P R E F A C £. nl 



Such IS the p^clurc of Socrates ; and it may be afked, wherein Kliyogg 

 ycfembles him ?-~Their charaifleis certainly diiTcr much 5 yet in much 

 do they coirer^oRd, 



The underftanding of KHyogg was indeed lefs tl^jvated and diverfified 

 than that of Socrates, but many will thirlk it equally nervous and corredi. 

 If Socrates was the inventor of various new opiiiioi,:-jKliyogg was the author 

 of feveralnew pradicc?. Socrates attCinpted to purgR jhe notion of a Deity 

 from pagan groffnefs ; and Kliyogg preferved it difentang!«d from hypa. 

 critical forms and from fanaticifoi. KHyogg poffefled, like Socrates, pe- 

 culiar talents for difcQurfe ; and like hiro, had for his adnrsirers, various 

 perfons high in the conduct of affairs, and many of the learned and jx)litr. 

 Each fhunned public olTicesfrorn motives alike j'j ft iHable. For indqjen" 

 dencc of mtnd and for infleKlLility of character, each raay be confidcred 

 as raodcls. Socrates was heroic in cle fiel-l of battle", magoanimooa 

 with his perfecutors, and ferene before his judges. KHyogg nM only re- 

 fiflcd popular clamors which fo often mi»ke the brave rrernblc, and prac- 

 tifed generofity towards his iLmdercrs ; but refalotely furroounted almofi 

 every internal infirmity and every external diScuIcy, Socrates com- 

 mended the diligent, which was all that his fjtuatioa demanded ; bat KH- 

 yogg prad^iced hitijfelf a fevcre diligeace, till by habit he had rendered is 

 pleafanr, Esch according to the extent ci his views, H-jdied the influ- 

 fincc and bearings of every incident upon the human mhid. Socratea 

 alone of the tvvo c on tefii plated the political intcreRs of man ; but Kiiycgg 

 equalled kina in an atlection to man in his fecial, domeftic, and individual 

 chara^ers. Socrates fought to render benevolence and kaowledgs v.nu 

 verfal ; but Kliyogg being fatisfied with hh own benevolence and being 

 more than dubious 2I to the advantage of reading, was content with 

 tnforcing a love of induui}', esori0n:.y, utilitjj-, and order. 



But in juftifying the analogy eflablivhed ber>veen the charasf^ers of So« 

 crates and KHyogg, we miift not be thought to piace ihem upon an equa- 

 lity. The one labored for the hiunan race, prcfeat and future ; the of.hcr 

 for himfelf, hia family, and ira.ricOiate neighborhood. The one \v,i3 an 

 enlightened teacher of philofophers ; and the otl.er, a felf-taUght ruf>v% 

 The one gave precept and eKatnple ; and ih; other, chieSy exarripl?. We 

 are- explicitly and pointedly iaRruifled by the one, ?.nd we muft ga« 

 thcr ioftru^ion for ourfelvea from the other. But each in bis turn may 

 be ufefol ; and Kh'yogg, for cur time and for ilie many, fi:>3y even be 

 the moft ufefuU It cannot belong to every one to legillate f.-r the human 

 lacc, like a Socrates or a Confucius ; but eve?y one has a private ftatioB 

 to fulfil ; and, if he is difpofed to fulSI it wcllj he may profit by the hifto- 

 zy of a KHyogg. 



We 



* fFfjea Alcihiades tuaf ivounded and a prifoner, Socrates nfcued him J 

 ^Vihen Xenophcn ivas di/mounted avdfutigued hi a rtlreaty Socrates c/irried 

 him off upon his Jhouldcrs, Secretes hgd hih theft ir€;;iirahti rmifor hii 

 ^upiU^ find the hji for hi: hifiorian^ 



