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 (tape???? ??s??.) 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, ??t??d???? te ? T??s?? t?? pat??? ?p??a???, 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 ?d? p?es?t?? ??ta, “being now an elderly man.”
[52]In the original a??at??, 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, ?a? t?? ??? a?adast?? ep???sa?, 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, ??de? ?a? a?ta??e?, ? t??t?? t?? ????? p??e? t? ????. 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 ?f?a??? he adds f?s???, but he should evidently have added a?eta, as in the above translation.
[59]In the original s?? t? ???d?????, which Canter very defectively translates, videndi facultate.
[60]For ?? et??a? here, I read as?et??a?.
[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 e?t???a 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: d?a de t? p??sde?s?a? t?? t????, d??e? t?s? ta?t?? e??a? ? e?t???a t? e?da?????, ??? ??sa· epe? ?a? a?t? ?pe?a????sa, ep?d??? est?. 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 ep?p?epe?a? here, I read ap?epe?a?.
[64]In the original, ?ste ??dep??a de? ?a?a??e?, e? pa?t’ a?test?ae??? e????a ????eta?, ta? a?????a? d?a?es??? etap?pt??sa?, which Canter erroneously translates as follows: “Quocirca mirandum non est, si cuncta nonnunquam, ver 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 a???e?d??, or luciform, throughout diaphanous, and of a star-like nature. Hence Marcus Antoninus beautifully observes: sfa??a ????? a?t?e?d??, (lege a???e?d??) ?ta? ?te e?te???ta? ep? t?, ?te es? s??t?e?? ?te s????a??, a??a f?t? ?ap?ta?, ? t?? a???e?a? ??? t?? pa?t??, ?a? t?? e? a?t?. 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 ????st??? should be written in this place for a????. Canter however was right in retaining a????. 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, a de d??a??, ???? a??a t?? t? s?a?e??, ? ?f?stae?a, ?a? ee??e? t??? p?a?as??. This sentence in its present state is certainly unintelligible. For s?a?e?? therefore, I read f?se??, 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 ep?da?; on which Gale observes, “Forte aa??a?, nisi aliud subsit mysterium.” But it appears to me that there is no occasion to substitute any other word for ep?da?. For in the education of youth, it is certainly requisite to unite allurement with erudition. And the substitution of aa??a?, ignorance, is monstrous.
[73]In the original a?ta ?a? a d?e?e????sa, instead of which Gale proposes to read a?ta ?a? ade e?e????sa, which still leaves the sentence involved in obscurity. But if for d?e?e????sa we read d???????sa as in the above translation, the meaning is clear.
[74]For ???ta? in this place, I read f?eta?.
[75]Neither of the Latin translators North and Arcerius have understood this passage, and therefore have erroneously translated it. For the original is: ?a? pa?ta ta e? t? s?st???e?? ?a? ta?e? ta e?e???? ?ata?e????se?a. 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 pepa?de?e??? eruditus, and not p?st?? 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,” t?? aa??? ??e?d?? e??a? t?? ???; and this in the sentences of Sextus is, “Hominum infidelium vita, opprobrium est.” If, therefore, Ruffinus translates aa???, infidelium, there is every reason to suppose that he would translate pepa?de?e???, 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 ? as 9 to 8.
[106]In Mathemat. p. 147.
[107]Instead of pe??tt??ta?, it is necessary to read pe?at??ta?; 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 ?a? d??a??s??? are omitted in the original. But it is evident from Plotinus, that they ought to be inserted.
[110]Instead of ?at’ a?t?? here, it is necessary to read ?at’ a?s??s??.
