quoted (III. 21, 22), not to the time of Plato’s second journey to
Dionysius the younger, _i.e._ of his third visit to Sicily, where it is
placed by the writers of Plato’s Letters, but to the second journey of
Plato to Sicily, which corresponds with his first visit to Dionysius
the younger.—[Editor’s note.]
[7] Plat. Epist. VII. p. 337-342 (p. 453-461), p. 344-350 (p. 466-477);
III. p. 317, 318 (p. 411-415).
[8] Plat. Epist. VII. p. 326 (p. 431).
[9] From the lectures of 1825.
[10] Diog. Laërt. III. 23 (Menag. ad h.l.); Ælian Var. Histor. II. 42;
Plutarch, ad principem ineruditum, init. p. 779, ed. Xyl.
[11] Diog. Laërt. III. 2; Bruckeri Hist. Crit. Philos. Vol. I, p. 653.
[12] Compare Vol. I. p. 47-53.
[13] Brandis: De perditis Aristotelis libris de ideis et de bono, sive
philosophia, p. 1-13. (Compare Michelet: Examen critique de l’ouvrage
d’Aristote intitulé Métaphysique, 1835, p. 28-78.)—[Editor’s note.]
[14] Scholia in Timæum, p. 423, 424 (ed. Bekk: Commentar crit. in Plat.
Vol. II.).
[15] Plat. De Republica, V. p. 471-474 (p. 257-261).
[16] Plat. De Republica VII. pp. 514-516 (pp. 326-328).
[17] Plato De Republica, V. p. 475, 476 (p. 265, 266).
[18] Diog. Laërt. VI. 53; cf. Plato De Rep. VI. p. 508 (p. 319).
[19] Plat. De Republ. V. p. 476-479 (p. 266-273).
[20] Plat. Meno, p. 81 (p. 348, 349).
[21] Plat. Phædrus, p. 246 (p. 39, 40).
[22] Plat. Phædrus, p. 246 (p. 40).
[23] Plat. Phædrus, pp. 246-251 (pp. 40-50).
[24] Plat. Phædo, pp. 65-67 (pp. 18-23).
[25] Ibid. p. 72 (p. 35), p. 75 (p. 41).
[26] Ibid. pp. 78-80 (pp. 46-51).
[27] Plat. Phædo, pp. 85, 86 (pp. 62, 63), pp. 92-94 (pp. 74-80).
[28] Ibid. pp. 110-114 (pp. 111-120).
[29] Plat. Timæus, p. 20 _et seq._ (p. 10 _seq._); Critias, p. 108
_seq._ (p. 149 _seq._).
[30] Cf. Vol. I. pp. 318, 319, and the remarks there made. [Editor’s
Note.]
[31] Hegel’s Werke, Vol. VI., Pt. I, p. 8.
[32] Plat. Parmenides, pp. 135, 136 (pp. 21-23).
[33] Ibid. p. 129 (pp. 9, 10).
[34] Plat. Parmenides, p. 142 (pp. 35, 36); cf. Arist. Eth. Nicom. ed.
Michelet, T. I. Præf. p. VII. sqq.
[35] Plat. Parmenides, p. 166 (p. 84); cf. Zeller; Platonische Studien,
p. 165.
[36] Plat. Sophist, pp. 246-249 (pp. 190-196).
[37] Ibid. p. 258 (p. 219).
[38] Plat. Sophist. p. 259 (pp. 220, 221).
[39] Plat. Sophist. pp. 260, 261 (pp. 222-224).
[40] Plat. Sophist. pp. 258, 259 (pp. 218-220).
[41] Cf. also Plat. Phileb. p. 14 (p. 138).
[42] Plat. Phileb. pp. 11-23 (pp. 131-156); pp. 27, 28 (pp. 166, 167).
[43] Plat. Phileb. pp. 23-30 (pp. 156-172).
[44] Plat. Phileb. p. 33 (p. 178).
[45] Cf. Plat. Tim. p. 34 (p. 31); p. 48 (pp. 56, 57); p. 69 (p. 96).
[46] Ibid. p. 29 (p. 25).
[47] Plat. Timæus, p. 30, 31 (pp. 25-27).
[48] Plat. Timæus, pp. 31, 32 (pp. 27, 28).
[49] Plat. Timæus p. 32 (p. 28).
[50] Plat. Timæus, pp. 32-34 (pp. 28-31).
[51] Plat. Timæus, p. 35 (p. 32).
[52] Ibid.
[53] Plat. Timæus, pp. 35, 36 (pp. 32-34).
[54] Plat. Timæus, p. 37 (p. 35).
[55] Plat. Timæus, p. 48 (p. 57); pp. 37, 38 (pp. 36, 37).
[56] Plat, Timæus, pp. 47-53 (pp. 55-66).
[57] Plat. Timæus, pp. 53-56 (pp. 66-72).
[58] Plat. Timæus, pp. 67-70 (pp. 93-99).
[59] Plat. Timæus pp. 70-72 (pp. 99-102).
[60] Plat. De Republica, II., pp. 368, 369 (p. 78.)
[61] Following the outline here given by Plato, Hegel, in an earlier
attempt to treat the philosophy of Justice (Werke, Vol. I. pp. 380,
381), included in one these two classes, and later named them the
general class (Werke, Vol. VIII. p. 267); the “other” class (as Hegel
expresses it, in the first of the passages referred to above), which
by Plato is not included in this, Hegel divided, however, in both his
narratives, into the second class (that of city handicraftsmen), and
the third (that of tillers of the soil).—[Editor’s note.]
[62] Plat. de Republica, II. pp. 369-376 (pp. 79-93); III. p. 414 (pp.
158, 159).
[63] Plat. De Republica, V. p. 463, (p. 241,); p. 460 (p. 236).
[64] Plat. De Republica, IX. pp. 427, 428 (pp. 179-181).
[65] Ibid. IV. pp. 428, 429 (pp. 181, 182).
[66] Ibid. pp. 429, 430 (pp. 182-185).
[67] Plat. De Republica, IV. pp. 430-432 (pp. 185-188).
[68] Plat. De Republica, IV. pp. 432, 433 (pp. 188-191).
[69] Plat. De Republica, IV. pp. 437-443 (pp. 198-210).
[70] Plat. De Republica, IV. p. 421 (pp. 167, 168).
[71] Ibid. II. p.376-III. p. 412 (pp. 93-155); V. p. 472-VII. fin. (pp.
258-375).
[72] Plat. De Legibus, IV. pp. 722, 723 (pp. 367-369).
[73] Plat. De Republica, III. pp. 412-415 (pp. 155-161.)
[74] Plat. De Republica, V. pp. 457-461 (pp. 230-239).
[75] Ibid. pp. 451-457 (pp. 219-230); p. 471 (p. 257).
[76] Cf. Hegel: On the Scientific Modes of treating Natural Law (Werke,
Vol. I.), pp. 383-386.
[77] Plat. Hippias Major, p. 292 (p. 433); p. 295 sqq. (p. 439 sqq.) p.
302 (pp. 455, 456).
[78] In quoting the chapters of Aristotle both hitherto and in future,
Becker’s edition is adopted; where a second number is placed in
brackets after the first, different editions are indicated, _e.g._, for
the Organon, Buhle’s edition, for the Nicomachiean Ethics those of Zell
and the editor, &c.—[Editor’s note.]
[79] Diog. Laërt. V. 1, 9, 12, 15; Buhle: Aristotelis vita (ante Arist.
Opera, T. I.) pp. 81, 82; Ammonius Saccas: Aristotelis vita (ed. Buhle
in. Arist. Op. T. I.), pp. 43, 44.
[80] Diog. Laërt. V. 3, 4; 7, 8; Buhle: Aristotel. vita, pp. 90-92.
[81] Aristotelis Opera (ed. Pac. Aurel. Allobrog, 1607), T. I., in
fine: Aristotelis Fragmenta. (Cf. Stahr. Aristotelia, Pt. I. pp. 85-91.)
[82] Aulus Gellius: Noctis Atticæ, XX. 5
[83] Diog. Laërt. V. 5, 6; Suidas, s. v. Aristoteles; Buhle: Aristot.
vit. p. 100; Ammon. Saccas: Arist. vit. pp. 47, 48; Menag. ad. Diog.
Laërt. V. 2; Stahr. Aristotelia, Pt. I. pp. 108, 109; Bruckeri Hist.
crit. phil. T. I. pp. 788, 789.
[84] Strabo, XIII. p. 419 (ed. Casaub. 1587); Plutarch in Sulla, c.
26; Brucker. Hist. crit. phil. T. I. pp. 798-800 (cf. Michelet: Examen
critique de l’ouvrage d’Aristote, intitulé Métaphysique, pp. 5-16.)
[85] Cf. Michelet: Examen critique, &c., pp. 17-23; 28-114; 199-241.
[86] Gellius: Noct. Atticæ, XX. 5; Stahr: Aristotelia, Pt. I. pp
110-112.
[87] Arist. Metaphys. VI. 1; Physic. II. 2; I. 9. (Cf. Michelet: Examen
critique, etc., pp. 23-27.)
[88] Michelet: Examen critique, pp. 115-198.
[89] Not only the form which is to be abrogated, but also matter is
spoken of by Aristotle as τι, because in truth the form which is to be
abrogated serves only as material for the form which is to be posited;
so that he in the first passage names the three moments ἔκ τινος,
τι, ὑπό τινος, and in the last passage names them τι, εἴς τι, ὑπό
τινος.—[Editor’s Note.]
[90] As this explanation by Hegel of Aristotle’s celebrated passage
has so many authorities to support it, the editor cannot here, as
frequently elsewhere in these lectures, remain faithful to the
directions of his colleagues, quietly to set right anything that is
incorrect. It is, nevertheless, clear that Aristotle is speaking of
three substances: a sublunar world, which the heavens move; the heavens
as the centre which is both mover and moved; and God, the unmoved
Mover. The passage must therefore, on the authority of Alexander of
Aphrodisias (Schol. in Arist. ed. Brandis, p. 804 _b_), of Cardinal
Bessarion (Aristoteles lat. ed. Bekk. p. 525 _b_) and others, be
thus read: ἔστι τοίνυν τι καὶ ὃ κινεῖ (sc. ὁ οὐρανός)· ἐπεὶ δε τὸ
κινούμενον καὶ κινοῦν καὶ μέσον τοίνυν, ἔυτι τι ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ.
The translation, if this reading be adopted, would be as follows:
Besides the heavens in perpetual motion “there is something which the
heavens move. But since that which at the same time is moved and causes
movement cannot be other than a centre, there is also a mover that is
unmoved.” (Cf. Michelet: Examen critique, etc., p. 192; Jahrbücher
für wisseuschaftliche Kritik, November, 1841, No. 84, pp. 668, 669).
[Editor’s note]
[91] συστοιχία is a good word, and might also mean an element which is
itself its own element, and determines itself only through itself.
[92] The word τὸ εἶναι, when it governs the dative (τὸ εἶναι νοήσεί καὶ
νοουμένῳ) invariably expresses the Notion, while, when it governs the
accusative, it denotes concrete existence. (Trendelenburg: Comment, in
Arist. De anima, III. 4, p. 473.) [Editor’s Note.]
[93] Aristotle here distinguishes four determinations: what is moved
in capacity, or the movable [das Bewegbare] (κινητόν); what is moved
in actuality (κινούμενον); the moving in capacity (κινητικόν), or
what Hegel calls the motive [das Bewegliche]; the moving in actuality
(κινοῦν). It might have been better to translate κινητόν by motive
[Beweglich] and κινητικόν by mobile [Bewegerisch].—[Editor’s note.]
[94] While above (p. 164) we must take the expression τὸ εἶναι as
immediate existence because it is opposed to the Notion, here it has
the meaning of Notion, because it stands in opposition to immediate
existence (καὶ οὺ χωριστὴ μὲν ὕλη, δ̓ εἶναι, καὶ μία τῷ ἀριθμῷ). Cf.
Michelet: Comment. in Arist. Eth. Nicom. V. I., pp. 209-214.—[Editor’s
note.]
[95] Here τὸ εἶναι has again the signification of Notion, as above (p.
169), because in the preceding words (ἔστι δὲ ταὐτὸ καὶ κατὰ ταὐτὸ ἡ
διαίρεσις καὶ ἥ ἕνωσις) immediate existence is expressed.—[Editor’s
note.]
[96] The editor has considered himself justified in adopting this
rendering, which was commonly used by the Scholastics, and revived by
Leibnitz. (Cf. Michelet, Examen Critique, &c., pp. 165, 261, 265.)
[97] Here and once again on this page τὸ εἶναι is the immediate
existence of the separate sides of sense-perception, therefore their
mere potentiality; while, on the other hand, the active unity of the
perceived and the percipient may be expressed as the true Notion of
sense-perception.—[Editor’s Note.]
[98] _Cf._ _supra_, p. 169, and note there given. The two
significations of τῷ εἶναι here come into immediate contact with one
another, being likewise intermingled; for immediate existence (ἀριθμῷ
ἀδιαίρετον καὶ ἀχωριστον), which is opposed to the Notion (τῷ εἶναι)
becomes in what directly follows mere possibility, to which the true
reality (δυνάμει μὲν γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ἀδιαίρετον εἶναι) is opposed
(δυνάμει μὲν γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ἀδιαίρετον τἀναντία, δ̓ εἶναι ου, ἀλλα τῷ
ἐνεργεῖσθαι διαίρετον).—[Editor’s Note.]
[99] Cf. Tenneman, Vol. III. p. 198.
[100] While Aristotle’s reply is short, and given in the manner
usually adopted by him, that of following up by a second question
the first question proposed (ἢ οὐδὲ τἆλλα φαντάσματα, ἀλλʹ οὐκ ἄνευ
φαντασμάτον;), this answer seems quite sufficient. For Aristotle’s
words certainly bear the meaning that the original thoughts of the
active understanding (the reason), in contradistinction to those of
the passive understanding, have quite obliterated in themselves the
element of pictorial conception; while in the latter this has not been
thoroughly carried out, though even in them pictorial conception is not
the essential moment.—[Editor’s Note.]
[101] Against this we have only to remember that in Aristotle’s way
of speaking ὕστερον and πρότερον always refer to the work they occur
in, while he marks quotations from his other writings by the words: ἐν
ἄλλοις, ἐν ἑτέροις, ἄλλοτε, or εἰς ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν ἀποκείσθω (De
Ausc. phys. I. 9). And if it be said, as it may be with truth, that
all the physical and psychological works, including the Metaphysics,
form one great scientific system, so that ὕστερον and πρότερον may
very well be used in relating these works to one another, I have yet
proved that the treatise περὶ ψυχῆς must be placed much later than
the Metaphysics (Michelet: Examen Critique, &c., pp. 209-222). Might
not then the expression ὕστερον refer to the following chapter? In
truth, the difficulty raised at the end of the seventh chapter seems
completely solved by the words of the eighth chapter quoted above (pp.
198, 199).—[Editor’s Note.]
[102] See Michelet, De doli et culpæ in jure criminali notionibus;
System der philosophischen Moral. Book II. Part I; Afzelius,
Aristotelis De imputatione actionum doctrina.—[Editor’s Note.]
[103] Ethic, Nicom. I. 2-12 (4-12); X. 6-8; Eth. Eudem. II. 1.
[104] Magn. Moral. I. 5, 35; Eth. Nic. I. 13; Eth. Eud. II. 1.
[105] Ethic. Nicomach. II. 5-7 (6, 7); Maga. Moral. I. 5-9; Eth. Eud.
II. 3.
[106] Cf. Arist. Ethic. Nicom. I. 1 (3).
[107] Arist. Eth. Nic. I. 1 (2).
[108] Arist. Polit. III. 1; IV. 14-16.
[109] Ibid. III. 7 (5)-IV. 13.
[110] Arist. Polit. III. 13 (8-9).
[111] Categor. c. 3 (c. 2, § 3-5.)
[112] Categor. c. 4 (c. 2, § 6-8).
[113] Categor. c. 10-14 (8-11); cf. Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft,
p. 79 (6th Ed.).
[114] Categor. c. 5 (3).
[115] Arist. Categor. c. 4 (2); De Interpretat. c. 4-6.
[116] Arist. Analytic. prior. I. 1; Topic I. 1.
[117] Arist. Topic I. 13 (11) et 1.
[118] Ibid. I. 16-18 (14-16); II. 7, 8, 10.
[119] Ibid. III. 1; Buhle, Argum. p. 18.
[120] Analyt. prior. II. 23 (25).
[121] Diog. Laërt. VII. I, 12, 31, 32, 5, 2 (IV. 6, 7), 13, 6-11, 28,
29. Tennemann, Vol. IV. p. 4; Vol. II. pp. 532, 534; Bruck. Hist. Crit.
Phil. T. I. pp. 895, 897-899. (_Cf._ Fabric. Biblioth. Græc. T. II. p.
413), 901.
[122] Diog. Laërt, VII. 168, 169, 176.
[123] Diog. Laërt. VII. 179-181, 184, 189-202; Tennemann, Vol. IV. p.
443.
[124] Diog. Laërt. VI. 81; Cicer. Acad. Quæst. IV. 30; De Oratore II.
37, 38; De Senectute, c. 7; Tennemann, Vol. IV. p. 444.
[125] Cic. De Officiis III. 2; De Nat. Deor. I. 3; Suidas: s. v.
Posidonius, T. III. p. 159.
[126] Aul. Gell. Noct. Att. I. 2 (Gronovius ad h. 1.); II. 18; XV. 11;
XIX. 1.
[127] Stob. Eclog. phys. I. p. 32.
[128] Diog. Laërt. VII. 136, 142, 156, 157; Plutarch, de plac. philos.
IV. 21.
[129] Diog. Laërt. VII. 135; Stob. Eclog. phys. I. p. 178.
[130] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. IX. 101-103.
[131] Diog. Laërt. VII. 137.
[132] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 234; Diog. Laërt. VII. 138-140, 147,
148.
[133] Diog. Laërt. VII. 54, 46; Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 227-230.
[134] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VIII. 403, sqq.; cf. Senec. Epist. 107.
[135] Diog. Laërt. VII. 63; Sext. Emp. adv. Math. VIII. 70.
[136] Diog. Laërt. VII. 79, 80, 83.
[137] Cicer. De Officiis I. 3, III.; Diog. Laërt. VII. 98, 99.
[138] Diog. Laërt. VII. 94.
[139] Diog. Laërt. VII. 127, 128; Cicer. Paradox, 2.
[140] Cicer. De finibus III. 13; Tusculan. Quæst. II. 25.
[141] Diog. Laërt. VII. 107, 108.
[142] Plutarch. De Stoicorum repugnantia, p. 1031 (ed. Xyl.); Stob.
Eclog. ethic. P. II. p. 110 Diog. Laërt. VII. 125.
[143] Diog. Laërt. VII. 121, 122, 116, 117, 129; Sext. Empir. adv.
Math. XI. 190-194.
[144] Tacit. Annal. XIV. 53; XIII. 42, 3.
[145] Diog. Laërt. X. 1-8, 10-15; Cic. De Nat. Deor. I. 26; De Finibus,
II. 25; Bruck. Hist. Crit. Phil. T. I. pp. 1230, 1231, 1233, 1236;
Sext. Emp. adv. Math. X. 18; I. 3.
[146] Diog. Laërt. X. 11, 24, 9; IV. 43; Cic. De Finib. V. 1; Euseb.
Præp. evangel. XIV. 5.
[147] Diog. Laërt. X. 26.
[148] Diog. Laërt. X. 31.
[149] Diog. Laërt. X. 31, 32.
[150] Diog. Laërt. X. 33.
[151] Diog. Laërt. X. 33, 34.
[152] Diog. Laërt. X. 34.
[153] Diog. Laërt. X. 48, 49.
[154] Diog. Laërt. X. 50, 51.
[155] Diog. Laërt. X. 54, 55.
[156] Diog. Laërt. X. 55-58.
[157] Diog. Laërt. X. 43, 44, 60, 61; Cic. De fato, c. 10; De finibus,
l. 6; Plutarch. De animæ procreat. e Timæo, p. 1015.
[158] Diog. Laërt. X. 78-80, 86, 87, 93-96, 101, 97.
[159] Diog. Laërt. X. 113, 114.
[160] Cicer. De natura Deorum, I. 20.
[161] Diog. Laërt. X. 66, 63, 64.
[162] Diog. Laërt. X. 141-143.
[163] Diog. Laërt. X. 122, 123, 139.
[164] Cicer. De nat. Deor. I. 17, 19, 20.
[165] Cicer. De divinat. II. 17; De nat. Deor. I. 8.
[166] Diog. Laërt. X. 124, 125, 127.
[167] Diog. Laërt. X. 127-132 (119, 135).
[168] Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 33, § 220.
[169] Diog. Laërt. IV. 28-33, 36-38, 42, 44; Bruck. Hist. crit. phil.
T. I. p. 746; Tennemann, Vol. IV. p. 443; Cic. De finib. II. 1.
[170] Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 33, § 232; Diog. Laërt. IV. 32.
[171] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 154.
[172] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 154-156.
[173] Diog. Laërt. IV. 62, 65; Tennemann, Vol. IV. pp. 334, 443, 444;
Cicer. Acad. Quæst. II. 6; Valer. Maxim. VIII. 7, ext. 5.
[174] Plutarch. Cato major, c. 22; Gell. Noct. Attic. VII. 14; Cic. De
orat. II. 37, 38; Aelian. Var. hist. III. 17; Bruck. Hist. crit. phil.
T. I. p. 763.
[175] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 159, 160.
[176] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 160, 161.
[177] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 161-164, 402.
[178] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 165.
[179] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 166-169.
[180] Ibid. 166, 167.
[181] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 173-175.
[182] Ibid. 176, 177; 187-189; 179.
[183] Ibid. 176, 177; 179; 187-189.
[184] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 181-184.
[185] As it is used here and shortly afterwards, “positive philosophy”
has quite an opposite meaning from what we have just seen it to bear in
two previous passages (p. 329), because speculation certainly stands
in opposition to dogmatism; and at the same time we must in Hegel
distinguish altogether this expression in its double significance from
the positivism so prevalent in modern times, which, merely escaping
from the necessity for thinking knowledge, finally throws itself into
the arms of revelation and simple faith, whether it tries to call
itself free thought or not.—[Editor’s note.]
[186] Lectures of 1825-1826.
[187] Diog. Laërt. IX. 71-73; cf. Vol. I. pp. 161, 246, 284.
[188] Diog. Laërt. IX. 61-65, 69, 70; Bruck. Hist. crit. phil. T. I.
pp. 1320-1323.
[189] Diog. Laërt. IX. 109.
[190] Diog. Laërt. IX. 116; Bruck. Hist. crit. phil. T. I. p. 1328.
[191] Bruck. Hist. crit. phil. T. II. pp. 631-636.
[192] Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 39, §§ 221-225.
[193] Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 3, § 7; Diog. Laërt. IX. 69, 70.
[194] Cf. _supra_, p. 212.
[195] Diog. Laërt. IX. 68.
[196] Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hypot. I. c. 8, § 17.
[197] Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 14, §§ 40-44.
[198] Sext. Emp, Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 14, §§ 79-82, 85-89.
[199] Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 14, §§ 91, 92.
[200] Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 14, §§ 100, 112.
[201] Ibid, §§ 118-120.
[202] Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 14, §§ 124-126.
[203] Ibid. §§ 129-131, 133.
[204] Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 14, §§ 141-144.
[205] Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 14, §§ 145, 148, 149.
[206] Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 15, §§ 164-169. (Diog. Laërt. IX. 88, 89.)
[207] Bruck. Hist. crit. philos. T. II. pp. 797, 799, et notæ; Phil.
De legatione ad Cajum, p. 992 (ed. Francf. 1691): Joseph. Antiq. Jud.
XVIII. c. 10, p. 649; Euseb. Hist, eccles. II. c. 18; _cf._ Fabric
Biblioth. Gr. Vol. III. p. 115 (Hamburg, 1708).
[208] Phil. De confusione linguarum, p. 358; De special. legib. II. pp.
806, 807; De mundi opificio, p. 15; De migratione Abrahami, pp. 393,
417, 418; Quis. rer. divin. hæres. p. 518; Quod Deus sit immutabilis,
pp. 301, 302; De monarchia, I. p. 816; De nominum mutatione, p. 1045;
De Cherub. p. 124; De somniis, p. 576.
[209] Phil. De somniis, pp. 574, 575; Liber legis allegoriarum, I. p.
48; Quod Deus sit immut. p. 298.
[210] Phil. De mundi opificio, pp. 4-6; De agricultura, p. 195; De
somniis, pp. 597, 599.
[211] Phil. Leg. allegor. I. p. 46, et II. p. 93; Quod deterius potiori
insidiari soleat, p. 165; De temulentia, p. 244; De somniis, pp. 578,
586, 588; De confus. ling. pp. 341, 345; Euseb. Præp. ev. VII. c. 13;
Phil. De vita Mosis, III. p. 672; De sacrif. Abel., p. 140.
[212] Buhle: Lehrbuch d. Gesch. d. Phil. Pt. IV. p. 124; Phil. De mundi
opificio, p. 5.
[213] Phil. De mund. opific. p. 4; De victimas offerentibus, p. 857
(Buhle, ibid. p. 125).
[214] De mundi opificio, pp. 5, 6 (Brucker Hist. crit. phil. Tom. II.
pp. 802, 803).
[215] Brucker Hist. crit. phil. T. II. pp. 834-840, 924-927.
[216] Irira: Porta c\nlorum, Dissertatio I. c. 4; c. 6, § 13 et c. 7, §
2; IV. c. 4, sqq.; II. c. 1; V. c. 7, 8; Tiedemann: Geist der speculat.
Philosophie, Pt. III. pp. 149, 150, 155-157; Buhle: Lehrbuch der Gesch.
der Phil. Pt. IV. pp. 156, 162, 160, 157.
[217] Neander: Genetische Entwickelung der vornehmsten gnostischen
Systeme, pp. 10, 33, 34; Philo De nominum mutat. p. 1046.
[218] Neander: Genet. Entwickelung, &c., pp. 168, 170, 171.
[219] Neander: Genet. Entwickelung, &c., pp. 94-97.
[220] Ibid. pp. 160, 10-13; Phil. Quod Deus sit immut. p. 304.
[221] Cf. Buhle, Lehrb. d. Gesch. d. Phil. Pt. IV. pp. 195-200.
[222] Brucker, Hist. crit. phil. T. II. pp. 205, 213, 214.
[223] Porphyrius, Vita Plotini (præmissa Ennead. Plot. Basil. 1580),
pp. 2, 3, 5-8; Brucker, Hist. crit. phil. T. II. pp. 218-221;
Tiedemann, Geist d. spec. Phil. Vol. III. p. 272; Buhle, Lehrb. d.
Gesch. d. Phil. Pt. IV. p. 306.
[224] Cf. Plotin. Ennead. I. l. 6, c. 7; IV. l. 4, c. 39-43; Procli
Theol. Plat. I. pp. 69, 70 (ed. Aem. Portus, Hamburg, 1618).
[225] Plot. Ennead. IV. l. 8, c. 1; cf. _ibidem_, c. 4-7.
[226] Plot. Ennead. III. l. 6, c. 6; VI. l. 9, c. 1, 2; III. l. 8, c. 8.
[227] This Aristotelian word, and also ἐξέρτηται (Procl. Theol. Plat.
III. p. 133), often occur in the Neo-Platonists.
[228] Plot. Ennead. I. l. 8: Περὶ τοῦ τίνα καὶ πόθεν τὰ κακά, c. 2 (VI.
l. 9, c. 6); III. l. 8, c. 9, 10.
[229] Plot. Ennead. V. l. 3, c. 13, 14; l. 2, c. 1; VI. l. 2, c. 9, 10;
l. 8, c. 8, 9; l. 9, c. 3, VI. l. 9, c. 6; l. 8, c. 7 (13, 21).
[230] Steinhart: Quæstiones de dialectica Plotini ratione, p. 21;
Plotini Ennead. VI. l. 9, c. 1-9, _passim_.
[231] Plot. Ennead. III. l. 8, c. 10 fin.; IV. l. 3, c. 17; V. l. 1, c.
4, 5; c. 7; l. 4, c. 2; l. 5, c. 1.
[232] Plot. Ennead. V. l. 1, c. 6 (IV. l. 3, c. 17).
[233] Plot. Ennead. V. l. 2, c. 1; l. 1, c. 7; VI. l. 9, c. 2.
[234] Plot. Ennead. V. l. 3, c. 5; VI. l. 2, c. 8; II. l. 4, c. 4; VI.
l. 4, c. 2; V. l. 9, c. 8, 9.
[235] Plot. Ennead. VI. l. 2, c. 2; V. l. 9, c. 8.
[236] Plot. Ennead. IV. l. 3, c. 17.
[237] Plot. Ennead. V. l. 1, c. 7; l. 2, c. 1, 2; l. 6, c. 4; VI. l. 2,
c. 22.
[238] Plot. Ennead. V. l. 3, c. 5; ἕν ἅμα πάντα ἔσται, νοῦς, νόησις, τὸ
νοητόν.
[239] Plot. Ennead. II. l. 9, c. 1-3, 6.
[240] If we were to translate this by “in the intelligible world,” the
expression would be misleading; for “the world” is nowhere. Neither may
we say, “intelligible things,” as if there were things of some other
kind; such distinctions and definitions are nowhere found.
[241] Plot. Ennead. II. l. 4, c. 4, 12-15; l. 5, c. 2-5.
[242] Plot. Ennead. I. l. 8, c. 2, 3.
[243] Instead of δεῖ in the sentence οὐ γὰρ δεῖ τὸ εἰπεῖν we should
certainly read δή, or something of the kind.
[244] Buhle, Lehrb. d. Gesch. d. Phil. Part IV. pp. 418, 419;
Tiedemann, Geist. d. spec. Phil. Vol. III. pp. 421-423; cf. Plotini
Ennead. IV. l. 3 et 8 passim.
[245] Buhle, Lehrb. d. Gesch. d. Phil. Part IV. pp. 419, 420.
[246] Brucker: Hist. crit. phil. T. II. pp. 248, 268.
[247] Cf. Procli. Theol. Plat. III. p. 140.
[248] Brucker: Hist. cr. phil. T. II. p. 320; Tennemann, Vol. VI. pp.
284-289; Marinus: Vita Procli, passim (præm. Theol. Plat.).
[249] Procli Institutionis theologicæ, c. 26.
[250] Procli Institut. theol. c. 27; Theol. Plat. III. p. 119; II. pp.
101, 102; III. p. 121; Institut. theol. c. 5.
[251] Procli Institut. theol. c. 1-2; c. 28; Theol. Plat. III. pp. 118,
122-125; II. pp. 108, 109.
[252] Procli Theol. Plat. III. pp. 123-124.
[253] Procli Theol. Plat. III. pp. 141, 127; Instit. theol. c. 192.
[254] It is doubtful whether the καὶ should not be omitted, so that ἡ
ἁκρότης τῶν ὄντων would stand in apposition to νοῦς.
[255] Procli Theol. Plat. III. p. 144 (VI. p. 403); Instit. theol. c.
124, 170.
[256] Procli Theol. Plat. I. pp. 69, 70.
[257] Brucker: Hist. cr. phil. T. II. pp. 350, 347; Joan. Malala: Hist.
chron. P. II. p. 187; Nic. Alemannus ad Procopii anecdot. c. 26. p. 377.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE:
—Obvious print and punctuation errors were corrected.