or processes of manner in which one art-the most important, art. A tenth of the profits made by Colæus in as an indication of the genius of the people, of his voyage, which we have already mentioned, all those which were occupied with the creation to Tartessus, was dedicated, probably not long of visible forms-which, to avoid the reference after, to Here, in the shape of a huge vessel of to the nature of its materials implied in the brass, adorned with figures of griffons round its word sculpture, is better termed statuary, rose border, and supported by three colossal statwithin this period nearly to the summit of its The magnificent coffer of cedar-wood, perfection. We have already, in our view of covered with groups of figures, some of the the Homeric age, had occasion to notice a very same wood, others of ivory, others of gold, which difficult question relating to the origin of this was consecrated at Olympia by the Cypselids, art-the uncertainty whether it sprang up, and was said to be the very same in which the inwas gradually formed in Greece, or was intro- fant Cypselus had been concealed from the duced from the East in a stage of comparative search of the Bacchiads, and if so, had been, no maturity, at which it remained for centuries, doubt, long one of the family treasures. The fixed by the control of religion. It happens, by colossal throne of Apollo at Amycle, which was a singular coincidence, that the epoch at which constructed for the Spartans by a company of the Greeks opened or renewed their intercourse artists from Magnesia on the Mæander, and with Egypt was also that in which statuary was richly adorned with sculptures, seems with was on the point of breaking through its ancient great probability to be referred to the eighth cenrestraints and of entering on a new career, intury B.C., in which, after Magnesia had been which it arrived, within little more than another century, at its highest point of attainable excellence. It is not surprising that two facts which in time came so nearly together, should It seems, at all events, certain that there have been thought to be related to each other were other causes which operated much more as cause and effect. And hence it may seem efficaciously than the intercourse with Egypt, a probable opinion that the Greek artists, as to urge the rapid progress of statuary in the soon as they were able to visit Egypt, were in- century preceding the Persian wars. Among structed by the Egyptians in various technical these causes might be mentioned the preferprocesses which had been long familiar to them,ence which was generally given to brass and but hitherto unknown to the Greeks, and that, by this fortunate assistance, Greek art advanced at once from a degree of extreme rudeness to the same level which it had attained in Egypt through the persevering labour of numberless generations. There is a celebrated story which has been thought to confirm this opinion: that the Samian Theodorus, and his brother Tele-duced in the fiftieth Olympiad by two Cretan cles, having studied in Egypt, on their return artists named Dipænus and Scyllis, but was, made a statue of Apollo, in such exact conform- probably, most promoted by the closer alliance ity to the rules which they had learned, that the with architecture into which statuary began to one half, which Telecles executed at Samos, be brought, and by the increased sumptuoustallied with the other, on which his brother had ness of the temples, in which, as in that of been employed during the same time at Ephe- Delphi, when rebuilt by the Alemæonids, marsus, as exactly as if the whole had been the ble frequently took the place of ordinary stone. work of one artist. But if the truth of this sto- It may, however, be conceived, that the techry was certain, the inference would lose all its nical rules taught by the Egyptians had first force, if, as there are strong reasons for believ-enabled the Greeks to treat the harder material ing, the two brothers flourished in the eighth with ease and freedom. But this substitution, century B.C. ;t and we should then be driven though an important step, did not of necessity to a supposition which the language of Herodo-involve any change of style, and would not of tus seems directly to contradict, that Egypt had been visited by Greek artists before the reign of Psammetichus. Independently, howevsame name, was said to have followed Demaratus into Italy. It is not clear how Thiersch, who maintains the probability of the story, gets rid of this difficulty, since he seems to admit (p. 27, n. 15) that the ancient intercourse which he believes to have existed between Greece and Egypt was suspended between the time of Homer and the reign of Prammetichus. marble over the ancient material, wood, which henceforth, when employed, was commonly overlaid with more precious substances, as ivory and gold. This change arose in part out of the invention of Theodorus, which gave a new command over the metals. The use of marble for statues is said to have been intro itself have prevented the art from remaining stationary at the stage to which it had been carried by the Egyptians themselves. A cause which it experienced in the range of its subof still greater efficacy was the enlargement jects, and the consequent multiplicity of its prothe interior of the temples, and no more were ductions. As long as statues were confined to Herod., iv., 152. † Paus., v., 17, 5, and Thiersch, p. 167, n. 66 |