104 



was regular or not ; but that the Greeks, who had 

 some time before observed this, were applying them- 

 selves to researches of this kind. 



2. Seneca, in the same place acquaints us, that the 

 Chaldeans looked upon comets as planetary bodies ; 

 and Diodorus Siculus, in his history, giving an account 

 of the extent of knowledge among the Egyptians, 

 praises them for the application with which they studied 

 the stars and their courses : where iie remarks, that 

 they had collected observations very ancient and very 

 <-xact, fully informing them of the several motions, 

 orbits, and stations of the planets; adding also, that 

 they couid foretei earthquakes, inundations, and the 

 re i urn of comets, 



3. Aristotle, in laying down the opinion of Anaxa- 

 goras and Democritus, says of the first, that he ap- 

 prehended comets to be an assemblage of many wan* 

 tiering stars ; which, by their approximation, and the 

 mutual blending of their rays, rendered themselves 

 visible to us. This notion was far from being philoso- 

 phical, yet was it preferable to that of some great mo- 

 derns, such as Kepler and HeveJhts, who would hare 

 if, that they were formed out of air, as fishes are out 

 of water. Pythagoiar, who approached very near to 

 the times of Auaxagoras, taught, according to Ari- 

 stotle's account, an opinion worthy of the most en- 

 lightened age ; " fur he looked upon comets as stars, 

 which circulated regularly, though elliptic-ally about 

 the sun, and which appeared to us only in particular 



parts of their orbit, and at considerable distances of 

 time ;" and the error which Aristotle falls into, in en- 

 deavouring to explain Pythagoras's sentiment, by a 

 comparison referring to the planet Mercury, ought not 

 to be imputed to the Fythagoric school. Aristotle re- 

 lates also the testimonies of Hippocrates of Chois. and 

 yKschylus, in confirmation of this opinion. 



4. Stobaeus present? us with Pythagoras's sentiment 



