[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.
[25]For αυτα here I read, conformably to the version of Obrechtus, αλλα.
[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.
[31]This history is copiously narrated in chap. 33.
[32]See chap. 33.
[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_.
[60]For ου μετριαν here, I read ασυμμετριαν.
[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.
[63]For επιπρεπειαν here, I read απρεπειαν.
[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.
[74]For νοηται in this place, I read φυεται.
[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.
[110]Instead of κατ’ αυτην here, it is necessary to read κατ’ αισθησιν.