The Museum, where men of letters lived in common and at the royal charge, (Strabo, xviii. 794. Gillies’ Hist. of the World, i. 496.) was founded by Ptolemy Lagi, and the library enlarged by Philadelphus and succeeding kings, till it amounted to 400,000 volumes. The Serapeum contained 300,000 more. The library in the Bruchium was burnt in the wars of Cæsar; that in the Serapeum suffered much in the religious dissensions, and what remained was destroyed by the Saracens.
That the population of Alexandria has not been overrated by the author, at 600,000 souls, may be inferred from what Diodorus says, that when he was in Egypt, (60 B. C.) it appeared from the registers that there were 300,000 free men in Alexandria. Now in ancient cities the slaves were commonly at least double the number of the free inhabitants. Hume Ess. i. p. 442. It was the second city of the Roman world after Rome itself. Diod. xvii. 52.
[Page 23].—Aramæan Jews.] Aram, in its largest sense, comprehended Syria, Mesopotamia, and Palestine, all whose languages are closely allied. (Deut. xxvi. 5. Ezra iv. 7.) Though politically distinguished from Syria, Palestine has no geographical demarcation, and hence was often reckoned to belong to it. (Reland, Pal. p. 42.) Of the hatred which the Jews of Palestine bore to those of Egypt, who had attached themselves to the temple, see Maimonides de Reg. Hebr. c. 5. and the commentary in the Fascic. Hist. and Phil. Sacr. ix. p. 63. seq. The Greek learning was as odious to the zealous Aramæans, as to Cato himself. Ernesti op. Phil. xxiii. “Ut gliscenti malo, quod genuisse Ægyptiacas synagogas querebantur, obicem ponerent, sanxere Maledictus esto quisquis filium suum sapientiam Græcanicam edoceat.” (Brucker, ii. 705.) The inveteracy of the two sects against each other appeared immediately in the Christian church. Acts vi. 1. Wetstein in loc.
[Page 23].—Of the origin of the love of allegory among the Jews of Alexandria, from their acquaintance with a corrupted form of the Platonic and Pythagorean philosophy, see Brucker, Hist. Phil. ii. 690. “Cum reliquæ Græcorum sectæ a Judaica theologia nimis distare crederentur, et nec Peripatetica mundi æternitas, nec Stoica mundi anima cum placitis Mosaicis, etiam allegoriarum ope satis conciliari posse videretur, sola Pythagorico-Platonica doctrina saniora et digniora Mosaicis præceptis afferre existimata est, eo quod sublimius de Deo divinisque et spiritualibus substantiis philosophari putabatur. Ast magnum cum esset inter Pythagorico-Platonica dogmata et legem Mosaicam discrimen, adhibita est regionis docendi methodus, et allegoriæ beneficio in concordiam ire jussa sunt præcepta longe diversissima.” Eichhorn Allge. Bibl. v. 233.
[Page 26].—Doctrine of reminiscences.] Plato’s doctrine, that the soul’s present knowledge is only a remembrance of a former state, is the basis of much of his reasoning in favour of the immortality of the soul in his Phædo, sect. xviii. ed. Forster. Τὸ ὄν, that which is, is the real nature of things, the knowledge of which it is the highest flight of philosophy to attain.
[Page 26].—A wise Jew who was also a Platonist.] In this description, the author evidently refers to Philo, (Brucker, ii. 193.) who lived a little after the time of our Saviour, but may be fairly presumed not to have been the founder of this system of Platonico-Mosaic allegory, since he speaks of it himself as old; Op. p. 1190, Ed. Par. although he was so eminent in it, that Photius, ciii. says of him, ἑξ οὖ οἶμαι καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀλληγορικὸς τῆς γραφῆς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ λόγος ἔσχεν ἀρχὴν. The author supposes Philo to have conceived of the Λόγος as a being distinct from the mind of God—yet strongly as many passages in his works favour this opinion, all seems at other times to resolve itself into a personification of a divine attribute and energy. See Mosheim ad Cudw. Syst. Int. i. 835. “Vocabulorum et nominum quibus hunc λόγον Judæus noster multis in locis ornat ea vis et ratio est, ut si ex usû et recepta loquendi consuetudine æstimantur, notionem personæ, summo licet Numine inferioris, in animis pariant—Ego vero vehementer metuo, ne si umbræ dissipantur quibus dictionem suam obscuravit Philo, idem nobis de hoc verbo dicendum sit, quod de binis potentiis ejus de quibus antea egimus.—Qui de hominum cogitationibus tam argute ac figurate philosophatur, is si Dei sapientiam et rationem aut divina decreta et cogitata primogenitum Dei filium vocat, nihil ab institutis suis alienum admittat.” On the other side of the question may be consulted, Kidder’s Demonstration of the Messiah, P. iii. ch. 5, 6.; Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. i. 1. 16.
[Page 28].—God only can be our instructor in things relating to himself.] See Plato, Rep. vii. init. Leland’s Necessity of Revelation, i. 270.
[Page 34].—An Egyptian Jew.] The book of Tobit was probably composed before the time of our Saviour, but when, or where, is very uncertain. (Eichhorn, Einl. ins A. T. 4. 410.) Alexandria, however, was the great workshop of the Jewish apocryphal writings, and probably produced this.
[Page 36].—A righteous man.] See Godwin’s Moses and Aaron, lib. i. c. 9. respecting the distinction between the חסידים, who to the obedience of the law added many other observances, designed to show their zeal for it; and the צדיקים, who contented themselves with keeping the written law. From the books of the Maccabees (1 Mac. ii. 42. vii. 13.) where the Ἀσσιδαῖοι are mentioned, it is clear that this name was given to those who were zealous for the law; the existence of the others as a distinct class is more doubtful. Prideaux supposes that as the Chasidim gave rise to the Pharisees, so did the Tsadikim to the Karaites, who reject all tradition. Conn. vol. iii. An. 107.
[Page 37].—The Tallith.] See Calmet’s Dictionary, Art. Taled. The fringes were designed to be worn on the ordinary garments, but the Jews in later times affixed them to this mantle, which they wore only in prayer.