^{page 569 note 1} Works, iii, 236.Google Scholar

^{page 569 note 2} Misc. Ess., i ², 436Google Scholar seq.

^{page 569 note 3} See also his Indiens Lit. und Kultur (1887), pp. 717Google Scholar seq.

^{page 569 note 4} Phil, of Ancient India, pp. 39Google Scholar seq. Cf. also his Sāṃkhya Philosophie (1890), p. 79.Google Scholar

^{page 569 note 5} Rel. of India, pp. 559, 560Google Scholar.

^{page 570 note 1} Sanskrit Literature, p. 422.Google Scholar Cf. also Windisch, , Buddha's Geburt, p. 58.Google Scholar

^{page 570 note 2} Cf. Oldenberg, , Ancient India, p. 104,Google Scholar who compares in great detail the Indian and Greek systems, but who definitely declines to see any historical connection. With his views I generally concur. Purser, in Smith's, Dict. of Antiq., ii, 298,Google Scholar seems to suggest comparison with Buddhism.

^{page 570 note 3} Griech. Gesch., ii ², 762.Google Scholar

^{page 570 note 4} Hist. of Phil., p. 23,Google Scholar n. 30.

^{page 570 note 5} Early Greek Philosophy (1908), p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 571 note 1} Berl. Sitz., 1890, pp. 901Google Scholar seq. It may be added that Gomperz (Greek Thinkers, i, 127, 146Google Scholar) also ignores von Schroeder's book. On the other hand, Holm, , Hist, of Greece, i, 368, 373,Google Scholar admits Oriental influence, but impartially refers to Gladisch's theory, uncritical and absurd, of Chinese influences and to von Schroeder's book!

^{page 571 note 2} For his date see Zeller, , Presocratic Philosophy, i, 324Google Scholar seq.; Burnet, , op. cit., p. 94;Google ScholarBusolt, , op. cit., p. 770;Google ScholarGomperz, , op. cit., i, 99;Google ScholarHolm, , op. cit., i, 374.Google Scholar

^{page 571 note 3} JRAS., 1909, pp. 22,Google Scholar 323; cf. Wickremasinghe, , Epigraphia Zeylanica, i, 156, 157.Google Scholar

^{page 572 note 1} Zeller, , pp. 327–9.Google Scholar

^{page 572 note 2} Op. cit., i, 127.Google Scholar

^{page 572 note 3} ii, 123. Of course, Samos under Polykrates and Egypt under Amasis were in close touch, and Egyptian ideas could easily reach Pythagoras at Samos (so Egyptian influence, even if certain, would not mean necessarily travels). Gomperz, i, 100,Google ScholarHolm, i, 367Google Scholar, and many others accept the view of a visit, and Holm is prepared, with Cantor, to believe in a visit to Babylon. But alas! that visit also is known only centuries after Pythagoras' death.

^{page 572 note 4} Stein held otherwise, but see Macan, , Herodotus, Books IV–VI, i, 68.Google Scholar Stein, however, on ii, 123, considers, no doubt rightly (cf. Burnet, p. 95, n. 2), that the reference there is to Empedokles, not to Pythagoras, who was dead ere Herodotos was born.

^{page 573 note 1} Zeller, , op. cit., p. 329;Google ScholarGomperz, , op. cit., p. 96.Google Scholar Cf. also the case of Heketaios and the Egyptian priests, ibid, p. 257.

^{page 573 note 2} Cf. also Kennedy, , JRAS., 1898, pp. 241Google Scholar seq.

^{page 573 note 3} I follow generally Burnet's discussion of Pythagoras' views. Gomperz is rather imaginative, while Zeller is hardly in sympathy with his ideas. Any reconstruction must to some extent be hypothetical, but in the following the views assigned to Pythagoras are in all cases based on good evidence.

^{page 574 note 1} See Oldenberg, , Buddha, pp. 48Google Scholar seq.; Deussen, , Phil, of the Upanishads, pp. 313Google Scholar seq. (The belief in transmigration must be distinguished from the doctrine which alone concerns us.)

^{page 574 note 2} Gomperz, , op. cit., i, 546,Google Scholar quotes a different view from Bühler, but the statement is too vague for discussion; Hopkins, , op. cit., p. 530,Google Scholar n. 3, ascribes the doctrine first to the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, with a possibility in RV., i, 164, 30.Google Scholar 38. For v. Schroeder's views cf. also his Ind. Lit., pp. 89,Google Scholar 93, 245 seq. He lays great stress on the moral side, for which see Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, iii, 2, 13;Google Scholar iv, 4, 2–6. Cf. Macdonell, , Sanskrit Literature, p. 223;Google ScholarBoyer, , Journ. As., 9, xviii, 451Google Scholar seq.

^{page 575 note 1} Cf. Bühler, , S.B.E., ii, pp. xliiGoogle Scholar seq. I put Āpastamba rather later than does Bühler, who is inclined to overestimate his earliness; cf. Macdonell, , op. cit., p. 259;Google Scholar my Aitareya Āraṇyaka, pp. 20Google Scholar seq. Von Schroeder's date for the Śatapatha is eighth or ninth century (p. 37, n.). It is, however, not an early work of its class.

^{page 575 note 2} ZDMG., xlvi, 759.Google Scholar Cf. also Windisch, , Buddha's Geburt, pp. 58Google Scholar seq.

^{page 575 note 3} Sächs. Ber., 1893, pp. 87Google Scholar seq.

^{page 575 note 4} Ved. Stud., ii, 288;Google Scholar iii, 3 (where he uses RV., iv, 42,Google Scholar 1, as an example, but quite unconvincingly), 116 (ātman = saṃsārin).

^{page 575 note 5} Ved. Myth., ii, 8.Google Scholar Cf. Lévi, , La doctrine du sacrifice, pp. 96,Google Scholar n. 1, 97, n. 1; Garbe, , Sāṃkhya und Yoga, p. 15;Google ScholarOldenberg, , Buddha, p. 49,Google Scholar n. 1; Bloomfield, , Religion of the Veda, p. 257;Google Scholar who all agree with Hillebrandt on this point.

^{page 575 note 6} Zeller, , op. cit., pp. 481Google Scholar seq.; Burnet, , op. cit., p. 101;Google ScholarRohde, , Psyche, pp. 450Google Scholar seq.

^{page 575 note 7} Diog. Lært., viii, 36.Google Scholar

^{page 576 note 1} 62 B; cf. Espinas, , Archiv für Gesch. dear Phil., viii, 449Google Scholar seq.

^{page 577 note 1} How early the evidence for this is is doubtful; it is certainly later than Pythagoras, or Empedokles, who refers to this power of Pythagoras (see Rohde, , Psyche, p. 454,Google Scholar n. 2). Cf. Oldenberg, , Ancient India, p. 98.Google Scholar I may add here that the evidence for the earliness of Buddhist scriptures, though apparently now accepted widely as a matter of certainty, is even more deplorably weak than the evidence for the antiquity of Brāhmaṇical works. In either case we deal with mere hypotheses, the exact degree of plausibility of which must vary with different minds. Moreover, the lack of real individuality in Indian works and the preservation of these works by schools renders reliance on our present texts perilous. A belief in the early character of the Upaniṣads and Suttas is not illegitimate, but it rests on general considerations, not on any strictly cogent proof. I mention this because admittedly the evidence for the dates of Orphic views is sometimes comparatively weak as measured by classical standards; it is quite strong when measured by standards considered adequate by Indologists. Cf. Franke, , VOJ., xx, 337, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 577 note 2} iii, 1 (my Āraṇyaka, p. 30).

^{page 577 note 3} ii, 1, 5, with my note (p. 207).

^{page 578 note 1} Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, iii, 2, 13,Google Scholar is the most pronounced assertion of the works’ doctrine in the Upaniṣads of the early period (cf. Deussen, , Phil, of the Upanishads, pp. 329Google Scholar seq.), and it does not attribute freedom to works. For the non-morality of the Brāhmaṇas see Lévi, , La doctrine du sacrifice, p. 9;Google ScholarSadānanda, , Vedāntasāra, 36,Google Scholar with comm. (ed. Jacob); Garbe, , Phil, of Ancient India, pp. 60Google Scholar seq.; Müller, Max, Works, xix, 166Google Scholar seq.

^{page 578 note 2} ii, 123. Cf. p. 572, n. 4.

^{page 579 note 1} Pythagoras und die Inder, pp. 12Google Scholar seq.

^{page 579 note 2} Herodot's zweites Buck, p. 457;Google Scholar cf. Erman, , Die Aegyptische Religion, p. 192;Google ScholarLife in Ancient Egypt, p. 306.Google Scholar The following account is from Wiedemann, , Realms of the Egyptian Dead, p. 56.Google Scholar See also Deussen, , op. cit., p. 316;Google ScholarGomperz, , i, 546.Google ScholarBloomfield, , Religion of the Veda, p. 255,Google Scholar following Bertholet, , Seelenwanderung (Halle a. S., 1902Google Scholar), finds it in Egypt. Flinders Petrie seems to me in error when he says (Trans. Third Inter. Congress of Relig., i, 196Google Scholar) that metempsychosis of the good and noble is specially Indian.

^{page 580 note 1} Cf. Burnet, , Early Greek Philosophy, p. 103;Google ScholarGrote, , Hist., iv, 90.Google Scholar

^{page 580 note 2} Op. cit., p. 92. The praised by Herakleitos, , Frag., 17,Google Scholar was mathematical; see Iamblichos, , Vit. Pyth., 89:Google Scholar Much has wrongly been made of this word, as of his polymathy. It is quite a mistake to read into this the modern conception of historical research and comparative study of religion.

^{page 581 note 1} Psyche, Seelenkult und Unsterblichkeitsglaube der Griechen. (I quote from the first edition; the second does not modify the results with which we are concerned here.)

^{page 581 note 2} Burnet, , op. cit., p. 7,Google Scholar n. 1.

^{page 581 note 3} Cf. Burrows, , Discoveries in Crete, pp. 193Google Scholar seq.; Ridgeway, , Early Age of Greece;Google ScholarHogarth, , Ionia and the East, pp. 101Google Scholar seq.

^{page 582 note 1} It is probable that the revival was a good deal more than a revival. The Mycenæan religion shows much care of the dead, but not necessarily a cult; worship and respect are not identical.Contra, Rohde, and Gomperz, , i, 23Google Scholar seq., and cf. von Schroeder, , VOJ., xv, 206.Google Scholar

^{page 582 note 2} Homer, , Od., xi, 488Google Scholar seq.

^{page 582 note 3} For Egypt, cf. Bissing, , Trans. Third Inter. Congress of Relig., i, 228.Google Scholar Cf. Rohde, , op. cit., pp. 296Google Scholar seq. Very possibly Dionysos was an ancient god in Greece, but the orgiastic worship of Thrace was a new movement in Greek religion.

^{page 583 note 1} Cf. Burnet, , Early Greek Philosophy, p. 101.Google Scholar

^{page 583 note 2} For transmigration in Thracian belief see Rohde, pp. 320 seq.; in Orphism, ibid., pp. 442–8. Gomperz seems needlessly critical (op. cit., i, 546Google Scholar); see Burnet, , op. cit., pp. 86Google Scholar seq.

^{page 583 note 3} Cf. Farnell, , Cults of the Greek States, iv, 208.Google Scholar

^{page 583 note 4} Rohde, , op. cit., pp. 395Google Scholar seq.; Busolt, , op. cit., pp. 362Google Scholar seq.; Gomperz, , op. cit., i, 123Google Scholar seq.; Murray, , Greek Literature, pp. 64Google Scholar seq.; Oldenberg, , Ancient India, pp. 80Google Scholar seq.; Meyer, , Gesch. des Alt., ii, 727Google Scholar seq.

^{page 584 note 1} Rohde, , Psyche, p. 323.Google Scholar

^{page 584 note 2} Rep., 363Google Scholar C, D, where see Adams' note.

^{page 584 note 3} Frag., 117Google Scholar and 112 (ed. Diels); Burnet, , op. cit., pp. 256Google Scholar seq. That he borrowed the doctrine from Pythagoras is quite improbable.

^{page 584 note 4} Frag., 129,Google Scholar 133; Ol., ii, 69Google Scholar seq. The exact sense is disputed. I follow Christ, , Pind. Carm., pp. 21,Google Scholar 22. Cf. Rohde, , op. cit., pp. 496Google Scholar seq. Gildersleeve, , Olympian and Nemean Odes, p. 149,Google Scholar adopts without adequate consideration an impossible view of Mezger's. Murray, , Greek Literature, pp. 109–16,Google Scholar ignores altogether this most important element in Pindar's thought, which redeems him from the charge of materialism. The “contamination” of ordinary retribution or reward with metempsychosis is natural.

^{page 585 note 1} Cf. Hesiod, , Op., 167Google Scholar seq.

^{page 585 note 2} Frag., 129, v. 4:Google Scholar The game is believed to have been borrowed from Egypt (Smith, , Dict. of Antiq., ii, 11Google Scholar).

^{page 585 note 3} Wiedemann, , Realms of the Egyptian Dead, p. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 585 note 4} Rohde, , op. cit., p. 386,Google Scholarn. 1.

^{page 585 note 5} Deussen, , op. cit., pp. 328Google Scholar seq. Cf. Hopkins, , JRAS., 1906, pp. 586Google Scholar seq.; 1907, pp. 665 seq.

^{page 586 note 1} Busolt, I.c., and Bury, , Greek Hist., p. 312,Google Scholar underestimate the age of the impulse. The theory of an Orphic interpretation in Homer under Peisistratos (Bury, p. 317; Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, , Hom. Unter., p. 199Google Scholar) is, I think, quite untenable. Cf. Lang, , Homer and his Age, pp. 43Google Scholar seq.

^{page 586 note 2} Op. cit., pp. 31–8.Google Scholar For his later view, see VOJ., xv, 187Google Scholar seq.

^{page 586 note 3} Ap. Diog. Lært., viii, 20.Google Scholar

^{page 586 note 4} Burnet, , op. cit., p. 106.Google Scholar For tabu, cf. Marett, , Trans. Third Inter. Congress of Relig., i, 52;Google ScholarAnthropological Essays, pp. 225Google Scholar seq.

^{page 587 note 1} See Farnell, , Evol. of Rel., pp. 89Google Scholar seq.; von Negelein, , Archiv für Relig., vi, 246.Google Scholar Cf. Westermarck, , Origin and Development of Moral Ideas,Google Scholar ch. xxxviii.

^{page 587 note 2} Op. cit., p. 419,Google Scholar n. 1; Lobeck, , Aglaoph., p. 254;Google Scholar so Purser, Diet, of Antiq., ii, 298.Google Scholar The view is old: Festus says putantur ad mortuos pertinere; Pliny, , H.N., xviii, 118,Google Scholarquoniam mortuorum animœ sint in ea (faba). See also Fowler, Warde, Roman Festivals, p. 110;Google Scholar a totemistic view is suggested by Astley, , Trans. Third Inter. Congress of Relig., i, 267.Google Scholar

^{page 587 note 3} ii, 37; see Wiedemann, , Herodot's zweites Buch, 177.Google Scholar Cf. VOJ., xv, 212.Google Scholar

^{page 588 note 1} Cf. Fleet, , JRAS., 1906, pp. 881, 882.Google Scholar

^{page 588 note 2} JAOS., xiii, 119Google Scholar seq.; xxvii, 455 seq.; Great Epic of India, pp. 378Google Scholar seq.; Rel. of India, pp. 199Google Scholar seq. For earlier times see Weber, , Ind. Stud., xvii, 280, 314;Google ScholarBloomfield, , S.B.E., xlii, 493.Google Scholar

^{page 588 note 3} De Abst., p. 58,Google Scholar 25 (ed. Nauck).

^{page 588 note 4} Cf. Farnell, , Cults of the Greek States, i, 89Google Scholar seq. (the Bouphonia ceremony). Burnet, , op. cit., p. 106;Google ScholarRohde, , op. cit., p. 454;Google ScholarPurser, , Dict. of Antiq., ii, 298;Google Scholar and Gomperz, , op. cit., i, 127,Google Scholar consider that abstinence from flesh is due to transmigration, and this is Empedokles’ view (see Frag., 128,Google Scholar 136, 137 (ed. Diels); Ritter, & Preller, , Hist. Phil. Grœc. ⁸, § 184).Google Scholar But it is probably in origin older and connected with the abhorrence of blood. Hopkins, p. 464,Google Scholar considers that transmigration had very little to do with non-meat-eating in the case either of the Brahmins or of the Buddhists, and it is certainly curious that the reputed founder of the transmigration theory should have been addicted to meat-eating (see Yājñavalkya's saying in Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa, iii, 1, 2, 21Google Scholar, and Hopkins, , op. cit., p. 189Google Scholar). The sacramental eating of the ox on the Bouphonia and elsewhere need hardly be explained by totemism, as Farnell was inclined to do: the sorrow and the kinship characteristic of the rite are adequately explained if we remember that the deity may be present in part in the sacred animal: cf. also Fowler, Warde, Roman Festivals, p. 329.Google Scholar The tale of Zagreus is clearly a reflex of the ritual of the slaying of a theanthropic bull (Gomperz, i, 136Google Scholar), and may be compared with the legends of Orpheus and Pentheus, for which cf. Frazer, , Adonis, Attis, Osiris, pp. 270Google Scholar seq.; Bather, , JHS., xiv, 244–63.Google Scholar For the sacramental meal, cf. Smith, Robertson, Religion of the Semites;Google ScholarFarnell, , Hibbert Journal, 1904;Google Scholar and my note, JRAS., 1907, pp. 929Google Scholar seq. Farnell's view is summarized in Trans. Third Inter. Congress of Relig., ii, 139,Google Scholar 140, and will appear in full in Cults of the Greek States, v.Google Scholar

^{page 589 note 1} Pythagoras und die Inder, pp. 39–59.Google Scholar

^{page 589 note 2} Gesch. der Math., i, 144.Google Scholar

^{page 589 note 3} See Burnet, , op. cit., pp. 110Google Scholar seq., where he gives diagrams.

^{page 590 note 1} Ibid., pp. 44 seq. The latest supporter of the theory of Babylonian influence on India is Gomperz, , Greek Thinkers, i, 95.Google Scholar There is nothing a priori impossible in it, and it explains conveniently the Nakṣatra series and the flood legend. For the Ṛgveda it is, however, not proven (despite man, viii, 78, 2,Google Scholar which is too isolated and too doubtful to afford any secure basis for argument). More important are Oldenberg's theories of the Ādityas as the planets, which have not yet, however, convinced me.

^{page 590 note 2} Ibid., pp. 116, 117.

^{page 590 note 3} Accepted and endorsed by Hopkins, , Rel. of India, p. 560,Google Scholar n. 1, and Garbe, , Ret. of Ancient India, p. 43,Google Scholar n. 1.

^{page 591 note 1} JRAS., 1907, p. 411.Google Scholar

^{page 591 note 2} Ueber das rituelle Sūtra des Baudhāyana, p. 41.Google Scholar In general the Sūtras cannot be regarded as very old: the ĀŚvalāyana cannot be more than about B.C. 400; the Śāṇkhāyana is, I think, younger. Bühler, , S.B.E., ii, pp. xlv,Google Scholar lxi, tends to ascribe too great antiquity to the Sūtras. It is indeed probable that Āpastamba's irregularities of language are a proof that he is not later than the Pāṇinean period or, say, B.C. 350–300, but the mention of the Atharvaśiras in Gautama is significant, even if Yavana in iv, 18,Google Scholar is not original. I doubt if Gautama is older than B.C. 400. Cf. also Macdonell, , Sanskrit Literature, p. 36.Google Scholar For the confusion of the Baudhāyana Sūtra, cf. Caland's edition (Bibl. Ind.), i, pp. viiGoogle Scholar seq.; ii, pp. i seq.; for the Mānava, cf. Knauer's ed.

^{page 592 note 1} Astronomie, pp. 76–80.Google Scholar For Kātyāyana we have only a Pariśiṣṭa, no more modern, however, in contents than the Sūtras. Cf. Weber, , Lit. Centralblatt, 1884, p. 1564;Google ScholarDie Griechen in Indien, pp. 923–6.Google Scholar

^{page 592 note 2} e.g. Aitareya Āraṇyaka, i, 2, 4.Google Scholar This passage is instructive of the petty and non-geometrical sort of point dealt with.

^{page 592 note 3} Weber, , Ind. Stud., xiii, 335, 456, 457.Google Scholar

^{page 593 note 1} Thibaut, , Astronomie, p. 78.Google Scholar On the Śulba Sūtras, see Thibaut, , JAB., xliv, 227Google Scholar seq. The Apastamba Sūtra is edited by Bürk, , ZDMG., lvGoogle Scholar and lvi.

^{page 593 note 2} Op. cit., pp. 57–9.Google Scholar

^{page 593 note 3} Cf. Oldenberg's remark in his interesting review (Gött. gel. Anz., 1909, p. 83Google Scholar) on a less guarded use of the evidence of the Lalita Vistara by von Schroeder, , Mysterium und Mimus, p. 76,Google Scholar as an authority for the early existence of drama.

^{page 593 note 4} Op. cit., pp. 59–66.Google Scholar The view is not original; cf. Müller, Max, ZDMG., vi, 18Google Scholar seq.; Weber, , Ind. Lit, p. 234.Google Scholar

^{page 594 note 1} Cf. Deussen, , Phil, of the Upanishads, pp. 189Google Scholar seq., who on different grounds, viz. the different order of the two sets, disputes the theory of von Schroeder, whom he does not name.

^{page 594 note 2} iii, 3. For the dates of the Upaniṣads, cf. Deussen, , Trans. Third Inter. Congress of Relig., ii, 19Google Scholar seq.; my Aitareya Āraṇyaka, pp. 25Google Scholar seq.

^{page 594 note 3} Aet., ii, 6, 5.Google Scholar

^{page 594 note 4} Frag., 20,Google Scholarap. Stob. Ecl., i, 10.Google Scholar

^{page 594 note 5} Zeller, , op. cit., pp. 317, 437.Google Scholar

^{page 595 note 1} This supposition is of course gratuitous and incorrect; Gomperz even (i, 427)Google Scholar recognizes that Empedokles is an Orphic.

^{page 595 note 2} 528 B.

^{page 595 note 3} (Ed. Heiberg), v, 264; Burnet, , op. cit., p. 329,Google Scholar n. 1.

^{page 595 note 4} Sächs. Ber., 1900, pp. 149–51;Google Scholar cf. Deussen, , op. cit., p. 194.Google Scholar

^{page 595 note 5} Cf. Burnet, , op. cit., pp. 348Google Scholar seq. It is significant also that Pythagoras’ astronomical views have no parallel in India. He was, in fact, a man of original genius, not a borrower. Von Schroeder ignores entirely this most important side of his activity.

^{page 596 note 1} Frag., 100Google Scholar (ed. Diels).

^{page 596 note 2} Phys., iv, 6, 213a, 22.Google Scholar

^{page 596 note 3} Cf. Burnet, , op. cit., p. 339.Google Scholar

^{page 596 note 4} Phys., iv, 6, 213b, 22.Google Scholar

^{page 596 note 5} Diog. Lært., ix, 19.Google Scholar

^{page 596 note 6} Phys., l.c.

^{page 596 note 7} Aet., ii, 6, 5;Google Scholarfr., 12. The latter passage, like the former, probably does not contain precise information, but the phrase itself is no doubt genuine (Burnet, p. 341,Google Scholar n. 2).

^{page 596 note 8} Windelband, , op. cit., p. 57,Google Scholar ascribes it to the Pythagoreans.

^{page 597 note 1} Pythagoras und die Inder, p. 65,Google Scholar n. 2.

^{page 597 note 2} VOJ., xiii, 303Google Scholar seq. As to the meaning I follow Burnet. Böhtlingk, , VOJ., xiv, 85,Google Scholar and Sächs. Ber., 1900, p. 150,Google Scholar and Gundermann, , Rhein. Mus., 1904, pp. 145Google Scholar seq., suggest that the point of comparison is the movement (not the structure) of a vessel. The word δλκáς of the text may stand unaltered.

^{page 597 note 3} i, 25, 2; see Journ. As., 9, xi, 320Google Scholar seq., and cf. Macdonell, , JRAS., 1907, p. 1106.Google Scholar

^{page 597 note 4} Phil, of Ancient India, pp. 45, 46.Google Scholar

^{page 598 note 1} Rohde, , Psyche, pp. 336–8.Google Scholar

^{page 598 note 2} Von Schroeder, , op. cit., p. 71.Google Scholar

^{page 598 note 3} Frag., 186,Google Scholar 1510b, 20. See also Herodotos, iv, 13;Google ScholarBurnet, , op. cit., p. 97,Google Scholar n. 3.

^{page 598 note 4} iv, 95; cf. Burnet, , op. cit., p. 93.Google Scholar

^{page 598 note 5} See Deussen, , op. cit., pp. 239Google Scholar seq. It is of course true that Māyā is primarily a Vedānta, not a Sāṃkhya, tenet, and that the Sāṃkhya expressly repudiates the Vedānta doctrine of delusion as creation of the material world. But the idea appears in the Sāṃkhya conception of the relation between soul and Prakṛti, which stand in no real connection but which appear through error to be united: cf. Cowell's, trans, of Sarvadarśanasaṃgraha, p. 229;Google ScholarGarbe, , Sāṃkhya und Yoga, p. 16;Google ScholarMüller, Max, Six Systems of Indian Philosophy, pp. 268, 285.Google Scholar

^{page 599 note 1} The holiness was at first probably not of heart (as Zeller, , Presocratic Philosophy, i, 493–6Google Scholar; Murray, , Greek Literature, p. 154Google Scholar; and Gomperz, , i, 123,Google Scholar say) but of body (see Rohde, , Psyche, pp. 457, 458)Google Scholar, but it naturally passed into the sphere of ethics proper (cf. Farnell, , Evol. of Bel., ch. iii)Google Scholar.

^{page 599 note 2} von Schroeder, , p. 76,Google Scholar n. That it was Pythagorean is most improbable (Zeller, , pp. 439 seq.).Google Scholar

^{page 599 note 3} Cf. Oldenberg, Buddha ³, App.; Jaeobi, , ZDMG., lii, 1 seq.Google Scholar

^{page 599 note 4} Op. cit., pp. 79–88. It is repeated by Garbe, Hopkins, and Macdonell.

^{page 599 note 5} Ibid., pp. 78, 79. Also accepted by the writers just cited.

^{page 600 note 1} Cf. Lyall, , Trans. Third Inter. Congress of Relig., i, 12 seq.Google Scholar; Burnet, , op. cit., pp. 96Google Scholar seq. Gomperz, , op. cit., i, 137Google Scholar (cf. Meyer, , Gesch. des Alt., ii, 502Google Scholar, note), sees in the movement a revolt against aristocracy; Holm, , op. cit., i, 369Google Scholar; Murray, , op. cit., p. 154Google Scholar; Bury, , op. cit., p. 318Google Scholar, a movement for aristocracy. Neither view is adequate or correct.

^{page 600 note 2} 1182a, 11; cf. Burnet, , p. 100Google Scholar, n. 1.

^{page 600 note 3} Burnet, , pp. 353 seq.Google Scholar

^{page 600 note 4} Cf. Hopkins, , op. cit., p. 194,Google Scholar n. 2.

^{page 600 note 5} Op. cit., p. 87.Google Scholar

^{page 601 note 1} Some odd points may be dealt with in a note. (1) In the Upanisadie doctrine of immortality the moon is mentioned as the dwelling-place of spirits, as in the Kauṣīalci Upaniṣad and in the Pañcāgnividyā, for which see Deussen, , Phil, of the Upanishads, pp. 328 seq.Google Scholar; Windisch, ,Buddha's Geburt, pp. 71Google Scholar seq. Pythagoras is asserted by Iamblichus, Vit. Pyth., 82,Google Scholar to have said that the islands of the blest were the sun and moon, but the idea is already Orphic (Zeller, , op. cit,, p. 457;Google ScholarRohde, , op. cit., p. 423, n. 4Google Scholar). (2) In Satapatha Brāhmana, i, 9, 3, 10,Google Scholar it is said that the rays of the sun are the good; in Aristotle, , de An., i, 2,Google Scholar that some thought the soul was the dust in the air (cf. Rohde, , p. 453, n. 5Google Scholar; Gomperz, , i, 138Google Scholar). Von Schroeder identifies (p. 25) these views by assuming, what is quite impossible, that the reference in Aristotle refers to the souls of the good, a view which turns the passage into nonsense, as it is a definition of the soul as such, and by converting the good into the souls of the good, which is legitimate. (3) The Pythagorean is quoted not only by von Schroeder (p. 39), but also by Garbe (op. cit., p. 43Google Scholar) and by Hopkins (op. cit., p. 559Google Scholar), as Indian because it occurs in the Atharvaveda, xiii, i, 6.Google Scholar But, as Weber and Lanman (Sanskrit Reader, p. 349Google Scholar) have pointed out, the expression is already found in Hesiod, , Op., 727Google Scholar, and no sane criticism will imagine that a piece of folklore like that and the numerous other examples in the preceding and following verses came to Hesiod (eighth century B.C.; cf. Mair, , Hesiod, p. 134Google Scholar) from India. See also Berthelot, , Trans. Third Inter. Congress of Relig., i, 274.Google Scholar (4) It is suggested that the musical theories of Pythagoras may have been due to the Vedic Śiksā. It is perhaps sufficient to say that the seven notes of the Vedic scale do not correspond to the Greek notes (of. Burnell, , Samhitopanisad Brāhmana, pp. vi seq.;Google ScholarCaland, & Henry, , L'Agniṣṭoma, App. iiGoogle Scholar), that the Śikṣās have nothing to do with the theory of music such as Pythagoras developed it, and that the Śikṣās are all late works and of no use as evidence for the sixth century B.C.; cf. Lüders, , Vyāsaśrkṣā, pp. 2Google Scholar seq. (5) It is also suggested that the medical art of Pythagoras, which seems to have been accompanied by the use of spells, music, and song, is Indian. The answer is, of course, that it is ethnic (cf. e.g. the famous spells of the Atharvaveda, Kuhn, , K.Z., xiii, 49Google Scholar seq., 113 seq.) and is earlier proved to exist in Greece, though no doubt it equally early existed in India. (6) Colebrooke and von Schroeder lay stress on the fact that the Pythagoreans are said to have believed in a threefold division of the world into Olympos, Kosmos, and Ouranos, and with this division they compare the three worlds of the Vedic mythology—earth, air, and heaven (see Macdonell, , Vedic Mythology, p. 7Google Scholar). It is sufficient to say that the names are not merely not attributed to Pythagoras himself, but expressly (Stob., Ecl., i, 488Google Scholar) to Philolaos, and even if as applied to him they are genuine, the division has nothing to do with the Indian one, for the upper region contains , the middle the seven planets and the sun and moon, the third the sublunar and terrestrial region. Nor is there any force in the argument that Pythagoras ascribed to spirits the middle region: there is no evidence for any such formal ascription. (7) The arguments of Colebrooke, derived from a distinction between øρήν and θνμός similar to that between jīvātman and manas, and from a distinction between the coverings of the soul analogous to those between the sūkṣma and sthūla śarīra, are not borne out by any Pythagorean writings, and probably refer to Neo-Pythagoreanism. For the real position of θμός in early Greek thought, see Gomperz, , i, 248Google Scholar seq. It may be added that the Upanisads have not yet learned to distinguish sharply mamas and jīvātman (Deussen, , op. cit., p. 271Google Scholar), or the sūkṣma and sthūla śarīra (ibid., pp. 280 seq.). (8) Hopkins (p. 559) mentions the vow of silence and compares it to the vow taken by the Indian muni. The evidence as to Pythagoreanism is late (Zeller, , p. 342Google Scholar); Aristoxenos probably invented the “mystic silence” to explain the absence of philosophical doctrines proper before Philolaos; Burnet, , op. cit., p. 96;Google Scholar in any case ritual silence is ethnic; cf. a curious example in Frazer, , Trans. Third Inter. Congress of Relig., i,Google Scholar 256 seq. (9) The difficulty felt by von Schroeder at the idea of an independent origin of metempsychosis is exaggerated (see Dieterich, , Nekyia, p. 90;Google ScholarZeller, , p. 73;Google ScholarArchiv für Relig., viii,Google Scholar 29 seq.). It existed among the Druids in Caesar's time—his evidence is quite clear (B. G., vi, 14, 5;Google Scholar cf. Diodorus, , v, 28, 6;Google Scholar Ammian. Marcell, ., xv, 9, 8Google Scholar). Moreover, as Rohde (p. 427, n. 3) points out, the Greek mind was familiar with the transference of the soul from one body into another, as in Ovid's Metamorphoses; cf. Kirke and the comrades of Odysseus. Cf. also the case of the Druses and other peoples set forth in Tylor, , Prim. Cult., ii, 3Google Scholar seq., and in Berthelot, Seelenwanderung. (10) It is impossible, as von Schroeder and Gomperz, i, 124Google Scholar seq., try to do, to deduce all Hellenic knowledge of transmigration in early days from Pythagoras and his influence. Plato (Phœd., 62 B; Cratyl., 400 B) clearly refers the belief to the Orphics, and Pindar (who in Thebes could hardly be moved by a mere South Italian belief, Zeller, , p. 71Google Scholar) must here follow the Orphics. Herakleitos (c. 504 B.C.) knew of it (cf. Burnet, , p. 172Google Scholar, with Rohde, , p. 442Google Scholar). Pherekydes, who was certainly older than Pythagoras (see Rohde, , p. 461,Google Scholar n. 1; Zeller, , pp. 71, 327;Google Scholarcontra Gomperz, i, 542Google Scholar), is said to have held the doctrine by Cicero, , Tusc, i, 38.Google Scholar Empedokles held the doctrine in full form : he knew Pythagoras' view, but there is no reason to suppose he borrowed it; his treatment varies from that of Pythagoras (Rohde, , pp. 473Google Scholar seq.). For the Thracians transmigration appears in the tale of Zamolxis or Salmoxis (Hdt., iv, 94; 95Google Scholar). The demons of Hesiod, , Op., 250Google Scholar seq., form a preliminary stage (cf. Rohde, , pp. 89Google Scholar seq.; Meyer, E., Gesch. des Alterthums, ii, §§ 453 seq.Google Scholar). Cf. also Murray, in App. to Harrison's Prolegomena and JHS., iii, 114 seq.Google Scholar, on gold plates of Petelia with Orphic verses, dating from the fourth or third century B.C. These verses are of great importance inasmuch as they conclusively disprove what was the main difficulty in Zeller's time of dealing with Orphism, the theory that the Orphic fragments were all late (cf. Zeller, , i, 98Google Scholar seq.; Purser, , Dict, of Antiq., ii, 302Google Scholar). These verses establish the existence of the cosmological and psychological doctrines of the Orphic school as they are revealed in the Orphic rhapsodist theology, and Diels' investigations (Archiv für Gesch. der Phil., ii, 91Google Scholar) lead him to the conclusion that the original form of the Orphic theogony belongs to the sixth century, and that the Orphic eschatological mysticism is a good deal older still (see Gomperz, , op. cit., i, 539Google Scholar). The world-egg is alluded to in Aristophanes, Aves, 695;Google Scholar Phanes occurs on a plate from Thurioi; but to go further into the question of the evidence for Orphism would be out of place here. Philolaos quotes as his authority (Clem, ., Strom., iii, 433Google Scholar) for the doctrine of the bondage of the soul, (11) Gomperz' own argument rests (i) on Xenophanes: if the belief in metempsychosis had existed, he says (i, 126), Xenophanes would not have ridiculed Pythagoras especially on this account. This criticism is quite unsound. In the first place, the doctrine of transmigration was never a universal belief in Greece: a satirist like Xenophanes could always make effective fun of it. Secondly, the point criticized by Xenophanes is a very remarkable one: Pythagoras goes beyond all early Indian transmigration ideas by claiming to recognize in a dog's howls the voice of a friend. Again, (ii) Gomperz. says that this episode is based on kindness to animals, and the Greeks, were not especially friendly to animals; there were, with a few isolated exceptions (a statement which, cf. Harrison, , Trans. Third Inter. Congress of Relig., ii, 154,Google Scholar is somewhat exaggerated), no sacred animals as these were in Egypt and India. But this is very doubtful: (a) the. doctrine is sufficiently accounted for by the Pythagorean (Porph, ., Vit. Pyth., 19; Rohde, p. 465Google Scholar); cf. also Westermarck, , Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas, ii, 500Google Scholar seq.;, (b) the indifference of the Greeks to animals does not apply in any case, even assuming its general truth, to the dog, cf. Odysseus' dog, and Geddes, , Problem of the Homeric Poems, pp. 221Google Scholar seq.; (c) thereis no necessary connection between the existence of sacred animals and kindness to animals generally. In India the existence of sacred animals did not prevent the contemporary existence of a brutal and cruel ritual for the slaying of animals in sacrifice; see Aitareya Brāhmaṇa, ii, 6;Google ScholarHopkins, , p. 198, n. 5.Google Scholar Nor is India in any special degree remarkable for kindness in theory or fact to animals generally even now. (iii) Vegetarianism is common to India and Pythagoras: the statement is true of neither, as we have seen above, (iv) The formulae which summarize the whole creed of the “circle and wheel” of birth are likewise the same in both. This statement (for which cf. Oldenberg, , Ancient India, p. 96Google Scholar) is applicable to the Orphic conception and is a mere case of natural coincidence, (v) Pythagoras, he thinks, learned of the doctrine viâ Persia, and he points out that the Asiatic Greeks while Pythagoras dwelt in Ionia were united with a part of the Indian nation under the sway of Cyrus. This merely means that Cyrus conquered Asia Minor and a small part of the north-west of India. The Indians do not occur in Greek literature before Aischylos (cf. Maspero, , The Passing of the Empires, p. 694;Google ScholarBusolt, , Griech. Gesch., ii, 515Google Scholar), nor the Greeks in Indian literature before Pāṇini's Yavanānī (see my Aitareya Āraṇyaka, pp. 22 seq.Google Scholar), which points to the fifth century B.C. at soonest). (12) It may be argued that if we admit foreign influences it is absurd to exclude Indian. But there is; a great difference. India was remote from Greece, and, unlike Egypt, not in any close touch with Greek travellers. A good instance of this close touch is seen in the Orphic cosmology itself, where the worldegg, the twofold nature of Phanes, etc., correspond very closely with Egyptian ideas (see Gomperz, i, 92 seq.Google Scholar). I see no reason to question here Egyptian influence (if the idea is originally Babylonian, still it no doubt came viâ Egypt) on Orphism, as the world-egg idea is not found elsewhere in early Greek thought. Cf. also Jastrow, , Trans. Third Inter. Congress of Relig., i, 237;Google Scholar and see now Petrie, Flinders, Trans. Third Inter. Congress of Relig., i, 196Google Scholar seq. Harrison (ibid. ii, 164) finds the origin of the egg in a primitive bird-worship, but I doubt this. This fact may also be cited as supporting the attribution to Egypt of the germs of the Greek doctrine of transmigration, and Maspero (Bibl. égypt., i, 349Google Scholar) thought it existed there when the country came into contact with Greece, but probably the Greek was only secondarily influenced in this regard by Egypt. It may also be pointed out that any theory can hardly be satisfactory which attributes to any individual influence the growth of the belief in transmigration. The facts are that the belief appears widespread over a considerable part of Greece; it is not universal by any means, and therefore cannot be regarded as quite a normal development of Greek religious feeling. On the other hand, it is much too widespread to be the creation of a single mind, and the theory of Thracian influence, which Gomperz rejects, receives most important support from the fact that the doctrine is unquestionably closely connected with Orphism, which beyond doubt came in from Thrace, and by the fact that the Phrygian religion is marked by its orgiastic character. The Thracians were an uncultured people who held their religious beliefs in a much deeper way than natural in an enlightened Hellas; contrast with Euripides' general attitude the Bakchai written in the north. (13) The fact must of course be emphasized that we may at any time be confronted with new evidence proving Oriental influence, though I think such evidence will be more likely to point to Egypt as the source of the doctrine than to India (ef. e.g. Foucart, Recherches, on the Mysteries of Eleusis, which, however, differ essentially, as Rohde, and Farnell, , Cults of the, Greek States, iii, 146Google Scholar seq., have shown, from those of Orphic societies). What I have endeavoured to show is that the arguments of von Schroeder are not convincing, and that any new investigation must rest on fresh arguments. At the same time I gladly recognize that von Schroeder's arguments were for the time of the appearing of his book practically decisive. It may be added that I have not attempted to deal with the quite different question of whether Indian influences may not have been at work to produce the Thracian doctrines: I do not see any evidence for that, but following von Schroeder I am merely concerned with the theory of Indian influence on Pythagoras himself. (14) Garbe finds other early evidence of Greek borrowing from India, especially (Phil. of Ancient India, pp. 54, 55Google Scholar) in the derivation from the Vāc doctrine of the Logos idea by Herakleitos. That this is impossible I think certain; see for the real sense of Logos in Herakleitos, Burnet, op. cit., pp. 146, n. 3, 153, n. 1. In fact, Hopkins, , Rel. of India, p. 558Google Scholar rejects even Weber's view (Ind. Stud., ix, 473Google Scholar) of Indian influence on neo-Platonism in this regard. See also the doctrine as it appears in Egypt (fifth century B.C. onwards), and is described by Petrie, Flinders, Trans. Third Inter. Congress of Relig., i, 196 seq.Google Scholar (15) Oldenberg, , Ancient India, p. 96,Google Scholar points out the similarity between the Buddhist and Orphic conceptions of the wanderings of the soul in the next world, but the Egyptian Book of the Dead is a much more obvious source of the Greek version if foreign influence be demanded. (16) With reference to the question of remembrance of former births (p. 577), it should be noted that Windisch, Buddha's Geburt, p. 62, n. 2,Google Scholar accepts the interpretation of Aitareya Āraṇyaka, ii, 5,Google Scholar which finds in it an assertion of Vāmadeva having remembrance of his former births. But I have tried in my edition (p. 233) to show that this is at least very improbable. Nor does Bṛhadāraṇyaka, i, 4, 22,Google Scholar bear out the theory: that passage merely asserts in Ṛgveda, iv, 26, 1,Google Scholar a recognition of the unity of the universe, and does not illustrate recollection of previous births, which is in no sense the subject of the passage in the Upaniṣad.