232* 



istic. By this discovery many things, hitherto dif- 

 ficult of explanation, are elucidated. We can no 

 longer wonder at the prohibition of these beans to 

 the Egyptian priests or the disciples of Pythagoras. 

 A plant consecrated to religious veneration as an 

 emblem of reproduction and fertility, would be very 

 improper for the food, or even the consideration, 

 of persons dedicated to peculiar purity. The Egyp- 

 tian priests were not allowed even to look upon it. 

 Authors scarcely explain sufficiently whether Py- 

 thagoras avoided it from respect or abhorrence. 

 However that might be, we need not, in order to 

 ascertain his motives, have recourse to any of the 

 five reasons supposed by Aristotle, nor to the con- 

 jectures of Cicero. Neither can there be any doubt 

 that the prohibition given by Pythagoras was literal; 

 and not merely allegorical, as forbidding his follow- 

 ers to eat this kind of pulse because the magistrates 

 in some places were chosen by a ballot with black 

 and white beans, thereby giving them to understand 

 that they should not meddle with public affairs. 

 Such far-fetched explanations show the ingenuity 

 of commentators rather than their knowledge. As 

 the Pythagorean prohibitions are now obsolete, per- 

 haps these beans, imported from India, might not 

 be unwelcome at our tables. The root of the Cya- 

 mus is also used as food, but we have many vege- 

 tables preferable to it." 



In some unfinished notes upon the subject of 

 monumental inscriptions, which Sir James Smith 



