Dedication to Sir John Marsham; preface

TO Sir JOHN MARSHAM, Kt.

SIR,

I Send this Book to you, because you first directed me to this design. The learned Gassendus was my precedent; whom neverthelesse I have not followed in his Partiality: For he, though limited to a Single person, yet giveth himself liberty of enlargement, and taketh occasion from his Subject to make the World acquainted with many excellent disquisitions of his own. Our scope being of a greater Latitude, affords lesse opportunity to favour any Particular; whilst there is due to every one the commendation of their own deserts. This benefit I hope to have received from the Variety of the Subject; but far more are those I ow to your encouragement, which if I could wish lesse, I should upon this occasion, that there might seem to have been expressed something of choice and inclination in this action, which is now but an inconsiderable effect of the gratitude of,

Dear Uncle, Your most affectionate Nephew, and humble Servant, THOMAS STANLEY.

PREFACE.

WE are entring upon a Subject which I confesse, is in it self harsh, and exotick, very unproper for our Tongue; yet I doubt not but they will pardon this, who shall consider, that other Philosophies and Sciences have been lately well received by several Nations translated into their own Languages; and that this, as being the first, contributes not a little to the understanding of the rest.

Another disadvantage this Subject incurres far more considerable: There is not any thing more difficult to be retriv'd out of the Ruins of Antiquity than the Learning of the Eastern Nations, and particularly that of the Chaldaeans. What remains of it is chiefly transmitted to us by the Greeks, of whom, some converted it to their own use, intermixing it with their Philosophy, as Pythagoras and Plato; others treated expressely of it, but their Writings are lost. Of its first Authors nothing remains; what others took from it, is not distinguishable from their proper Philosophy. The Greeks were first made acquainted with it by Osthanes, and, long after, by Berosus, the former living in the time of Xerxes, the other, under Ptolomaeus Philadelphus. Whence it may be inferr'd, that the Discourse, which Democritus writ of Chaldaea, and his Commentary, of the Sacred Letters at Babylon, either came short of these Sciences, or were so obscure, that they conduced little to their discovery. Neither seems the Treatise, entituled Magicum, ascribed, by some, to Aristotle, by others, to Rhodon, but indeed written by Antisthenes, to have considered the Learning and Sciences, so much as the History of the Professors. Of which kind were also the Writers concerning the Magi, cited, under that general Title, by Diogenes Laertius.

But there wanted not those, who further explain'd to the Greeks what Osthanes and Berosus had first communicated. Hermippus (to use Pliny's words) wrote most diligently of Magick, and Commented upon the Verses of Zoroaster. About the time of Antonius Pius flourished the two Julians, father & son, Chaldaick Philosophers: the first wrote concerning the Chaldaick Rites, the later, Theurgick Oracles in Verse, and other secrets of that Science. Afterwards, wrote Symbulus and Pallas, concerning the Magi; and the later Platonick Philosophers more frequently: Amelius, 40 Books, of confutation; Porphyrius, 4. on the History of Julian the Chaldaean; Jamblichus, 28. intituled, Of the most perfect Chaldaick Theology; and Syrianus, 10. upon the Oracles.

Of all these, there is nothing extant, unlesse (which we shall have occasion hereafter to prove) the few Oracles, dispers'd among the Platonick Writers, be part of those, which were, by the Greeks, (Hermippus, Julian the son, and others) translated out of the Chaldaick, Some of these Pletho and Psellus have explain'd with a Comment, adding two brief obscure Summaries of the Chaldaick Doctrine, which we have endeavoured to supply and clear, by adding and digesting the few remains of those Sciences which ly dispers'd amongst other Authors; taking care to reject such as are supposititious, or of no credit, as, in the Historical part, Annius Viterbiensis, Clemens Romanus, and the like: in the Philosophical, the Rabbinical Inventions, which (though incuriously admitted by Kircher, Gaulmin, and others) manifestly appear to have been of later invention.