[1]Οιδα
μεν ουν και Πλατωνα
τον μεγαν, και
μετα τουτον
ανδρα τοις
χρονοις μεν,
ου τῃ μην φυσει,
καταδεεστερον,
τον Χαλκιδεα
φημι τον Ιαμβλιχον,
κ. λ. Julian. Orat. IV.
Thus too the celebrated Bullialdus, in his Notes on
Theo of Smyrna, speaks of Iamblichus as a man of a most
acute genius.
[2]There is a Greek and Latin edition of this admirable work
by Gale, under the title of Iamblichus De Mysteriis.
[3]Αλλα και το της λεξεως κομματικον, και αφοριστικον, και το των εννοιων πραγματικον, και γλαφυρον, και ενθουν, κ. λ. See the Testimonies prefixed by Gale to his edition of the
above-mentioned work.
[4]This Sopater succeeded Plotinus in his philosophical
school.
[5]The exact time of Iamblichus’ death is unknown. It is
however certain that it was during the reign of Constantine;
and according to the accurate Fabricius, prior to the year of
Christ 333. Vid. Biblioth. Græc. Tom. IV. p. 283.
[6]This Sextus is probably the same that Seneca so greatly
extols, and from whom he derives many of those admirable
sentences with which his works abound. Vid. Senecæ Epistolas,
59, 64, 98, et lib. 2 de Irâ, c. 36, et lib. 3. c. 36.
[7]All these were published in one vol. 12mo. by Mr. Bridgman,
under the title of Translations from the Greek, in the
year 1804, and well deserve to be perused by the liberal reader.
[8]i. e. Having black leaves.
[9]i. e. It must not be admitted, that Apollo was actually
connected with Pythaïs; for this would be absurd in the extreme;
but the assertion of Epimenides, Eudoxus, and Xenocrates
must be considered as one of those mythological narrations
in which heroes are said to have Gods for their fathers,
or Goddesses for their mothers, and the true meaning of it is
as follows: According to the ancient theology, between those
perpetual attendants of a divine nature called essential heroes,
who are impassive and pure, and the bulk of human souls who
descend to earth with passivity and impurity, it is necessary
there should be an order of human souls who descend with impassivity
and purity. For as there is no vacuum either in
incorporeal or corporeal natures, it is necessary that the last
link of a superior order, should coalesce with the summit of
one proximately inferior. These souls were called by the
ancients, terrestrial heroes, on account of their high degree of
proximity and alliance to such as are essentially heroes. Hercules,
Theseus, Pythagoras, Plato, &c. were souls of this kind,
who descended into mortality both to benefit other souls, and
in compliance with that necessity by which all natures inferior
to the perpetual attendants of the Gods are at times obliged
to descend.
But as, according to the arcana of ancient theology, every
God beginning from on high produces his proper series as far
as to the last of things, and this series comprehends many essences
different from each other, such as Dæmoniacal, Heroical,
Nymphical, and the like; the lowest powers of these
orders, have a great communion and physical sympathy with
the human race, and contribute to the perfection of all their
natural operations, and particularly to their procreations.
“Hence” (says Proclus in MSS. Schol. in Crat.) “it often appears,
that heroes are generated from the mixture of these
powers with mankind; for those that possess a certain prerogative
above human nature, are properly denominated heroes.”
He adds: “Not only a dæmoniacal genus of this kind sympathizes
physically with men, but other kinds sympathize with
other natures, as Nymphs with trees, others with fountains,
and others with stags or serpents.”
Olympiodorus, in his life of Plato, observes of that philosopher,
“That an Apolloniacal spectre is said to have had connexion
with Perictione his mother, and that appearing in the
night to his father Aristo, it commanded him not to sleep with
Perictione during the time of her pregnancy; which mandate
Aristo obeyed.” The like account of the divine origin of
Plato, is also given by Apuleius, Plutarch, and Hesychius.
[10]i. e. The priests of Jupiter.
[11]From what has been said in the note, p. 4, respecting the
divine origin of Pythagoras, it follows that he was a terrestrial
hero belonging to the series of Apollo. Thus too the Esculapius
who once lived on the earth, and was the inventor of
medicine, proceeded, according to the ancient mythology,
from the God Esculapius, who subsists in Apollo, just as the
hero Bacchus proceeded from the Bacchus who subsists in
Jupiter. Hence the Emperor Julian (apud Cyril.) says of
Esculapius: “I had almost forgotten the greatest of the gifts
of Jupiter and the Sun, but I have very properly reserved it
to the last. For it is not peculiar to us only, but is common
also, I think, to our kindred the Greeks. For Jupiter, in
intelligibles, generated from himself Esculapius; but he was
unfolded into light on the earth, through the prolific light of
the sun. He therefore, proceeding from heaven to the earth,
appeared uniformly in a human shape about Epidaurus. But
thence becoming multiplied in his progressions, he extended
his saving right hand to all the earth. He came to Pergamus,
to Ionia, to Tarentum, and afterwards to Rome. Thence he
went to the island Co, afterwards to Ægas, and at length to
wherever there is land and sea. Nor did we individually, but
collectively, experience his beneficence. And at one and the
same time, he corrected souls that were wandering in error,
and bodies that were infirm.”
[12]Those Gods, according to the Orphic theology, that contain
in themselves the first principle of stability, sameness,
and being, and who also were the suppliers of conversion to all
things, are of a male characteristic; but those that are the
causes of all-various progressions, separations, and measures of
life, are of a feminine peculiarity.
[13]This inventor of names was called by the Egyptians
Theuth, as we are informed by Plato in the Philebus and
Phædrus; in the latter of which dialogues, Socrates says: “I
have heard, that about Naucratis in Egypt, there was one of
the ancient Gods of the Egyptians, to whom a bird was sacred,
which they call Ibis; but the name of the dæmon himself was
Theuth. According to tradition, this God first discovered
number and the art of reckoning, geometry and astronomy, the
games of chess and hazard, and likewise letters.” On this
passage I observe as follows, in Vol. 3. of my translation of
Plato: The genus of disciplines belonging to Mercury, contains
gymnastic, music, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and
the art of speaking and writing. This God, as he is the
source of invention, is called the son of Maia; because investigation,
which is implied by Maia, produces invention: and
as unfolding the will of Jupiter, who is an intellectual God,
he is the cause of mathesis or discipline. He first subsists in
Jupiter, the artificer of the world; next among the supermundane
Gods; in the third place, among the liberated Gods;
fourthly, in the planet Mercury; fifthly, in the Mercurial
order of dæmons; sixthly, in human souls, who are the attendants
of this God; and in the seventh degree, his properties
subsist in certain animals, such as the ibis, the ape, and sagacious
dogs. The narration of Socrates in this place, is both
allegorical and anagogic or reductory. Naucratis is a region
of Egypt eminently subject to the influence of Mercury,
though the whole of Egypt is allotted to this divinity. Likewise,
in this city a man once florished full of the Mercurial
power, because his soul formerly existed in the heavens of the
Mercurial order. But he was first called Theuth, that is,
Mercury, and a God, because his soul subsisted according to
the perfect similitude of this divinity. But afterwards a
dæmon, because from the God Mercury, through a Mercurial
dæmon, gifts of this kind are transmitted to a Mercurial
soul.
[14]Iamblichus derived this very beautiful passage from Heraclides
Ponticus, as is evident from Cicero, Tusc. Quæst. lib.
v. 3. who relates the same thing of Pythagoras, from the
aforesaid author.
[15]i. e. With intelligibles properly so called.
[16]Iliad, lib. 17. The translation by Pope.
[17]“The Pythagoreans,” says Simplicius, in his Commentary
on the 2d book of Aristotle’s treatise On the Heavens, said, “that
an harmonic sound was produced from the motion of the celestial
bodies, and they scientifically collected this from the
analogy of their intervals; since not only the ratios of the sun
and moon, of Venus and Mercury, but also of the other stars,
were discovered by them.” Simplicius adds, “Perhaps the
objection of Aristotle to this assertion of the Pythagoreans, may
be solved according to the philosophy of those men, as follows:
“All things are not commensurate with each other, nor is every
thing sensible to every thing, even in the sublunary region.
This is evident from dogs who scent animals at a great
distance, and which are not smelt by men. How much more,
therefore, in things which are separated by so great an interval
as those which are incorruptible from the corruptible, and
celestial from terrestrial natures, is it true to say, that the sound
of divine bodies is not audible by terrestrial ears? But if any
one like Pythagoras, who is reported to have heard this harmony,
should have his terrestrial body exempt from him, and
his luminous and celestial vehicle[17a] and the senses which it
contains purified, either through a good allotment, or through
probity of life, or through a perfection arising from sacred operations,
such a one will perceive things invisible to others, and
will hear things inaudible by others. With respect to divine
and immaterial bodies, however, if any sound is produced by
them, it is neither percussive nor destructive, but it excites the
powers and energies of sublunary sounds, and perfects the sense
which is co-ordinate with them. It has also a certain analogy
to the sound which concurs with the motion of terrestrial bodies.
But the sound which is with us in consequence of the
sonorific nature of the air, is a certain energy of the motion of
their impassive sound. If, then, air is not passive there, it is
evident that neither will the sound which is there be passive.
Pythagoras, however, seems to have said that he heard the celestial
harmony, as understanding the harmonic proportions in
numbers, of the heavenly bodies, and that which is audible in
them. Some one, however, may very properly doubt why the
stars are seen by our visive sense, but the sound of them is not
heard by our ears? To this we reply that neither do we see
the stars themselves; for we do not see their magnitudes, or
their figures, or their surpassing beauty. Neither do we see the
motion through which the sound is produced; but we see as it
were such an illumination of them, as that of the light of the
sun about the earth, the sun himself not being seen by us.
Perhaps too, neither will it be wonderful, that the visive sense,
as being more immaterial, subsisting rather according to energy
than according to passion, and very much transcending the
other senses, should be thought worthy to receive the splendor
and illumination of the celestial bodies, but that the other
senses should not be adapted for this purpose. Of these, however,
and such like particulars, if any one can assign more probable
causes, let him be considered as a friend, and not as an
enemy.”
[17a]The
soul has three vehicles, one etherial, another aerial, and the
third this terrestrial body. The first, which is luminous and celestial,
is connate with the essence of the soul, and in which alone it resides
in a state of bliss in the stars. In the second, it suffers the punishment
of its sins after death. And from the third it becomes an inhabitant
of earth.
[18]i. e. Of the discursive energy of reason, or that part of
the soul that reasons scientifically, deriving the principles of
its reasoning from intellect.
[19]Kuster, one of the editors of this Life of Pythagoras,
not perceiving that these auditions are both questions and
answers, has made them to be questions only, and in consequence
of this was completely at a loss to conceive the meaning
of οπερ εστιν η αρμονια, εν ῃ αι Σειρηνες. Hence, he
thinks it should be, τι εστιν η αρμονια ῃ ηδον αι Σειρηνες; but
is not satisfied with this reading after all. Something I have
no doubt is wanting; but the sense of the passage is, I conceive,
that which is given in the above translation.
[20]“Pythagoras,” (says Proclus in MSS. Schol. in Cratylum,)
“being asked what was the wisest of things, said it was
number; and being asked what was the next in wisdom, said,
he who gave names to things. But by number, he obscurely
signified the intelligible order, which comprehends the multitude
of intellectual forms: for there that which is the first,
and properly number, subsists after the superessential one.[20a] This
likewise supplies the measures of essence to all beings, in
which also true wisdom, and knowledge which is of itself, and
which is converted to and perfects itself, subsist. And as
there the intelligible, intellect, and intelligence, are the same,
so there also number and wisdom are the same. But by the
founder of names, he obscurely signified the soul, which indeed
subsists from intellect, and is not things themselves like
the first intellect, but possesses the images and essential transitive
reasons of them as statues of beings. Being, therefore, is
imparted to all things from intellect, which knows itself and is
replete with wisdom; but that they are denominated is from
soul, which imitates intellect. Pythagoras therefore said,
that it was not the business of any casual person to fabricate
names, but of one looking to intellect and the nature of
things.”
[20a]i. e. Number according to cause, which subsists at the extremity
of the intelligible order. For number according to hyparxis or
essence, subsists at the summit of the order which is intelligible and
at the same time intellectual. See the 3d book of my translation of
Proclus on the Theology of Plato.
[21]The words περι πυθαγορειων are omitted in the original, but from the Protrept. of Iamblichus evidently ought to be inserted.
[22]The same thing is said by the Pythagoreans to have befallen
the person who first divulged the theory of incommensurable
quantities. See the first scholium on the 10th book of
Euclid’s Elements, in Commandine’s edition, fol. 1572.
[23]Iamblichus, in this list of Pythagoreans, must not be supposed
to enumerate those only who were contemporary with
Pythagoras: since, if he did, he contradicts what he says of
Philolaus in Chap. 31. viz. “that he was many ages posterior
to Pythagoras;” but those in general who came from the
school of Pythagoras, and were his most celebrated disciples.
[24]From this passage it is evident that Iamblichus had many
sources of information, which are unknown to modern critics;
and this circumstance alone ought to check their pedagogical
impertinence.
[26]For δηγμους here, I read οδυρμους; as I do not see what
morsus has to do with this place. Obrechtus has in his version
“pectorisque morsus;” but I have no doubt lamentations is the
proper word, which aptly associates with despondency.
[27]“Well-instituted polities,” (says Proclus in MS. Comment.
in Alcibiad. prior.) “are averse to the art of playing on
wind-instruments; and therefore neither does Plato admit it.
The cause of this is the variety of this instrument, the pipe,
which shows that the art which uses it should be avoided.
For instruments called Panarmonia, and those consisting of
many strings, are imitations of pipes. For every hole of the
pipe emits, as they say, three sounds at least; but if the cavity
above the holes be opened, then each hole will emit more than
three sounds.”
[28]Odyss. lib. 4.
[29]Iamblichus derived what he has said in this chapter about
music, from Nicomachus.
[30]The first part of this sentence in the original
is ξενου τινος εκβεβληκοτος εν Ασκληπιειῳ Ζωνην χρυσιον εχουσαν, and in
translating it I have followed the version of Obrechtus, because
it appeared to me to convey the meaning of Iamblichus, though
the translation is certainly forced, and not such as the natural
construction of the words will admit. The translation of
Arcerius is, “Cum hospes quidam in æde Æsculapii fœminam
zonam auream habentem ejecisset;” and this is perfectly
conformable to the natural construction of the words, but then
it is void of sense.
[33]These lines are as the numbers 4, 3, 2. For 4 to 3 is
sesquitertian, 3 to 2 is sesquialter, and 2 is an arithmetical
medium between 4 and 3.
[34]For an explanation of this assertion of Plato in the Republic,
see my Theoretic Arithmetic.
[35]“The Pythagoreans,” (says Syrianus in Aristot. Metaphys.
lib. 13.) “received from the theology of Orpheus, the principles
of intelligible and intellectual numbers, they assigned
them an abundant progression, and extended their dominion as
far as to sensibles themselves.” Hence that proverb was peculiar
to the Pythagoreans, that all things are assimilated to number.
Pythagoras, therefore, in the Sacred Discourse,
clearly says, that “number is the ruler of forms and ideas, and
is the cause of Gods and dæmons.” He also supposes, that
“to the most ancient and artificially ruling deity, number is
the canon, the artificial reason, the intellect also, and the most
undeviating balance of the composition and generation of all
things.” αυτος μεν Πυθαγορας, εν τῳ ιερῳ λογῳ, διαρρηδην μορφων και ιδεων κραντορα τον αριθμον ελεγεν ειναι, και θεων και δαιμονων αιτιον· και τῳ πρεσβυτατῳ και κρατιστευοντι τεχνιτῃ θεῳ κανονα, και λογον τεχνικον, νουν τε και σταθμαν ακλινεσταταν τον αριθμον υπεικε συστασιος και γενεσεως των παντων.
Syrianus adds, “But Philolaus declared that number
is the governing and self-begotten bond of the eternal permanency of mundane
natures.” Φιλολαυς
δε, της των κοσμικων αιωνιας διαμονης την κρατιστευουσαν και αυτογενη συοχην ειναι απεφῃνατο τον αριθμον.
“And Hippasus, and all those who
were destined to a quinquennial silence, called number the judicial
instrument of the maker of the universe, and the first paradigm of mundane
fabrication.” οι
δε περι Ιππασον ακουσματικοι ειπον κριτικον κοσμουργου θεου οργανον, και παραδειγμα πρωτον κοσμοποιϊας.
“But how is it possible they could
have spoken thus sublimely of number, unless they had considered
it as possessing an essence separate from sensible, and a
transcendency fabricative, and at the same time paradigmatic?”
[36]i. e. To spheres; Iamblichus indicating by this, that Pythagoras
as well as Orpheus considered a spherical figure as
the most appropriate image of divinity. For the universe is
spherical; and, as Iamblichus afterwards observes, the Gods
have a nature and morphe similar to the universe; morphe, as
we learn from Simplicius, pertaining to the color, figure, and
magnitude of superficies. Keissling, having no conception of
this meaning, and supposing the whole passage to be corrupt,
has made nonsense of it by his alterations. For according to
his version, Pythagoras, after the manner of Orpheus, worshipped
the Gods not bound to a human form, but to divine numbers.
For instead of ιδρυμασι he
reads αριθμοις.
But divine numbers both according to Orpheus and Pythagoras are the Gods
themselves.
[37]i. e. Futurity is long; Pythagoras signifying by this, that
those who do not take an oath religiously, will be punished in
some future period, if they are not at present.
[38]i. e. From the time in which the Gods are fabulously
said to have reigned in Egypt.
[39]I wonder that the learned Obrechtus should
translate ηβηδον, cum omni juventute sua. Had his translation, which is
on the whole very excellent, been reviewed by English or
Scotch critics, they would have immediately said from this
circumstance, that he did not understand Greek.
[40]Iamblichus here alludes to a right-angled triangle, and
the Pythagoric theorem of 47. 1 of Euclid. For the square
described on the longest side is equal to the two squares described
on the two other sides. The longest side therefore is
said by geometricians to be equal in power to the powers of
the other sides. This however Kiessling not understanding, says,
“that power is the space contained between the concurring
lines of figures, and is the area of the triangle.” “Δυναμις
idem est, quod εμβαδον, spatium, quod infra concurrentes lineas
figurarum continetur, area trigoni.” But Kiessling, though a
good verbalist, is a bad geometrician, and no philosopher.
[41]In the original δεκατον the tenth month; but as it very
seldom happens that a woman is in a state of pregnancy more
than nine months, it appears to me that for δεκατον we should
read εκτον the sixth month, as in the above translation.
[42]Obrechtus by translating περι δε δοξης in this place, “De
fama et gloria,” has evidently mistaken the meaning of Iamblichus.
[43]The wise and magnanimous Pythagoreans, Platonists, Peripatetics
and Stoics, among the ancients, looked to virtue as
its own reward, and performed what is right, because it is right
to do so. And though they firmly believed in the immortality
of the soul, their conduct was not at all influenced by the hope
of future reward. This great truth indeed, that virtue brings
with it its own recompense, is almost at present obsolete; and
it is no unusual thing to hear a man, when afflicted, exclaiming
with Methodistical cant,
“The many troubles that I meet,
In getting to a Mercy-seat!”
[44]These energies are called beneficent, because they are of
a purifying character. Hence Plato in the Timæus says, that
a deluge is the consequence of the Gods purifying the earth
by water.
[45]Iamblichus a little before informs us, that Pythagoras suspected
that Phalaris intended to put him to death, but at the
same time knew that he was not destined to die by Phalaris.
This being the case therefore, Pythagoras has no claim to fortitude
in this instance, in being free from the fear of death.
But he has great claim to it, when it is considered that he was
in the power of a tyrant who might have caused him to suffer
tortures worse than death.
[46]i. e. Humble (ταπεινης ουσης.) With the Pythagoreans,
therefore, humility was no virtue, though in modern times it is
considered to be the greatest of the virtues. With Aristotle
likewise it is no virtue; for in his Nicomachean Ethics he
says, “that all humble men are flatterers, and all flatterers are
humble.”
[47]See the Cave of Plato, in the 7th book of his Republic.
[48]The original is, Μητροδωρος τε ο Θυρσου του πατρος Επιχαρμου,
which Obrechtus erroneously translates, “Metrodorus
Epicharmi filius Thyrsi nepos.”
[49]This observation applies also to those of the present day,
who, from a profound ignorance of human nature, attempt to
enlighten by education the lowest class of mankind. For this,
as I have elsewhere observed, is an attempt to break the golden
chain of beings, to disorganise society, and to render the
vulgar dissatisfied with the servile situations in which God and
nature intended them to be placed. See p. 73. of the introduction
to my translation of Select Works of Plotinus.
[50]This also is asserted, as I have before observed, in the
Scholia on the 10th book of Commandine’s edition of Euclid’s
Elements, p. 122.
[51]Obrechtus has omitted to translate the words ηδη πρεσβυτην οντα,
“being now an elderly man.”
[52]In the original ακρατος, which Obrechtus very erroneously
translates impotens.
[53]i. e. To the Pythagoreans.
[54]The whole of this paragraph, the greater part of which is
a repetition of what has been said elsewhere, does not certainly
belong to this place.
[55]In the original, και την γην αναδαστον εποιησαν, which
Obrechtus erroneously translates, “et agrorum divisionem introduxerunt.”
[56]The words within the brackets are from a Latin Manuscript,
which was in the possession of Fabricius.
[57]In the original, ουδεν γαρ αυταρκες, ο τουτων των μοριων ποιει το ολον.
This Canter erroneously translates, “Quandoquidem
horum nulla pars totum queat constituere.” And
Gale has noticed the error.
[58]Gale says in his notes, that after οφθαλμων he
adds φυσιος,
but he should evidently have added αρετα, as in the above
translation.
[59]In the original συν τᾳ οξυδορκιᾳ,
which Canter very defectively translates, videndi facultate.
[61]i. e. So far as he is considered as energizing in conjunction
with the body; but so far as he has an energy independent
of the body, viz. so far as he is a rational soul, the body
is not to be considered as a part of his essence. And the
energy of the rational soul by itself alone, without any assistance
from the corporeal organs, constitutes the true man, into
the definition of which body does not enter.
[62]Canter, in his version of these Pythagoric fragments, uniformly
translates ευτυχια felicitas, contrary to the obvious
meaning of the word, as is evident in this, and many other passages.
It is also directly contrary to what Aristotle says in
cap. 13. lib. 7. of his Nicomachean
Ethics: δια
δε το προσδεισθαι της τυχης, δοκει τισι ταυτον ειναι η ευτυχια τῃ ευδαιμονιᾳ, ουκ ουσα· επει και αυτη υπερβαλλουσα, εμποδιος εστι.
i. e.
“Because felicity requires fortune, it appears to some persons
that prosperity is the same with felicity. This however is not
the case; since prosperity, when it is excessive, is an impediment
to felicity.” But Canter did not, I believe, pretend to
have any knowledge of philosophy: and Gale, who did, has not
corrected him in this and many other places in which he has
erred through the want of this knowledge. Gale however,
though verbally learned, was but a garrulous smatterer in philosophy,
as is evident from his notes on Iamblichus de Mysteriis.
[64]In the original, ωστε ουδεποκα δει θαυμαινεν, ει παντ’ αντεστραμμενως ενιοκα κρινεται, τας αληθινας διαθεσιος μεταπιπτοισας,
which Canter erroneously translates as follows: “Quocirca
mirandum non est, si cuncta nonnunquam, verâ affectione
mutatâ, aliter eveniunt.” Nor is the error noticed by
Gale.
[65]i. e. In the etherial vehicle of the soul, which when the soul
energizes intellectually is spherical, and is moved circularly.
This vehicle also is αυγοειδης, or luciform, throughout diaphanous,
and of a star-like nature. Hence Marcus Antoninus beautifully observes:
σφαιρα
ψυχης αυτοειδης,
(lege αυγοειδης)
οταν μητε εκτεινηται επι τι, μητε εσω συντρεχῃ μητε συνιζανῃ, αλλα φωτι λαμπηται, ῳ την αληθειαν ορᾳ την παντων, και την εν αυτῃ.
Lib. II. i. e. “The sphere of the soul is then luciform,
when the soul is neither extended to any thing [external]
nor inwardly concurs with it, nor is depressed by it, but is illuminated
with a light by which she sees the truth of all things,
and the truth that is in herself.”
[66]M. Meibomius observes, that Canter did not see
that λογιστικω
should be written in this place for αλογω. Canter
however was right in retaining αλογω. For the dianoetic is
the same with the logistic part of the soul; and it is evident
that a part of the soul different from the dianoetic is here intended
to be signified. Besides, as Aristotle shows in his Nicomachean
Ethics, when the irrational becomes obedient to the
rational part of the soul, the former then prohibits and vanquishes
base appetites in conjunction with the latter.
[67]viz. Such as have the theoretic virtues.
[68]i. e. Such as have the ethical and political virtues.
[69]The original is, α
δε δυναμις, οιον
αλκα τις τω
σκανεος, ᾳ υφισταμεθα, και εμμενομες τοις πραγμασιν.
This sentence in
its present state is certainly unintelligible. For σκανεος therefore,
I read φυσεως, and then the sense will be as in the above
translation. The version of Canter is certainly absurd; for it
is, “Facultas tanquam robur et causæ, quo ferimus, et in
rebus permanemus.” And Gale, as usual, takes no notice of
the absurdity.
[70]viz., The equal and that which is arranged, belong to the
order of bound, and the unequal and that which is without
arrangement, to the order of infinity. And bound and infinity
are the two great principles of things after the ineffable cause
of all. See the third book of my translation of Proclus, On
the Theology of Plato.
[71]viz. The salvation of the universe arises from the co-adaptation
of the sublunary region to the heavens.
[72]In the Greek επῳδας;
on which Gale observes,
“Forte αμαθιας,
nisi aliud subsit mysterium.” But it appears to me
that there is no occasion to substitute any other word
for επῳδας.
For in the education of youth, it is certainly requisite
to unite allurement with erudition. And the substitution
of αμαθιας, ignorance, is monstrous.
[73]In the original αυτα γαρ α διενεργουσα, instead of which
Gale proposes to read αυτα
γαρ αδε ενεργοισα, which still
leaves the sentence involved in obscurity. But if for
διενεργουσα
we read διοριζουσα
as in the above translation, the meaning is clear.
[75]Neither of the Latin translators North and Arcerius have
understood this passage, and therefore have erroneously translated
it. For the original
is: και παντα τα εν τᾳ συστοιχειᾳ και ταξει τα εκεινου κατακεχωρισμενα.
This North translates:
“Atque omnia in rerum serie et ordine ab illo separata.” But
Arcerius: “Atque omnia quæ sunt in naturæ cognatione ordineque
ab illo separata.” By the things however co-ordinate
with, and successive to God, Archytas means the other Gods,
who, though subordinate to the supreme, yet in consequence of
partaking of the same nature, are said to be co-ordinate with
him. Gale, likewise, did not perceive the error of the Latin
translators.
[76]Plato says this of God in his Laws.
[77]The above sentences are from Stobæi Sententiæ, p. 3. (the
edition that of 1609,) and are ascribed to Pythagoras.
[78]The above seven sentences are to be found in p. 4. of Stobæus,
and as it appears to me are erroneously ascribed to Socrates.
For I conceive them to have been written either by
Democrates or Demophilus.
[79]Stob. p. 48.
[80]Hence the dogma of the Stoics derived its origin, that the
wise man is independent of Fortune.
[81]Stob. p. 65. These three sentences are ascribed to Pythagoras.
[82]Stob. p. 80. These two sentences are ascribed to Socrates,
but I have no doubt originally formed a part of the sentences
of Demophilus.
[83]Stob. p. 104. This sentence is ascribed to Democritus in
Stobæus, but has doubtless either Democrates or Demophilus
for its author.
[84]Stob. p. 147. The above four sentences, are in Stobæus
ascribed to Socrates; but I refer them either to Democrates
or Demophilus.
[85]This sentence in Stobæus is ascribed to Socrates, as is
also the one which immediately precedes it, viz. “The wealth
of the avaricious man, like the sun descending under the
earth, delights no living thing.” But as this sentence is to be
found among the Similitudes of Demophilus, there can be
no doubt of the other belonging to the same work.
[86]This and the preceding sentence, are in Stobæus ascribed
to Democritus, but I attribute them to Democrates or Demophilus.
[87]This sentence in Stobæus is ascribed to Pythagoras, but,
excepting the part within the brackets, is to be found among
the sentences of Demophilus.
[88]This sentence in Stobæus, is ascribed to Democritus, and
that immediately preceding it, to Socrates; but I ascribe both
of them to Democrates, or Demophilus.
[89]This and the preceding sentences, together with two other
sentences that accompany them, are in Stobæus ascribed to
Democritus; but as the other two are to be found in the Collection
of Democrates, there can be no doubt that all of them are
from the same author.
[90]For as every cause of existence to a thing, is better than
that thing, so far as the one is cause and the other effect; thus
also that which gives a name to any thing is better than the
thing named, so far as it is named, i. e. so far as pertains to its
possession of a name. For the nominator is the cause, and the
name the effect.
[91]In the Latin it is “post dispositionem corporis.” But for
dispositionem it is evidently necessary to read dissolutionem.
[92]This is conformable to the well-known Pythagoric precept,
“Follow God.”
[93]“We can by no other means,” (says Porphyry De Abstinen.
lib. I.) “obtain the true end of a contemplative, intellectual
life than by adhering to God, if I may be allowed the
expression, as if fastened by a nail, at the same time being torn
away and separated from body and corporeal delights; having
procured safety from our deeds, and not from the mere attention
to words.”
[94]But intellect is the recipient of wisdom, and therefore intellect
is the true man. This also is asserted by Aristotle.
[95]In the Latin fidelis; but as Ruffinus, the Latin translator
of these sentences, frequently adulterates the true meaning of
Sextus, by substituting one word for another, I have no doubt that in this sentence the original
was πεπαιδευμενος eruditus,
and not πιστος fidelis. My reason for so thinking is, that in
one of the sentences of Demophilus it is said, “that the life of
ignorant men is a disgrace,” των αμαθων ονειδος ειναι τον βιον;
and this in the sentences of Sextus is, “Hominum infidelium
vita, opprobrium est.” If, therefore, Ruffinus translates αμαθων,
infidelium, there is every reason to suppose that he would
translate πεπαιδευμενος, fidelis.
[96]Several of these sentences as published by Arcerius, are in a very defective state; but which, as the learned reader will perceive, I have endeavoured to amend in my translation of them.
[97]This work is unfortunately lost.
[98]According to Ælian and Suidas also, melanurus is a fish;
but as the word signifies that which has a black termination,
it is very appropriately used as a symbol of a material nature.
[99]viz. Those Gods that are characterized by the intelligible,
and intellect. See my translation of Proclus, On the
Theology of Plato.
[100]See the second edition of this work in Nos. 15 and 16
of the Pamphleteer.
[101]i. e. Natures which are not connected with body.
[102]See an extract of some length, and of the greatest importance,
from this dialogue, in my translation of Select Works of
Plotinus, p. 553, &c.
[103]Forms subsist at the extremity of the intelligible triad,
which triad consists of being, life, and intellect. But
being and life, with all they contain, subsist here involved in
impartible union. See my Proclus on the Theology of Plato.
[104]In Aristot. Metaphys. Lib. 13.
[105]Because ¾ is to ⅔ as 9 to 8.
[106]In Mathemat. p. 147.
[107]Instead of περιττουται, it is necessary to
read περατουται;
the necessity of which emendation, I wonder the learned
Bullialdus did not observe.
[108]This philosophic apathy is not, as is stupidly supposed by
most of the present day, insensibility, but a perfect subjugation
of the passions to reason.
[109]The words και δικαιοσυνη are omitted in the original.
But it is evident from Plotinus, that they ought to be inserted.
THE END.
Transcriber’s Notes
- Silently corrected a few typos.
- Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook is public-domain in the country of publication.
- Added a Table of Contents based on the chapter headings in the text.
- In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by _underscores_.