«Жизнь Пифагора»

«В первую очередь, поистине, необходимо, чтобы тот, кто намеревается приобрести это очищение, как основание и базис его, знал себя как душу, связанную в чужеродной вещи и в иной сущности. Во вторую очередь, как то, что воздвигнуто из этого основания, он должен собрать себя из тела и как бы из разных мест, чтобы быть расположенным образом совершенно бесстрастным по отношению к телу. Ибо тот, кто действует непрерывно согласно чувству, хотя он может не делать этого с прилипающей аффекцией и наслаждением, проистекающим из удовольствия, тем не менее в то же время его внимание рассеивается о тело, вследствие становления через чувство в контакте с ним. Но мы пристрастны к удовольствиям или болям чувственного, в соединении с готовностью и сходящейся симпатией; от какового расположения необходимо быть очищенным. Это, однако, будет осуществлено путем допущения необходимых удовольствий и ощущений их, лишь как средств или как освобождения от боли, чтобы [разумная часть] не была затруднена [в своих энергиях]. Боль также должна быть отнята. Но если это невозможно, она должна быть мягко уменьшена. И она будет уменьшена, если душа не со-пассивна с ней. Гнев, точно так же, должен быть насколько возможно отнят; и ни в коем случае не должен быть предумышленным. Но если он не может быть полностью удален, сознательный выбор не должен быть смешан с ним, но непредумышленное движение должно быть импульсом иррациональной части. То, однако, что непредумышленно, слабо и мало. Всякий страх, точно так же, должен быть изгнан. Ибо тот, кто приобретает это очищение, не будет бояться ничего. Здесь, однако, если это должно произойти, оно будет непредумышленным. Гнев, следовательно, и страх должны быть использованы для цели увещевания. Но желание всякой вещи низкой должно быть истреблено. Такой человек также, насколько он является очистительным философом, не будет желать мяса и питья. Также не должно быть непредумышленного в естественных венерических связях; но если это должно произойти, это должно быть только до того поспешного воображения, которое действует во сне. Короче говоря, интеллектуальная душа самого очищенного человека должна быть освобождена от всех этих [телесных склонностей]. Он должен также стараться, чтобы то, что движется к иррациональной природе телесных страстей, двигалось без симпатии и без замечания; так чтобы сами движения были немедленно растворены через их близость к разумной силе. Это, однако, не произойдет, пока очищение движется к своему совершенству; но случится с теми, в ком разум правит без сопротивления. Отсюда в них низшая часть будет так почитать разум, что она будет негодовать, если она вообще движется, вследствие не-пребывания в тишине, когда присутствует ее господин, и будет упрекать себя за свою слабость. Это, однако, еще только умеренности страстей, но в конце концов они завершаются апатией, ибо когда со-пассивность полностью истреблена, тогда апатия присутствует с тем, кто очищен от нее. Ибо страсть становится движимой, когда разум придает возбуждение, через склонение [к иррациональной природе]».

Стр. 279. Теоремами философии следует наслаждаться, насколько возможно, как если бы они были амброзией и нектаром и т.д.

Это изречение в оригинале Арцерия таково: των κατα φιλοσοφιαν θεωρηματων απολαυστεον, εφ’ οσον οιον, καθαπερ αμβροσιας και νεκταρος· ακηρατον τε γαρ το απ’ αυτων ηδυ και το θειον το μεγαλοψυχον δυναται τε ποιειν, και ει μη αïδιους, αïδιων γε επιστημονας.

В издании «Протрептика» Кисслинга, которое я не видел, пока большая часть этой работы не была напечатана, σοφιαν подставлено вместо φιλοσοφιαν, но, по моему мнению, весьма ошибочно; и этот немецкий редактор, не осознав необходимости читать ακηρατον τε γαρ το απ’ αυτων ηδυ και θειον, το μεγαλοψυχον, к. л. вместо сохранения чтения Арцерия, сделал бессмыслицей эту часть изречения. Ибо его версия его такова: «Nam et sincera est eorum dulcedo, et divinam naturam, animum magnum efficere possunt».

СНОСКИ

[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, «Сколько бед я встречаю,

На пути к Престолу милосердия!»

[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.

КОНЕЦ.

Примечания транскрибера

Молча исправлено несколько опечаток.

Сохранена информация о публикации из печатного издания: эта электронная книга является общественным достоянием в стране публикации.

Добавлено оглавление, основанное на заголовках глав в тексте.

Только в текстовых версиях текст курсивом выделен _нижними подчеркиваниями_.