Chapter II: Part 2

“How, therefore, can the knowledge which originates from sense possess the accurate and the irreprehensible? For the powers which use science alone, comprehend the whole of the thing known with accuracy; but those that energise with sense, are deceived, and deviate from accuracy, on account of sense, and because the object of knowledge is unstable. For, with respect to that which is material, what can any one say of it? since it is always changing and flowing, and is not naturally adapted to abide for a moment. But that which is celestial, in consequence of being remote from us, is not easily known, nor can it be apprehended by science, but we must be satisfied in the theory of it with an approximation to the truth, and with probability [instead of certainty]. For everything which is in place requires the being situated there, in order to a perfect knowledge of its nature. The intelligible, however, is not a thing of this kind, since it is not apprehended by us in place; for, wherever any one establishes his reasoning energy, there, truth being everywhere present, he comes into contact with it. But if it is possible to assert anything firm and stable about that which is celestial, this also is possible, so far as it participates of being, and so far as it can be apprehended by intelligence. For, if anything necessary can be collected concerning it, it is alone through geometrical demonstrations which are universal. But so far as it is sensible, it is difficult to be apprehended, and difficult to be surveyed.”—See the first volume of my translation of Proclus on the Timæus of Plato, p. 291.

In p. 293, he also observes, “that perfectly accurate arguments, and such as are truly scientific, are not to be expected in physical discussions, but such as are assimilated to them. It is besides this requisite to know, that as the world is mingled from physical powers, and an intellectual and divine essence; for “physical works, as the [Chaldean] Oracle says, co-subsist with the intellectual light of the father;” thus, also, the discussion of the world makes a commixture of faith and truth. For things which are assumed from sense participate largely of conjectural discussion; but things which commence from intelligibles, possess that which is irreprehensible, and cannot be confuted.” And, lastly, in p. 296, he adds, “that the want of accuracy in the theory of the images of being, arises from our imbecility; for, to the knowledge of them we require imagination, sense, and many other organs. But the Gods contractedly contain these in their unity and divine intellection; for, in sublunary natures, we are satisfied in apprehending that which, for the most part, takes place on account of the instability of their subject matter. But again, in celestial natures, we are filled with much of the conjectural, through employing sense and material instruments. On this account we must be satisfied with proximity in the apprehension, of them, since we dwell remotely at the bottom, as it is said, of the universe. This also is evident from those that are conversant with them, who collect the same things respecting them from different hypotheses; some things, indeed, through eccentrics, others through epicycles, and others through evolvents, [in all these] preserving the phænomena.”

Shuttleworth, in his Astronomy, has demonstrated that the celestial phænomena may be solved by the hypotheses of Ptolemy and Tycho Brahe, equally as well as by those of Copernicus. But astronomers of the present day, from not being skilled in the logic of Aristotle, are not aware that true conclusions may be deduced from false premises; and hence, because their theory solves the phænomena, they immediately conclude that it is true. Aristotle, in his Posterior Analytics, has incontrovertibly shown, that the things from which demonstrative science consists, must be necessarily true, the causes of, more known than, and prior to the conclusion. But where the premises of a syllogism are false, the conclusion is not _scientifically_, i. e. _necessarily_, true. Thus in the syllogism, Every stone is an animal; every man is a stone; therefore every man is an animal,—the conclusion is true, but not _scientific_.

_Note to p. 14._—Ocellus is wrong in ascribing two powers only to each of the elements, instead of three, as is clearly shown by Proclus, in the following extract from his admirable Commentary on the Timæus of Plato. “There are some physiologists (says he) who ascribe one power to each of the elements; to fire indeed heat, to air frigidity, to water moisture, and to earth dryness; in so doing, entirely wandering from the truth. In the first place, because they subvert the world and order. For it is impossible for things to be co-adapted to each other, when they possess the most contrary powers, unless they have something in common. In the next place, they make the most contrary natures allied to each other, viz. the hot to the cold, and the moist to the dry[26]. It is necessary, however, to make things which are hostile more remote than things which are less foreign. For such is the nature of contraries. In the third place, therefore, the first two powers will have no sympathy whatever with the rest, but will be divulsed[27] from each other. For it is impossible to say what is common to humidity and frigidity. And in addition to all these things, as the elements are solids, they will not be conjoined to each other by any medium. It has however been shown that it is not possible for solids to be conjoined through one medium. Nor can they be conjoined without a medium. For this is alone the province of things that are perfectly without interval.

“But some others, as Ocellus, who was the precursor of Timæus, attribute two powers to each of the elements; to fire indeed heat and dryness; to air, heat and moisture; to water, moisture and coldness; and to earth, coldness and dryness. And these things are written by this man in his treatise On Nature. In what, therefore, do these err who thus speak? In the first place, indeed, wishing to discover the common powers in the elements, in order that they may preserve the co-arrangement of them with each other, they no more assign communion than separation to them, but equally honour their hostility and their harmony. What kind of world, therefore, will subsist from these; what order will there be of things which are without arrangement and most foreign, and of things which are most allied and co-arranged? For things which in an equal degree are hostile and peaceful, will in an equal mode dissolve and constitute communion. But this communion being similarly dissolved, and similarly implanted, the universe will no more exist than not exist. In the second place, they do not assign the greatest contrariety to the extremes, but to things most remote from the extremes; though we everywhere see, that of homogeneous natures, those which are most distant have the nature of contraries, and not those which are less distant. How likewise did nature arrange them, since they are most remote in their situation from each other? Was it not by perceiving their contrariety, and that the third was more allied than the last to the first? How, also, did she arrange the motions of them, since fire is most light and tends upward, but earth is most heavy and tends downward? But whence were the motions of them which are most contrary derived, if not from nature? If, therefore, nature distributed to them most contrary motions, it is evident that they are themselves most contrary. For as the motions of simple beings are simple, and those things are simple of which the motions are simple, thus also those things are most contrary of which the motions are most contrary. And this may occasion some one to wonder at Aristotle, who, in what he says about motion, places earth as most contrary to fire; but in what he says about powers, he makes the most remote of similar natures to be more friendly than those that are proximate, when they are moved with most contrary motions. For, as the elements have contrary places in their positions, as they have contrary motions in lations, as they have contrary powers, gravity and levity, through which motions subsist in their forms, thus also they have contrary passive qualities. Aristotle himself likewise manifests that earth is contrary to fire. For wishing to show that it is necessary there should be more bodies than one, he says: “Moreover, if earth exists, it is also necessary that fire should exist. For in things, one of the contraries of which naturally is, the other likewise has a natural subsistence.” So that neither was he able after any other manner to show that there are more elements than one, than by asserting that fire is contrary to earth.

“Further still, as the elements are solids, how can they be bound together through one medium? For this is impossible in solids, as we have before observed. Hence those who assert these things, neither speak mathematically nor physically, but unavoidably err in both these respects. For physical are derived from mathematical entities. _Timæus therefore alone, or any other who rightly follows him, neither attributes one or two powers alone to the elements, but triple powers; to fire indeed tenuity of parts, acuteness, and facility of motion; to air, tenuity of parts, obtuseness, and facility of motion; to water, grossness of parts, obtuseness, and facility of motion; and to earth, grossness of parts, obtuseness, and difficulty of motion._ But this is in order that each of the elements may have two powers, each[28] of which is common to the element placed next to it, and one power which is different, in the same manner as it was demonstrated in mathematical numbers and figures; this different power being assumed from one of the extremes; and also in order that earth, according to all the powers, may subsist oppositely to fire; and that the extremes may have two media, and the continued quantities two; the latter having solids for the media, but the former, common powers. For let fire indeed be attenuated in its parts, acute, and easily moved. For it has an attenuated essence, and is acute, as having a figure of this kind [i. e. a pyramidal figure], and on this account is incisive and fugitive[29], and permeates through all the other elements. It is also moved with facility[30], as being most near to the celestial bodies, and existing in them. For the celestial fire itself is moved with celerity, as is likewise sublunary fire, which is perpetually moved in conjunction with it, and according to one circle, and one impulse. Since, therefore, earth is contrary to fire, it has contrary powers, viz. grossness, obtuseness, and difficulty of motion, all which we see are present with it. But these being thus hostile, and being solids, are also similar solids. For their sides and their powers are analogous. For as the gross is to the attenuated, so is the obtuse to the acute, and that which is moved with difficulty, to that which is moved with facility. But those are similar solids of which the sides that constitute the bodies are analogous. _For the sides are the powers of which bodies consist._ Hence, as fire and earth are similar bodies, and similar solids, two analogous media fall between them; and each of the media will have two sides of the extremes situated next to it, and the remaining side from the other extreme. Hence, since fire has for its three physical sides the triple powers, tenuity, acuteness, and facility of motion, by taking away the middle power, acuteness, and introducing instead of it obtuseness, we shall produce air, which has two sides of fire, but one of earth, or two powers of fire, but one of earth; as it is fit that what is near should rather communicate with it, than what is separated in the third rank from it.

“Again, since earth has three physical powers, contrary to the powers of fire, viz. grossness of parts, obtuseness, and difficulty of motion; by taking away difficulty of motion, and introducing facility of motion, we shall produce water, which consists of gross parts, is obtuse, and is easily moved; and which has indeed two sides or powers common with earth, but receives one from fire. And thus these media will be spontaneously conjoined with each other; communicating indeed in twofold powers, but differing in similitude by one power; and the extremes will be bound together by two media. Each element also will thus be in a greater degree conjoined to, than separated from, the element which is near to it; and one world will be perfectly effected through all of them, and one harmonious order, through the predominance of analogy. Thus also, of the two cubes 8 and 27, the medium 12 being placed next to 8, will have two sides of this, but one side of 27. For 12 is produced by 2 × 2 × 3. But it is vice versâ with 18. For this is produced by 3 × 3 × 2. And the side of 27 is 3, in the same manner as 2 is the side of 8. The physical dogmas, therefore, of Plato, about the elements of the universe, accord with mathematical speculations.”

In the Introduction to my Translation of the Timæus of Plato, I have added the following numbers, for the purpose of representing this beautiful distribution of the elements, by Proclus, arithmetically.

Let the number 60 represent fire, and 480 earth; and the media between these, viz. 120 and 240, will correspond to air and water. For, as 60 : 120 :: 240 : 480. But 60 = 3 × 5 × 4, 120 = 3 × 10 × 4, 240 = 6 × 10 × 4, and 480 = 6 × 10 × 8. So that these numbers will correspond to the properties of the elements as follows:

Fire. Air.
3 × 5 × 4 3 × 10 × 4 ::
Subtle, acute, moveable. Subtle, blunt, moveable.

Water. Earth.
6 × 10 × 4 : 6 × 10 × 8.
Dense, blunt, moveable. Dense, blunt, immoveable.

“Hence,” Proclus adds, “these things being thus determined, let us physically adapt them to the words of Plato. We call a [physical] plane or superficies, therefore, that which has two powers only, but a [physical] solid that which has three powers. And we say, that if we fashion bodies from two powers, one medium would conjoin the elements to each other. But since, as we assert, bodies possess triple powers, they are bound together by two media. For there are two common powers of the adjacent media, and one power which is different. And the extremes themselves, if they consisted of two powers, would be conjoined through one medium. For let fire, if you will, be alone attenuated and easily moved; but earth, on the contrary, have alone grossness of parts and immobility. One medium, therefore, will be sufficient for these. For grossness of parts and facility of motion, and tenuity of parts and difficulty of motion, are all that is requisite to the colligation of both. Since, however, each of the elements is triple, the extremes require two media, and the things themselves that are adjacent are bound together through two powers. For solids, and these are things that have triple contrary powers, are never co-adapted by one medium.”

FOOTNOTES:

[26] For το εναντιωτατα here, read τα εναντιωτατα, and for τῳ θερμον τῳ ψυχρῳ, read το θερμον, κ. τ. λ.

[27] For απηρτημενα in this place, I read διῃρημενα.

[28] For μιαν here, it is obviously necessary to read ἑκατεραν.

[29] For ὑπατικον in this place, read ὑπακτικον.

[30] Instead of ακινητον here, it is necessary to read ευκινητον.

FRAGMENTS OF TAURUS, A PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER, ON THE ETERNITY OF THE WORLD.

EXTRACTED FROM PHILOPONUS AGAINST PROCLUS.

Taurus, in his Commentaries on the Timæus of Plato, says: “In the investigation, whether according to Plato the world is unbegotten, philosophers differ in their opinions. For Aristotle asserts that Timæus says the world was generated[31]. And Theophrastus also, in his treatise On Physical Opinions, says that, according to Plato, the world was generated, and therefore writes in opposition to him. At the same time, however, he asserts that Timæus perhaps supposed the world to be generated, for the sake of perspicuity. Certain other persons also infer, that, according to Plato, the world was generated. But, again, others contend that Plato believed the world to be unbegotten. Since, however, those who assert that the world was generated, cite many other words of Plato, and likewise the passage in which Plato[32] says, ‘the world was generated, for it is visible and tangible;’ this being the case, it is requisite to direct our attention to the different ways in which a thing is said to be generated, and thus we shall know that Plato asserts the world to be generated, not according to the signification in which we affirm this of things which derive their subsistence from a certain temporal beginning. For this it is which deceives the multitude, when they conceive the word _generated_ to imply a temporal origin. A thing, therefore, is said to be generated, which never indeed had a beginning in time, but yet is in the same genus with generated natures. Thus we call a thing visible, which is not seen, nor has been seen, nor will be seen, but yet is in the same genus with things of a visible nature. And this will take place with a body which may exist about the centre of the earth. That also is said to be generated, which, in mental conception, subsists as a composite, though it never has been a composite. Thus, in music, the middle chord is said to be composed of the lowest and highest chord. For though it is not thus composed, yet there is perceived in it the power of the one with reference to the other. The like also takes place in flowers and animals. In the world, therefore, composition and mixture are perceived; according to which, we are able to withdraw and separate qualities from it, and resolve it into a first subject. The world also is said to be generated, because it always subsists in becoming to be, like Proteus changing into all-various forms; hence, with respect to the world, the earth, and the natures, as far as to the moon, are continually changed into each other. But the natures above the moon are as to their subject nearly the same, sustaining only a small mutation. They change, however, according to figure; just as a dancer being one and the same according to subject, is changed into various forms by a certain gesture and motion of the hands. The celestial bodies, therefore, are thus changed, and different habitudes of them take place, between the motions of the planets with reference to the fixed stars, and of the fixed stars with respect to the planets.

“The world, likewise, may be said to be generated, because it derives its existence from something different from itself, viz. from God, by whom it is adorned. Thus, also, with those who directly admit that the world is perpetual, the moon possesses a generated light from the sun, though there never was a time when the former was not illuminated by the latter. If, therefore, some one asserts that the world is generated according to Plato, conformably to these significations of the word, what he says may be admitted. But so far as the term ‘generated’ signifies a certain time, and that the world, formerly not existing, was afterwards generated, this signification, when applied to the world, must by no means be granted. Plato himself, indeed, indicates how what he asserts is to be understood, when he says, ‘It must be investigated, whether the universe always was, having no principle whatever of generation, or whether it was generated, commencing its generation from a certain cause.’ For the words, ‘no principle whatever,’ and ‘from a certain cause,’ manifest he does not intend that a temporal principle should be assumed; but that what he says, is to be understood in the same way, as when we say that the history of the Ephori commenced in the descendants of Hercules. Others say, that the world had a beginning from the Demiurgus. For the Demiurgus is a principle, and so likewise is the paradigm of the universe, and matter. But matter cannot be properly said to be a principle. Again, Plato does not say that the world is a body, but that it has a body; indicating by this, that so far as it possesses a corporeal nature, the very being of which consists in _becoming to be_, it may be said to be generated.”

Again, Taurus, in the same Commentaries on the Timæus, having cited the following passage from that dialogue, viz. “We who are about to speak concerning the universe, whether it is generated, or without generation,” observes: “Plato says this, though the world is unbegotten. And the poet,

‘Though in their race posterior found,’

Plato, however, for the sake of discipline, speaks of the world which is unbegotten, as if it was generated.” Shortly after this, Taurus says, “What, therefore, are the causes through which the world being unbegotten, is supposed to be generated?” Both these inquiries[33], indeed, deserve to be philosophically investigated. For one of them excites to piety, but the other is assumed for the sake of elucidation. For Plato, knowing that the multitude apprehend that alone to be a cause which has a precedency in time, and not conceiving it to be possible for anything otherwise to be a cause, and also inferring, that, from this opinion, they might be led to disbelieve in the existence of Providence; wishing likewise to inculcate this dogma, that the world is governed by Providence, he tacitly manifests it to those who are abundantly able to understand that the world is unbegotten according to time; but to those who are not able to understand this, he indicates that it is generated. He is also anxious that they may believe this, in order that at the same time they may be persuaded in the existence of Providence. But the second cause which induced Plato thus to write, is this,—that assertions are then more clear, when we meet with them as with things which actually take place. Thus geometricians compose diagrams as if they were generated, though they are not composites. And Euclid defines a circle, as being more simple, to be a plane figure, comprehended under one line, to which all lines falling from one point within the figure are equal to each other. But wishing to explain a sphere, he defines it, as if it was among the number of things generated, to be formed by the revolution of a semicircle about the diameter, until it returns to the same point from which it began to be moved. If, however, he had intended to explain the sphere which already existed, he would have defined it to be a solid figure, comprehended under one superficies, to which all right lines falling from one point within the figure, are equal to each other. But it was usual with Plato, for the sake of discipline, to unfold things which are without generation[34], as if they were generated. Thus, in the Republic, he introduces the city as being made, in order that in the formation of it, the generation of justice might become more manifest. When, however, Theophrastus says, that perhaps Plato speaks of the world as generated for the sake of elucidation, just as we consider geometrical diagrams to be generated, perhaps generation does not subsist similarly in diagrams. Aristotle also asserts the same thing; for he says, that in diagrams it is not proper in the beginning to suppose contraries, but this is to be admitted in the generation of the world; just as if some one should suppose motion and rest, order and disorder. Neither, therefore, do all things require invariable paradigms; but the examples show that it is not more obvious to assert that the world is generated, than that it is unbegotten. But how is it possible to suppose contraries in diagrams? For can it be supposed that a triangle is at one and the same time stationary and moved? Hence, the world is, according to itself, unbegotten. Nor should any one fatigue himself in endeavouring to prove from the Atlanticus and Politicus of Plato, that the world is generated. For we have shown after what manner the world is unbegotten, and how it is said by Plato to be generated. So far, therefore, as it is supposed to be generated, it will be incorruptible through the will of God; but so far as it is unbegotten, it will be incorruptible from its own nature. And this Plato knew. For everything else that is unbegotten, is incorruptible.”

FOOTNOTES:

[31] Timæus, in the Dialogue which bears his name, is represented by Plato as saying this; for, speaking of the world, he says γεγονεναι, _it was generated_.

[32] See my Translation of the Commentaries of Proclus on the Timæus, vol. i. from p. 237 to p. 251. And also the Commentary of the same incomparable man on the words of Plato, in the same Dialogue, “But we say that whatever is generated, is necessarily generated by a certain cause.”—Vol. i. of my Translation, p. 249, &c.

[33] viz. Whether the world is unbegotten, or generated.

[34] The sentence in the original is: εθος δε Πλατωνι διδασκαλιας χαριν, ὡς γινομενα παραδιδοναι. But immediately after χαριν, it is obviously necessary to add αγενητα. Mahotius also, who published a Latin translation of this work of Philoponus, has, “Mos est autem Platoni, doctrinæ gratia, _quæ ortu carent_, perinde atque ea, quæ oriuntur, explicare.”

MUNDI THEMA, OR THE GENITURE OF THE WORLD.

TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD BOOK OF THE MATHESIS OF JULIUS FIRMICUS MATERNUS.

“O Lollianus, the glory and ornament of our country, it is requisite to know, in the first place, that the God, who is the fabricator of man, produced his form, his condition, and his whole essence, in the image and similitude of the world, nature pointing out the way[35]. For he composed the body of man, as well as of the world, from the mixture of the four elements, viz. of fire, water, air, and earth, in order that the conjunction of all these, when they were mingled in due proportion, might adorn an animal in the form of a divine imitation. And thus the Demiurgus exhibited man by the artifice of a divine fabrication, in such a way, that in a small body he might bestow the power and essence of all the elements, nature, for this purpose, bringing them together; and also, so that from the divine spirit, which descended from a celestial intellect, to the support of the mortal body, he might prepare an abode for man, which, though fragile, might be similar to the world. On this account, the five stars[36], and also the sun and moon, sustain man by a fiery and eternal agitation, as if he were a minor world[37]; so that the animal which was made in imitation of the world might be governed by an essence similarly divine. Hence those divine men Petosiris and Necepso[b], who deserve all possible admiration, and whose wisdom approached to the very penetralia of Deity, scientifically delivered to us the geniture of the world, that they might demonstrate and show that man was fashioned conformably to the nature and similitude of the world, and that he is under the dominion of the same principles by which the world itself is governed and contained, and is perennially supported by the companions of perpetuity[38].

“According to Æsculapius, therefore, and Anubius[39], to whom especially the divinity Mercury committed the secrets of the astrological science, the geniture of the world is as follows: They constituted the Sun in the 15th part of Leo, the Moon in the 15th part of Cancer, Saturn in the 15th part of Capricorn, Jupiter in the 15th part of Sagittary, Mars in the 15th part of Scorpio, Venus in the 15th part of Libra, Mercury in the 15th part of Virgo, and the Horoscope in the 15th part of Cancer. Conformably to this geniture, therefore, to these conditions of the stars, and the testimonies which they adduce in confirmation of this geniture, they are of opinion that the destinies of men, also, are disposed in accordance with the above arrangement, as may be learnt from that book of Æsculapius which is called Μυριογενεσις, (i. e. Ten Thousand, or an innumerable multitude of Genitures,) in order that nothing in the several genitures of men may be found to be discordant with the above-mentioned geniture of the world.

“We may see, therefore, how far or after what manner a star accommodates the testimony of its radiation to the luminaries. For the luminaries are the Sun and Moon. But Saturn first conjoins himself with the Moon: for he follows the condition of the Moon. He does this, however, because, being constituted in a feminine[40] sign, he diametrically receives the rays of the Moon, which is also constituted in a feminine sign. But when the same Saturn, in that geniture, makes a transition to the sign Aquarius, he again conjoins himself to the Sun by a similar radiation, and is again disposed in the same condition as that of the Sun. For being constituted in a masculine sign, he associates himself by an equal testimony of radiation, since he diametrically looks towards the Sun, with a radiation similar to that with which he regards the Moon. After this manner also Jupiter is constituted in Sagittary, and through a trigon affording a testimony to the Sun, first conjoins himself to his condition, and on this account being constituted in a masculine sign, and associating with the Sun, who is constituted in a sign of the same kind, first follows the power of it; but when he has made a transition to Pisces, he again conjoins himself in a like condition to the Moon. For he, in a similar manner, being posited through a trigon in a feminine sign, looks towards the Moon, who is constituted in a sign of the same kind, with an equal radiation of condition.

“In like manner also the planet Mars, being constituted in Scorpio, because he is in a feminine sign, through a trigon, affords a testimony to the Moon; but when he comes to Aries, he affords a testimony to the Sun, and making a transition, being placed in a masculine sign, he conjoins himself by a trigonic radiation with the Sun. This mode, however, is changeable; for Mars being constituted in Libra, which is a masculine sign, yet he affords a testimony to the Moon through a square aspect; but when he has made a transition to Taurus, being constituted in a feminine sign, and looking towards the Sun by a square radiation, he again affords a testimony to it. These [divine] men, however, were of opinion that the planet Mercury is common in the above-mentioned geniture, this star affording no testimony either to the Sun or Moon by a square, or a trigon, or a diameter; nor does it conjoin itself by radiation either with the Sun or Moon. But if Mercury is a morning star, he is delighted by day with the Sun, but if an evening star, by night with the Moon. All that we have here said, these men were of opinion ought to be observed in the genitures of men[41], and thought that they could not discover the destiny of man, except those radiations were collected by a sagacious investigation. Lest, however, the fabulous device[42] of these men should deceive you, and lest some one should think that this geniture of the world was contrived by these most wise men, without a cause, it is requisite that we should explain all things particularly, in order that the great sagacity displayed in this device, may, by the most diligent expositions, be intimated to all men.

“The world had not a certain day of its origin, nor was there any time in which the world was formed by the counsel of a divine intellect, and providential Deity; nor has the eager desire of human fragility been able to extend itself so far as to conceive or explain the origin of the world, especially since the greater apocatastasis of it, which is effected by a conflagration or a deluge[43], consists of 300,000 years[c]. For the mundane apocatastasis is accustomed to be accomplished by these two events; since a deluge follows a conflagration, because substances which are burnt can no otherwise be renovated and restored to their pristine appearance and form, than by the admixtions and the concrete dust of the ashes, which are a collection of generative seeds becoming prolific. Divine men, therefore, following the example of mathematicians in the genitures of men, have prudently devised this, as if it were the geniture of the world. Hence I deem it expedient to explain the contrivance of that divine composition, in order that the admirable reason of the conjectural scheme may be unfolded according to the rules of art.

“These divine men, therefore, wished so to constitute the Moon [in the geniture of the world], that it might conjoin itself with Saturn, and might deliver the dominion of periodical revolutions. Nor was this improperly devised. For because the first origin of the world[d] [i. e. the beginning of the first mundane period] was uncultivated and rude, and savage through rustic association, and also because barbarous men, having entered on the first vestiges of light, and which were unknown to them, were destitute of reason, in consequence of having abandoned humanity[44], these divine men were of opinion, that this rustic and barbarous time was Saturnian, that, in imitation of this star, the beginning of life might be characterized by barbaric and inhuman ferocity. After Saturn, Jupiter received periodical power. For to this planet the Moon was conjoined in the second place, in order that pristine and squalid rusticity being deserted, and the ferocity of rude association being laid aside, human life might be cultivated through the purification of the manners. In the third place, the Moon conjoining herself with Mars, delivered to him the power of periodical revolution; so that mortality having entered into the right path of life, and inhumanity being subdued by a certain moderation, all the ornaments of arts and fabrications might originate from this conjunction. After Mars, Venus received predominating power, in order that, human disciplines gradually increasing, prudence and wisdom might adorn mankind. Hence they were of opinion that this time, in which the manners of men were cultivated by learning, and naturally formed to rectitude by the several disciplines, was under the dominion of Venus; so that being protected by the majesty of this joyful and salutary divinity, they might govern their erroneous actions by the ruling power of Providence. But [these divine men] conceived the last period to be under the dominion of Mercury, to whom the Moon in the last place conjoins herself. What can be found more subtle than this arrangement? For mankind being purified from rude and savage pursuits, arts also having been invented, and disciplines disposed in an orderly manner, the human race sharpened its inventive power. And because the noble genius in man could not preserve [uniformly] one course of life, the improbity of evil increased from various institutes, and confused manners and the crimes of a life of wickedness prevailed: hence the human race in this period both invented and delivered to others more enormous machinations. On this account these wise men thought that this last period should be assigned to Mercury[e], so that, in imitation of that star, the human race might give birth to inventions replete with evil[45].

“That nothing, however, may be omitted by us requisite to the elucidation of this subject, all things are to be explained, which prove that man was formed in the imitation and similitude of the world[46]. And that the mundane apocatastasis is effected through a conflagration and a deluge, we also have asserted, and is confirmed by all men. The substance likewise of the human body, the course of life having received its completion, is, after a similar manner, dissolved. For as often as, through the natural ardour of heat, the human body is too much relaxed, it evaporates in consequence of the inundations of humours; and thus it always suffers a decoction from a fiery ardour, or is dissolved by excessive desudation. Nor do the wisest interpreters of the medical art assert, that the substance of the human race is dissolved by a natural termination in any other way, than by either moisture dissolving fire, or again heat predominating, fire being inwardly and deeply extinguished, is left without moisture. Thus the artificer, Nature, constituted man in an all-various imitation of the world, so that whatever dissolves, or forms the essence of the world, this also should be the cause of the formation and dissolution of man.”

FOOTNOTES:

[35] Nature may be said to point out the way, because its forerunning energy is employed by Divinity in the formation of bodies. By _the fabricator_, in the above sentence, Firmicus means Jupiter, who is called the _Demiurgus_ by Plato, in the Timæus.

[36] i. e. Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Mercury.

[37]

—— Quid mirum noscere mundum
Si possent homines, quibus est et mundus in ipsis;
Exemplumque Dei quisque est in imagine parva?

MANILIUS.

[38] By _the companions of perpetuity_, Firmicus means the stars, whose nature, and motions, and influences are perpetual. Hence, in the Orphic Hymn to the Stars, they are invoked as

—— αει γενετηρες απαντων,
“Th’ _eternal_ fathers of whate’er exists.”

[39] Of the astrological Æsculapius, I have not been able to obtain any information; and of Anubius nothing more is to be learnt than that he was a most ancient poet, and wrote an elegy de Horoscopo. Vid. Salmas. de Annis Climactericis, pp. 87, 602, &c.

[40] The feminine signs are, Taurus, Cancer, Virgo, Scorpio, Capricornus, and Pisces; but the masculine signs are, Aries, Gemini, Leo, Libra, Sagittarius, and Aquarius.

[41] It may not be altogether foreign to the purpose to adduce in this place, what is said by Hermes in his Treatise de Revolut. Nativit. lib. i. p. 215. A Latin translation only is extant of this work, and it is uncertain whether the author of it was the celebrated Hermes Trismegistus, or a Hermes of more modern times. This author says, that “the dominion of the planets over the ages of man is as follows: The Moon governs the first age, which consists of four years. Mercury governs the second, which consists of ten years. Venus the third, and this extends to eight years. The Sun the fourth, and this age consists of nineteen years. Mars the fifth, and this consists of fifteen years. Jupiter, the sixth, consists of twelve years: and Saturn governs the seventh age, and this extends to the remaining years of human life.”

Proclus, also, in his admirable Commentary on the First Alcibiades of Plato, observes, that the different ages of our life on the earth, correspond to the order of the universe. “For our first age (says he) partakes in an eminent degree of the Lunar energies, as we then live according to a nutritive and physical power. But our second age participates of Mercurial prerogatives, because we then apply ourselves to letters, music, and wrestling. The third age is governed by Venus, because then we begin to produce seed, and the generative powers of nature are put in motion. The fourth age is Solar, for then our youth is in its vigour and full perfection, subsisting as a medium between generation and decay; for such is the order which vigour is allotted. But the fifth age is governed by Mars, in which we principally aspire after power and superiority over others. The sixth age is governed by Jupiter, for in this we give ourselves up to prudence, and pursue an active and political life. And the seventh age is Saturnian, in which it is natural to separate ourselves from generation, and transfer ourselves to an incorporeal life. And thus much we have discussed, in order to procure belief that letters, and the whole education of youth, are suspended from the Mercurial series.”

[42] Firmicus calls the geniture of the world a _fabulous_ device, because it supposes the mundane periods to have had a temporal beginning, though they are in reality eternal. For in a fable, the _inward_ is different from the _outward_ meaning.

[43] In the greater apocatastasis of the world, which is effected by a deluge or a conflagration, the continent becomes sea, and the sea continent: “This, however,” says Olympiodorus, (in his Scholia on the first book of Aristotle’s Treatise on Meteors,) “happens in consequence of what is called _the great winter_, and _the great summer_. But _the great winter_ is when all the planets become situated in a wintry sign, viz. either in Aquarius or in Pisces. And _the great summer_ is when all of them are situated in a summer sign, viz. either in Leo or in Cancer. For as the Sun alone, when he is in Leo, causes summer, but when he is in Capricorn winter, and thus the year is formed, which is so denominated, because the Sun tends to one and the same point (ενιαυτος), for his restitution is from the same to the same,—in like manner there is an arrangement of all the planets effected in long periods of time, which produces the great year. For if all the planets becoming vertical, heat in the same manner as the sun, but departing from this vertical position refrigerate, it is not unreasonable to suppose, that when they become vertical, they produce _a great summer_, but when they have departed from this position, _a great winter_. In _the great winter_, therefore, the continent becomes sea, but in _the great summer_ the contrary happens, in consequence of the burning heat, and there being great dryness where there was moisture.” At the end too of this first book of Aristotle on Meteors, Olympiodorus observes, “that when _the great winter_ happens, a part of the earth being deluged, a change then takes place to a more dry condition, till _the great summer_ succeeds, which however does not cause the corruption of all the earth. For neither was the deluge of Deucalion mundane, since this happened principally in Greece.” See the volume of my Aristotle containing this Treatise on Meteors, p. 478, &c. Firmicus, therefore, is mistaken in asserting that a deluge follows a conflagration; since the contrary is true. For it is obviously necessary that places which have been inundated should afterwards become dry, or they would no longer be habitable.

[44] In the original, “positæ humanitatis ratio deserebat;” but for _positæ humanitatis_, it appears to me to be requisite to read, conformably to the above translation, _positâ humanitate_.

[45] Is not what is here said about the last period verified in the present age?

[46] Man, says Proclus, is a microcosm, and all such things subsist in him partially, as the world contains divinely and totally. For there is an intellect in us which is in energy, and a rational soul proceeding from the same father, and the same vivific goddess, as the soul of the universe; also an ethereal vehicle analogous to the heavens, and a terrestrial body derived from the four elements, and with which likewise it is co-ordinate. See my Translation of Proclus on the Timæus, vol. i, p. 4.

ADDITIONAL NOTES.

[b] _Page 50._—Petosiris and Necepso were two of the most ancient writers of Egyptian astrology, which, in many respects, differs from that of the Chaldeans. The former of these celebrated men is greatly applauded by Manetho, who, in his Apotelesmatica, professes to be his follower, and calls him πολυφιλτατον ανδρα. Petosiris, however, was much prior to Manetho, as is evident from Athenæus, iii. p. 114, who says he is mentioned by Aristophanes. He is also noticed by Ptolemy (in Tetrabiblo) under the appellation ‘of an ancient writer’ (του παλαιου or του αρχαιου). According to Suidas, he wrote, among other things which are unfortunately lost, Περι των παρ’ Αιγυπτιοις μυστηριων, _Concerning the Mysteries of the Egyptians_, the loss of which work must be deeply regretted by every lover of ancient lore. He is also mentioned by Juvenal, vi. 580.

“Aptior hora cibo nisi quam dederit Petosiris.”

And in a Greek epigram (in Anthol. lib. ii. cap. 6.) on a certain person who had predicted his death from the stars, and, in order that the prediction might not be falsified, hung himself, it is said: αισχυνθεις Πετοσιριν απηγξατο και μετεωρος θνησκει, &c. i. e.

“Lest Petosiris should incur disgrace,
Himself he strangled from a lofty place.”

Thus, too, it is related of Cardan, the celebrated physician and astrologer, that having predicted the year and day of his death, when the time drew near, he suffered himself to perish through hunger, to preserve his reputation. My worthy and most intelligent friend Mr. J. J. Welsh has furnished me with the following additional information concerning the death of Cardan, and other astrologers: “Respecting Cardan’s abstaining from food, in order to verify his prediction, Thuanus says: ‘Cum tribus diebus minus septuagesimum quintum annum implevisset, eodem quo prædixerat anno et die, videlicet XI. Kalend. Octobris defecit, ob id, ne falleret, mortem suâ inediâ accelerasse creditus.’ lib. lxii. p. 155. The same historian also relates, that Cardan brought astrology into repute by the success he had in calculating nativities. ‘Judiciaria quam vocant fidem apud multos adstruxit, dum certiora per eam quam ex arte possint plerumque promere.’ _Id. ib._ Cardan was not the only astrologer who foretold the time of his own death; for Martin Hortensius, Professor of Mathematics in Amsterdam, not only predicted the time of his own death, but that of two young men who were with him, and the result proved the truth of his prophecy. The fact is admitted by Descartes, while he ridicules the science and underrates the abilities of Hortensius. See the 35th of his Letters to Father Mersenne, in the second volume of that collection.

“When Ann of Austria, the wife of Louis XIII., was delivered of the Dauphin, afterwards Louis XIV., a famous German astrologer was in attendance to draw his nativity, but refused to say more than these three words, which give a true character of Louis the Fourteenth’s reign; _Diu, durè, feliciter_. See Limier’s Hist. du Règne de Louis XIV.

“I omitted to mention above, a curious circumstance related of Cardan in Lavrey’s Hist. of England, vol. i. p. 711, viz. that having cured the Archbishop of St. Andrew’s of a disorder which had baffled the most skilful physicians, he took his leave of the Primate in these words: ‘I have been able to cure you of your sickness, but cannot change your destiny, nor prevent you from being hanged.’ Eighteen years after, this Prelate was hung by order of the Commissioners appointed by Mary Queen Regent of Scotland.

“By the way, I am much surprised that Cardan’s autobiography has never been translated; for it is, without a single exception, the most extraordinary book of the kind ever published.”

We are informed by Fabricius, that Marsham, in Canone Chron. p. 477, has eruditely collected many things pertaining to Petosiris, and Necepso king of Egypt, from the most ancient writers on judicial astrology. We likewise learn from Fabricius, that Necepso, to whom Petosiris wrote, as being coeval with him, is believed to have flourished about the year 800 of the Attic æra, i. e. about the beginning of the Olympiads. He is praised by Pliny, by Galen, ix. p. 2. De Facultat. Simplicium Medicament., and from him by Aetius.

[c] _Page 56._—Proclus in Tim. lib. iv. p. 277, informs us, that the Chaldeans had observations of the stars, which embraced whole mundane periods. What Proclus likewise asserts of the Chaldeans is confirmed by Cicero in his first book on Divination, who says that they had records of the stars for the space of 370,000 years; and by Diodorus Siculus, Bibl. lib. xi. p. 113, who says, that their observations comprehended the space of 473,000 years.

Plato, in the Timæus, speaking of this greater apocatastasis, says: “At the same time, however, it is no less possible to conceive, that the perfect number of time will then accomplish a perfect year, when the celerities of all the eight periods being terminated with reference to each other, shall have a summit, as they are measured by the circle, of that which subsists according to the same and the similar [i. e. according to the sphere of the fixed stars].”

On this passage, Proclus, in his Commentary, observes as follows: “The whole mundane time measures the one life of the universe, according to which all the celerities are terminated of the celestial and sublunary circles. For in these also there are periods, which have for the summit of their apocatastasis the lation of the circle of _the same_ [i. e. of the sphere of the fixed stars]. For they are referred to this as to their principle, because it is the most simple of all, since the apocatastases are surveyed with reference to the points of it. Thus, for instance, all of them make their apocatastasis about the equinoctial point[47], or about the summer tropic; or though the joint apocatastasis should not be considered to be according to the same point, but with reference to the same, when, for instance, rising or culminating, yet all of them will have with reference to it a figure of such a kind. For now the present order is entirely a certain apocatastasis of all the heavenly bodies, yet the configuration is not seen about the same, but with reference to the same point. Once, however, it was about the same, and according to one certain point, at which if it should again take place, the whole of time will have an end. One certain apocatastasis likewise seems to have been mentioned; hence it is said that Cancer is the horoscope of the world, and this year is called Cynic, or pertaining to the Dog, because, among the constellations, the splendid star of the Dog rises together with Cancer. If therefore the planets should again meet in the same point of Cancer, this concurrence will be one period of the universe. If, however, the apocatastasis takes places in Cancer about the equinoctial point, that also which is from the summer tropic will be directed towards the summer tropic, and the number of the one will be equal to the number of the other, and the time of the one to the time of the other. For each of them is one period, and is defined by quantity, on account of the order of the bodies that are moved. In addition, however, to what has been said, it must be observed, that this perfect number differs from that mentioned in the Republic, which comprehends the period of every divinely generated nature[48], since it is more partial, and is apocatastatic of the eight periods alone. For the other perfect number comprehends the peculiar motions of the fixed stars, and, in short, of all the divine genera that are moved in the heavens, whether visibly or invisibly, and also of the celestial genera posterior to the Gods, and of the longer or shorter periods of sublunary natures, together with the periods of fertility and sterility. Hence, likewise, it is the lord of the period of the human race.”