Chapter LI (12)

“Again, theologists especially celebrate two powers of our sovereign mistress Minerva, the _defensive_, and the _perfective_; the former preserving the order of wholes undefiled, and unvanquished by matter, and the latter filling all things with intellectual light, and converting them to their cause. And on this account, Plato also in the Timæus, analogously celebrates Minerva as _philopolemic_ and _philosophic_. But three orders of this Goddess are delivered by theologists; the one fontal and intellectual, according to which she establishes herself in her father Jupiter, and subsists in unproceeding union with him; but the second ranks among the supermundane Gods, according to which she is present with Core, and bounds and converts all the progression of that Goddess to herself. And the third is _liberated_, according to which she perfects and guards the whole world, and circularly invests it with her powers, as with a veil; binding together all the mundane summits, and giving subsistence to all the allotments in the heavens, and to those which proceed into the sublunary region. Now therefore Socrates celebrates her _guardian_ power, through the name of _Pallas_; but her perfective power through that of _Minerva_. She is the cause therefore of orderly and measured motion, which she first imparts to the Curetic order, and afterwards to the other Gods. For Minerva according to this power is the leader of the Curetes, as Orpheus says, whence also, as well as those divinities she is adorned with empyrean arms, through which she represses all disorder, preserves the demiurgic series immoveable, and unfolds dancing through rhythmical motion. She also guards reason as it proceeds from intellect; through this power vanquishing matter. For the visible region, says Timæus, is mingled from intellect and necessity, the latter being obedient to the former, and all material causes being in subjection to the will of the father. It is this goddess therefore, who arranges necessity under the productions of intellect, raises the universe to the participation of Jupiter, excites and establishes it in the port of its father, and eternally guards and defends it. Hence, if the universe is said to be indissoluble, it is this goddess who supplies its permanency; and if it moves in measured motion, through the whole of time, according to one reason and order, she is the source of this supply. She watchfully surveys therefore all the fabrication of her father, and connects and converts it to him; and vanquishes all material indefiniteness. Hence she is called _Victory_ and _Health_; the former because she causes intellect to rule over necessity, and form over matter; and the latter, because she preserves the universe perpetually whole, perfect, exempt from age, and free from disease. It is the property therefore of this goddess to elevate and distribute, and through an intellectual dance as it were, to connect, establish, and defend inferior natures in such as are more divine.”[471]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For γονων, it is necessary to read γενων.

[2] It appears to me that πρωτως is in this place omitted in the original.

[3] For αριστα, I read αριστην.

[4] For κατα τουτο, it is necessary to read κατα ταυτον.

[5] For διακρινον, it is necessary to read διατεινον.

[6] For αυτο, I read αυτῳ.

[7] Instead of εκ της διακοσμησεως, it is necessary to read εκ ταυτης διακοσμησεως.

[8] For οπως, it is necessary to read πως, and in consequence of this, the sentence should not be, as it is in the original, interrogatory.

[9] From the version of Portus, it appears necessary after the words τους μεν, αφ’εαυτου τε, to supply the words του νοερου πατρος, τους δε αφ’εαυτου τε κ. τ. λ.

[10] For της ολης, it is necessary to read τοις ολοις.

[11] For τοις ολοις, it is necessary to read τοις πολλοις.

[12] The word αστρον is omitted in the original.

[13] εν is omitted in the original.

[14] For παντος it is necessary to read πατρος.

[15] αφ’ου signifies an occult, but υφ’ου, a manifest progression.

[16] For εξῃρηται, it is necessary to read εξηρτηται.

[17] For επιστησωμεν, I read επισκεψωμεν.

[18] For γονιμου, it is necessary to read μονιμου.

[19] For νεαρας, it is necessary to read νοερας.

[20] The following observations were written in the margin of the manuscript copy of this work of Proclus, by some scholiast or commentator: “For end and that which is perfected, and the possession of beginning, middles and end, first subsist in the intelligible and at the same time intellectual Gods. And on this account figure, also, there presents itself to the view. This triad, therefore, in the whole assimilative series is analogous to intelligibles and intellectuals, as having from them[21] the beginning, middles, and end. For the demiurgus produced this triad according to the similitude of the perfective triad, and connected the straight and the circular with motion. For to bound in a direct path, and to proceed circularly, are definitive of motion, as was said by Proclus in the Chapter prior to this. And as this triad has these properties from intelligibles and intellectuals, thus also the whole series of assimilative Gods possess them from this triad. Hence this triad of partial demiurgi, is analogous to the intelligible and intellectual fathers, i.e. to the perfective power.”

[21] For απ’ αυτης, it is necessary to read απ’ αυτων.

[22] For δε ὄντως, it is necessary to read δεοντως.

[23] It appears to me that after και αι ζητησεις in the original, there are wanting the words των προνοουντων, ωσπερ.

[24] For τριας here, it is necessary to read τριαδος.

[25] The word μιας is omitted in the original.

[26] For των αγαθων, it is necessary to read τῳ αγαθῳ.

[27] For θειον νοητον, it is necessary to read θειον γεννητον; every perpetually circulating body being thus denominated by Plato.

[28] For νοητοις here, it is necessary to read γεννητοις.

[29] For περιοδοις, it is necessary to read προοδοις.

[30] For υπ’ αλληλων it is necessary to read υπ’ αλλων.

[31] For πασης, it is necessary to read πασι.

[32] For παρα τι, it is necessary to read περατι.

[33] It is necessary here to supply the word ομοιου.

[34] For εαυτῳ, it is necessary to read εαυτο.

[35] For υλικης, it is necessary to read ολικης.

[36] It is necessary here to substitute και for το.

[37] Instead of περι αυτων, it is necessary to read περι αυτην.

[38] i.e. Phanes, or in Platonic language animal itself, subsisting at the extremity of the intelligible order.

[39] i.e. Imitating Saturn and Phanes.

[40] The Greek scholiast observes on this part of the text of Proclus as follows: “By the _intellectual_, Proclus means the _ruling_ Gods; but by an immaterial and separate intellect the whole demiurgus. And by _essence_ he means a partial hypostasis, such as that of soul, of a dæmon, and of the intellect which is co-ordinate to partial souls.”

[41] For νοητου here, it is necessary to read νοερου.

[42] viz. The genera of being, essence, sameness, difference, motion and permanency.

[43] For εσχατον, it is necessary to read εχουσιν.

[44] For εν δε, if is necessary to read αι δε.

[45] By intelligible souls, we must understand partial, but undefiled souls.

[46] For χωρικον, it is necessary to read χωριστον.

[47] Instead of περι τον κοσμον, it is necessary to read υπερ τον κοσμον.

[48] For περιοδους, it is necessary to read προοδους.

[49] For δυαδος, it is necessary to read δυναμεως.

[50] For εξηςτηται, it is necessary to read εξηρηται.

[51] For ουτε, it is necessary to read ουκουν.

[52] For οχετον, I read οχλον.

[53] For την απογεννησιν, it is necessary to read της απογεννησεως.

[54] For γονιμον, it is necessary to read μονιμον.

[55] For αφαιρησωμεθα, it is necessary to read αφορισωμεθα.

[56] For αρρητον, it is necessary to read αρρηκτον.

[57] For αυτοτελες, it is necessary to read ατελες.

[58] For περιφορας, I read περιγραφας.

[59] For μερων, it is necessary to read Μοιρων.

[60] In the original το δε μελλον is omitted.

[61] For τα παραγοντα, it is necessary to read τα παροντα.

[62] In the original ουχ απτομενον is omitted.

[63] In the original χωριστον εστι, is wanting.

[64] For περιοδῳ, it is necessary to read προοδῳ.

[65] Vid. Sallust. de Diis et Mundo, Cap. 6.

[66] Vid. Procl. in Tim. p. 45.

[67] Vid. Jamblich. de Mysteriis Sect. I. Cap. 8.

[68] Vid. Jamblich. de Myst. Sect. I. Cap. 9.

[69] Vid. Jamblich. de Myst. Sect. I. Cap. 17.

[70] Vid. Jamblich. de Myst. Sect. I. Cap. 19.

[71] See the 5th Book of this work, in which this speech is admirably discussed by Proclus, though not so fully as in these extracts.

[72] For μεν ειναι το παμπαν αθανατους in the original, it is necessary to read μη ειναι κ. τ. λ.

[73] Instead of νοητον, it is requisite to read νοητῳ.

[74] This divinity is Vulcan.

[75] παρ’ ετερου is omitted in the original.

[76] The words και λυτον απλως παρ’ εαυτου και παρ’ ετερου, are omitted in the original.

[77] For ενδοσιν, it is necessary to read ενωσιν.

[78] Κεχαρασμενην is erroneously printed for κεχαλασμενην.

[79] After την παραδειγματικην it is necessary to supply the words δια του καλως, την δημιουργικην, which are wanting in the original.

[80] The words και λυτοι are omitted in the original.

[81] For αυτου φυσιν, it is necessary to read αυτων φυσιν.

[82] Instead of του μη θνητου, it is necessary to read του θνητου.

[83] The original has erroneously μονας instead of μονον.

[84] For μετα βουλης, I read μεταβολης. For the mundane Gods are in no part of the Timæus represented as consulting about the fabrication of things.

[85] i.e. Proserpine.

[86] For τελειοτατα, it is necessary to read τελειοτητα.

[87] For τα θειοτα, it is necessary to read τα θειοτατα.

[88] Iliad xx. v. 24.

[89] Instead of δια τινων εγκοσμιων, it is necessary to read δια τι των εγκοσμιων.

[90] αθανατως is omitted in the original.

[91] For εξ ου σωματος, it is necessary to read εξω σωματος.

[92] For λυπης, it is requisite to read λοιπης.

[93] i.e. Jupiter, who is so called in this place by Proclus, because he contains in himself by participation, the Phanes or Protogonus who is the paradigm of the universe.

[94] For πονηρια, it is necessary to read πενια.

[95] For ιδρυαν, it is necessary to read ιδρυσιν.

[96] σαφῃ is erroneously printed for αφῃ.

[97] For και βαθεων, it is necessary to read και βαθμων.

[98] For πατρος, it is necessary to read παντος.

[99] Here also for πατρι, it is necessary to read παντι.

[100] Vid. Proclum in Tim. p. 275.

[101] These ολοτητες, according to the Platonic philosophy, have so far as they are wholes, a perpetual subsistence, and are the spheres of the fixed stars, the spheres of the planets, the sphere of air, the globe on which we live, and the ocean. See more on this subject in my Dissertation on the Philosophy of Aristotle.

[102] Vid. Procl. in Tim. p. 257 and 279.

[103] Hence, we may perceive at one view, as I have elsewhere observed, why the sun in the Orphic hymns is called Jupiter, why Apollo is called Pan, and Bacchus the Sun; and why the moon seems to be the same with Rhea, Ceres, Proserpine, Juno, Venus, &c. For from this theory it follows, that every sphere contains a Jupiter, Neptune, Vulcan, Vesta, Minerva, Mars, Ceres, Juno, Diana, Mercury, Venus, Apollo, and in short, every deity,--each sphere at the same time conferring on these Gods the peculiar characteristics of its nature; so that for instance, in the sun they possess a solar property; in the moon a lunar one; and so of the rest.

This theory too is one of the grand keys to the theology of the Greeks; as it shows why one God is so often celebrated by the appellations of another; an ignorance of the cause of which led Macrobius to think that all the Gods were nothing more than the different powers of the sun, and has been one great source of the idle conjectures of the moderns about the divinities of the ancients.

[104] Vid. Procl. in Tim. lib. 4. p. 263.

[105] For περιοδον, it is necessary to read προοδον.

[106] For γνωριζειν, it is necessary to read οριζει.

[107] According to the Chaldaic dogmas, as explained by Psellus, there are seven corporeal worlds, one empyrean and the first; after this three etherial; and then three material worlds, viz. the inerratic sphere, the seven planetary spheres, and the sublunary region. They also assert that there are two solar worlds; one which is subservient to the etherial profundity; the other zonaic, being one of the seven spheres.

[108] Viz. The supermundane Gods.

[109] It must be carefully observed, however, that this is only true of the Gods characteristically called supermundane. For it does not apply to the Gods who are _primarily_ intellectual, since they are above the supermundane order, to which the sun and Apollo belong.

[110] That is, according to the Chaldæan oracles, the sun is the middle of the empyrean, etherial, and material worlds, the two last of which, as I have observed in a former note, receive a triple division.

[111] These verses are not in Gesner’s collection of the Orphic fragments.

[112] These lines are from Empedocles, and in the original are as follow:

Ενθα κοτος τε φονος τε και αλλων εθνεα κηρων,
Αυχμηραι τε νοσοι, και σηψεις, εργα τε ρευστα.

[113] Vide Jamblich. de Myst. lib. i. cap. 18.

[114] In Tim, lib. i. p. 51.

[115] For χορευτων in this place, it is necessary to read χορων των.

[116] Iliad. viii.

[117] Iliad. viii.

[118] In Tim. p. 48.

[119] This triad consists of Minerva, Diana, and Proserpine.

[120] The former part of this inscription is to be found in Plutarch’s treatise of Isis and Osiris; but the latter part, viz. _the fruit which I brought forth was the sun_, is only to be found in the above Commentary of Proclus. The original is, ον εγω καρπον ετεκον ηλιος εγενετο.

[121] viz. In _ether_ or _bound_, the summit of the intelligible triad.

[122] Instead of σχηματος, it is necessary to read οχηματος.

[123] For according to Plato, plants also, as having life, are animals.

[124] For δαιμονικας here, it is necessary to read ηγεμονικας.

[125] παντικα is erroneously printed in the original for μαντικα.

[126] For αιωνιοι, it is evidently necessary to read in this place παιωνιοι.

[127] Apud Porphyr. de Abstin.

[128] It is necessary here to supply the word θειον.

[129] It is requisite to read κατ εκεινον, instead of κατ εκεινην.

[130] The word ουρανιων is omitted in the original.

[131] It is obviously necessary here for εαυτων to read εαυτου.

[132] εγγονοι is omitted in the original.

[133] This is doubtless the Sibyl, of whom Proclus also observes (in Tim. p. 325.) “that proceeding into light, she knew her own order, and manifested that she came from the Gods, saying I am the medium between Gods and men.” ειδε γαρ τοι Σιβυλλα εις φως, και την ταξιν εαυτης, και ως εκ θεων ηκει δεδηλwκεν, ειμι δ’ εγω μεση τε θεων εἰπουσα μεση τ’ ἀνθρωπων.

[134] For επιπορευοντων, it is necessary to read επιτροπευοντων.

[135] Some of the moderns, from being profoundly ignorant of this circumstance, have stupidly supposed that the Gods of the ancients were nothing more than dead men deified; taking for their guides on this important subject, mere historians, philologists, and rhetoricians, instead of philosophers.

[136] For επι της, it is necessary to read επι γης.

[137] For αποκαταστασεως, it is requisite to read αποστασεως.

[138] In the original αλογων is erroneously printed for αναλογων.

[139] This is a very ancient Egyptian doctrine. And hence Kircher in his Oedipus Egyptiacus says that he read the following words engraved in a stone near Memphis: _Coelum sursum, coelum deorsum, quod sursum id omne deorsum, hæc cape et beaberis_, _i.e._ _Heaven is above and heaven is Beneath. Every thing which is above is also beneath. Understand this, and you will be blessed._ Conformably to this also the celebrated Smaragdine Table, which is of such great authority with the Alchemists, and which whether originally written or not by Hermes Trismegistus, is doubtless of great antiquity, says that all that is beneath resembles all that is above. But the Table itself is as follows: “Verum sine mendacio, certum et verissimum: quod est inferius, est sicut id quod est superius, et quod est superius, est sicut id, quod est inferius ad perpetrandum miraculum unius rei. Et sicut res omnes fuerunt ab uno mediatione unius, sic omnes res natæ ab hac re adoptatione. Pater ejus est sol, mater ejus luna. Portavit illud ventus in ventre suo. Nutrix ejus terra, pater omnis telesmi totius mundi est hic. Virtus ejus integra est, si versa fuerit in terram. Separabis terram ab igne, subtile a spisso suaviter cum magno ingenio. Ascendit a terra in coelum, iterumque descendit in terram, et recipit vim superiorum et inferiorum. Sic habebis gloriam totius mundi, ideo fugiet à te omnis obscuritas. Hæc est totius fortitudinis fortitudo fortis, quia vincet omnem rem subtilem, omniaque solida penetrabit. Sic mundus creatus est. Hinc erunt adoptationes mirabiles, quarum modus hic est. Itaque vocatus sum Hermes Trismegistus habens tres partes philosophiæ totius mundi. Completum est quod dixi de opere solis.” i.e. “It is true without a lie, certain, and most true, that what is beneath is like that which is above, and what is above is like that which is beneath, for the purpose of accomplishing the miracle of one thing. And as all things were from one through the mediation of one, so all things were generated from this thing by adoption [i.e. by participation.] The sun is its father, and the moon its mother. The wind carried it in its belly. The earth is its nurse. This is the father of all the perfection of the whole world. Its power is entire when it is converted into earth. You must separate the earth from the fire, the subtil from the thick sweetly with great genius. It ascends from earth to heaven, and again descends to the earth, and receives the power of things superior and inferior. Thus you will have the glory of the whole world, and thus all obscurity will fly from you. This is the strong fortitude of all fortitude, because it vanquishes every subtile thing, and penetrates all solid substances. Thus the world was fabricated. Hence admirable adoptions will take place of which this is the mode. I am therefore called Hermes Trismegistus possessing three parts of the philosophy of the whole world. That which I have said concerning the work of the sun is complete.”

[140] Instead of και γαρ ουρανιαν και την σεληγην Ορφευς προσηγορευσεν, the sense requires we should read και γαρ ουρανιαν γην την σεληνην, κ. λ.

[141] For εκ τ’ αυτου, it is necessary to read εκ τ’ αγαθου.

[142] Instead of λεγω δη τοις του Ουρανου τουδε συνοχικης μεσοτηρος, it is requisite to read λεγω δια της του Ουρανου, κ. λ.

[143] For τριαδην, it is necessary to read τριαδαις.

[144] For νοερων, read νοητων.

[145] For αποριαν, read απειριαν.

[146] For ενιαυτον here, it is necessary to read ενιαιον.

[147] Plato, in the 10th book of the Laws, distinguishes the genus of motions into ten species, viz. circulation about an immoveable centre, local transition, condensation, rarefaction, increase, decrease, generation, corruption, mutation or alteration, produced in another by another, and a mutation produced from a thing itself, both in itself, and in another. This last is the motion of an essence separate from bodies, and is the motion of soul.

[148] For γονιμον here, it is necessary to read μονιμον.

[149] πατρος is erroneously printed instead of πατερες.

[150] As this is a remarkably curious Orphic fragment, and is not to be found in Gesner’s collection of the Orphic remains, I shall give the original for the sake of the learned reader. και τοι γε οτι ο κρονος υπερτερος εστι του ωκεανου, δεδηλωκεν ο θεολογος παλιν λεγων· τον μεν κρονον αυτον καταλαμβανειν τον ουρανιον ολυμπον, κᾳκει θρονισθεντα, βασιλευειν των τιτανων· τον δε ωκεανον την ληξιν απασαν την μεσην· ναιειν γαρ αυτον εν τοις θεσπεσιοις ρειθροις τοις μετα τον ολυμπον, και τον εκει περιεπειν ουρανον, αλλ’ου τον ακροτατον, ως δε φησιν ό μυθος, τον εμπεσοντα του ολυμπου, και εχει τεταγμενον. Procl. in Tim. p. 296.

[151] For μετ’αυτου, it is necessary to read μετ’αυτης.

[152] For Θαυμαντα, it is requisite to read Θαυμαντος; and for ποντον, ποντῳ.

[153] The original here is evidently erroneous; for it is, ου γαρ εστιν ο φορκυς ουρανιδης αλλα ο φορκυς, ως εστι δηλον εκ της θεογονιας. For αλλα ο φορκυς, therefore, I read αλλα ο Ωκεανος; Ocean, according to the Theogony of Hesiod, being the progeny of Heaven and Earth.

[154] Κρονος is erroneously printed for χρονος.

[155] For της υγρας υλης ουσιας, I read της υγρας ολης ουσιας.

[156] The words ημεις δε εκομενως are omitted in the original.

[157] For διανοηθεις, it is necessary to read διακινηθεις.

[158] For αφανη here it is necessary to read εμφανη.

[159] The meaning of Proclus in asserting that the ennead proceeds from the monad as far as to the extremities without retrogression is as follows: The ennead, according to the Pythagoreans, circulates all numbers within itself, and there can be no number beyond it. For the natural progression of numbers is as far as to 9, but after it their retrogression takes place. For 10 becomes as it were again the monad. Thus, if from each of the numbers 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, the number 9 is subtracted, the numbers that remain will be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. And vice versa, the progression will receive an increase by the addition of 9. For, if to each of the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, &c. 9 is added, the numbers produced will be 10, 11, 12, 13, &c. Likewise by subtracting from 20 twice 9, from 30 thrice 9, from 40 four times 9, from 50 five times 9 &c, the numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, &c will be produced. By taking likewise from 100 eleven times 9, we again return to the monad. And after the same manner we may proceed to infinity. Hence it is not possible there should be any elementary number beyond the ennead. Hence too the Pythagoreans, called it Ocean and the Horizon, because all numbers are comprehended by and revolve within it. On this account likewise, it was called by them Halios, (παρα το αλιζειν) and Concord and Perseïa because it congregates all numbers, and collects them into one, and does not permit the conspiration of the numbers beyond it to be dissipated. Vid. Anonym. in opere quod inscripsit τα θεολογουμενα της αριθμητικης.

[160] For εισι, it is requisite to read προεισι.

[161] προοδους is omitted in the original.

[162] In the original it is παραπετα instead of παραπετασματα.

[163] These thirty-six decadarchs are the divinities alluded to by the Emperor Julian in his Oration to the Sun, when he says, “that the Sun divides the zodiac into twelve powers of Gods, and each of these into three others, so that thirty-six are produced in the whole.”

[164] This is implied by Socrates telling him that he inquires about _great_ things.

[165] In Tim. p. 184.

[166] This is according to the psychical mode of interpreting fables. See my translation of Sallust On the Gods and the World.

[167] This is a life pertaining to her own will; for the soul in this case gives herself up to the will of divinity.

[168] For an account of divine fables, and specimens of the mode in which they ought to be explained, see the Introduction to the second Book of the Republic, in Vol. I. of my translation of Plato.

[169] Iliad. lib. viii.

[170] For the irrational soul is an _immaterial body_, or in other words, _vitalized extension_, such as the mathematical bodies which we frame in the phantasy; and the celestial bodies are of this kind.

[171] It is necessary here to supply the word θειων.

[172] For τρεφει here, it is necessary to read στρεφει.

[173] For δεσμων here read θεσμων.

[174] In Tim. p. 59.

[175] Lib. ii. p. 81.

[176] i.e. Angels, dæmons, and heroes.

[177] Lib. iv. p. 240, &c.

[178] Viz. the Sun considered as subsisting in the supermundane order of Gods.

[179] “But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for _then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil_. But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, _we have wanted all things_, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.” Jeremiah, Chap. xliv, v. 17, 18.

[180] In this dialogue, Plato assimilates the intimate form of the soul to a winged chariot and charioteer, drawn by two horses; and says, “that all the horses and chariots of the Gods are good, and composed of things that are good.” In which passage, by the chariots of the Gods are to be understood all the inward discursive powers of their souls, which pursue the intelligence of all things, and can at the same time equally contemplate and provide for inferior concerns. But the horses signify the efficacy and motive vigour of these powers. And the wings are elevating powers, which particularly belong to the charioteer, or intellect.

[181] I. e. In the summit of that order which is called intelligible and at the same time intellectual.

[182] ποιμαινων πραπεδεσσιν ανομματον ωκυν ερωτα.

[183] The author of these verses comprehends the triple genera that are more excellent than man, viz. angels, dæmons and heroes, under the appellation of illustrious heroes.

[184] It must however, be carefully observed, that this divine cause illuminates, invigorates, and excites these circles in the most unrestrained and impassive manner, without destroying freedom of energy in the circles themselves, or causing any partial affection, sympathy or tendency in illuminating deity.

[185] See a most masterly defence of the character of Achilles as a hero in my translation of Proclus’s noble apology for Homer, in the first Volume of my Plato.

[186] Vid. Iamblich. de vita Pythag. Cap. 2.

[187] And this essence, as is shown in the 4th book, subsists at the summit of the intelligible and at the same time intellectual order.

[188] This forms the middle of the above-mentioned order.

[189] This forms the extremity of that order.

[190] Viz. to Saturn, who subsists at the summit of the intellectual order.

[191] Instead of και δια το μη λεγειν, το διδον αει γινομενος, it is necessary to read δια το μη ληγειν το διδον, αει γινομενος.

[192] For ορωμενος here, it is necessary to read ορμωμενος.

[193] Wholes whether corporeal or incorporeal are thus denominated.

[194] For συνεκτεινατο, it is necessary to read συνετεκταινετο.

[195] i.e. a circular motion.

[196] Proclus elsewhere informs us in these Commentaries, that the soul of the world is called by Orpheus _Ippa_.

[197] i.e. Vesta.

[198] i.e. Juno.

[199] i.e. Having a good dæmon.

[200] Instead of εις δαιμων εγενετο μεγας αρχος απο παντων, it is requisite to read εις δαιμων γενετο μεγας αρχος απαντων.

[201] For αφανη here, it is necessary to read εμφανη.

[202] For συμβολικης των θεων παρουσιας, it is requisite to read συμβολικα της των, κ. λ.

[203] After του οντως here, it is requisite to supply οντος.

[204] The part within the brackets is wanting in the original, in which there is evidently a defect, as the stars at the end of the proposition indicate.

[205] Here also the part within the brackets is wanting in the original.

[206] For εαυτῳ here it is necessary to read εαυτο.

[207] It is here necessary to supply the words αφ’ εαυτου.

[208] This is asserted by Aristotle in his Posterior Analytics.

[209] In Prop. 5.

[210] For τοις αιτιοις here, it is obviously necessary to read τοις αιτιατοις.

[211] For ων το μεν αυτην διδωσι, it is necessary to read ων το μετ’ αυτην διδωσι.

[212] From the 11th Proposition.

[213] From the 7th Proposition.

[214] ει is wanting in the original.

[215] This is asserted in the Phædrus of Plato.

[216] That if an essence is inseparable from body, it is impossible that the energy proceeding from this essence should be separate from body, Aristotle also demonstrates in his treatise On the Soul.

[217] The words within the brackets are wanting in the original, though perfectly necessary to the demonstration of the Proposition. Hence, the words ολον κινει, μερος δε κινειται, η, must be supplied.

[218] For if the whole moves, the part which is moved will at the same time be motive.

[219] The truth of this may be exemplified in light. Thus for instance we see many species of light; one kind emanating from the sun, another from fire and the stars, another from the moon, and another from the eyes of many animals. But this light though various, is every where similar, and discovers in its operations a unity of nature. On account of its uniformity therefore, it requires one principle and not different principles. But the sun is the only principle of all mundane light. And though there are many participants of light posterior to the solar orb, yet they scatter their uniform light, through one solar nature, property and power. But if we again seek for the principle of light in the sun, we cannot say that the solar orb is this principle; for the various parts of it diffuse many illuminations. There will therefore, be many principles. But we now require one first principle of light. And if we say that the soul of the sun generates light, we must observe that this is not effected by her psychical multiplicity, or she would diffuse different lights. Hence we must assert that she generates visible by intellectual light. But again this production does not subsist through intellectual variety, but rather through the unity of intellect which is its flower and summit. This unity is a symbol of that simple unity which is the principle of the universe. And to this principle the solar intellect is united by its unity; and through this it becomes a God. This divine unity of the sun therefore, is the principle of the uniform light of the world, in the same manner as simple unity and goodness is the source of intelligible light to all intelligible natures.

[220] The imparticipable is that which is not consubsistent with a subordinate nature. Thus imparticipable intellect is the intellect which is not consubsistent with soul, but is exempt from it. And imparticipable soul is the soul which is not consubsistent with body. And so in other things.

[221] Instead of ει γαρ αγονον, it is necessary to read η γαρ αγονον.

[222] The original here is both defective and incorrect. Instead therefore of τινος γενομενον υφ’ ου μαχεται, I read παν δε τινος γενομενον υφ’ ου μετεχεται.

[223] Instead of και οτι αλλο in this place, it appears to me to be necessary to read και οτι αλλως.

[224] Instead of μετ’ αυτου here, it is necessary to read μετ’ αυτο.

[225] For παρον here, it is necessary to read παραγον.

[226] Instead of προς παν here, it is necessary to read προς αιτιον.

[227] Instead of πως το διακριθεν, it is necessary to read πως το μη διακριθεν.

[228] For το απ’ αυτου here, it is necessary to read τῳ απ’ αυτου.

[229] For το επιστρεφον, it is requisite to read το μη επιστερφον.

[230] There is a defect here in the original, which may be supplied, if instead of εστι την απο της ουσιας προς εαυτο επιστρεπτικον we read ει ουν εστι κατα την απο της ουσιας ενεργειαν προς εαυτο επιστρεπτικον.

[231] ουπω is omitted in the original.

[232] For μεριστην εαυτου, it is requisite to read μεριστον εαυτον.

[233] The truth of this reasoning may be evinced by the following considerations. Every thing which is measured by time, and such is every corporeal nature, depends on time for the perfection of its being. But time is composed of the past, present and future. And if we conceive that any one of these parts is taken away from the nature with which it is connected, that nature must immediately perish. Time therefore is so essentially and intimately united with the natures which it measures, that their being such as it is, depends on the existence of time. But time, as is evident, is perpetually flowing, and this in the most rapid manner imagination can conceive. It is evident therefore, that the natures to which it is so essential, must subsist in a manner equally transitory and flowing; since, unless they flowed in conjunction with time, they would be separated from it, and would consequently perish. Hence, as we cannot affirm with propriety of any part of time, that it _is_; since even before we can form the assertion, the present time is no more; so with respect to all corporeal natures, from their subsistence in time, before we can say they exist, they lose all identity of being.

Such then is the unreal condition of every thing existing in time, or of every thing corporeal, and entangled with matter. But this shadowy essence of body is finely unfolded by Plotinus, in the 6th book of his 3rd Ennead, as follows: “Being (says he) properly so called is neither body, nor is subject to corporeal affections; but body and its properties belong to the region of non-entity. But you will ask, how is it possible, that visible matter should possess no real being; that matter in which stones and mountains reside, the solid earth, and bodies which mutually resist; since bodies which impel each other, confess by their collision, the reality of their existence? You will likewise ask after what manner things which neither strike against, nor resist each other, which neither externally act, nor internally suffer, nor are in any respect the objects of sight, viz. soul and intellect, are to be reckoned true and real beings. We reply, that on the contrary, things more corpulent are more sluggish and inert, as is evident in bulky masses of earth. But whatever is less ponderous is more moveable, and the more elevated the more moveable. Hence fire, the most moveable of all the elements, flies as it were from a corporeal nature. Besides, as it appears to me, whatever is more sufficient to itself, disturbs others less and brings less inconvenience; but such things as are more ponderous and terrene, unable from their defect of being to raise themselves on high and becoming debile and languid, strike and oppress surrounding bodies, by their falling ruin and sluggish weight. Since it is evident that bodies destitute of life, fall with molestation on any proximate substance, and more vehemently impel and pain whatever is endued with sense. On the contrary, animated beings, as participating more of entity, by how much the more of being they possess, by so much the more harmless they impinge their neighbouring bodies. Hence motion, which is a kind of life, or soul, or an imitation of life in bodies, is more present with whatever is less corpulent; as if more of body was necessarily produced where a defect of being happens in a greater degree.

Again, it will more manifestly appear from passivity, that whatever is more corpulent is more passive; earth in a greater degree than the other elements; and the rest in a similar proportion. For some things when divided, suddenly return to their former union, when no obstacle prevents their conjunction. But from the section of a terrene body, the divided portions always remain separate, as if destitute of natural vigour, and without any inherent desire of union and consent. Hence, they are ready by every trifling impulse, to remain as they are impelled; to rush from the embraces of bound, and hasten into multitude and non-entity. So that whatever becomes corporeal in an eminent degree, as falling fast into non-entity, has but little power of recalling itself into one. And on this account ponderous and vehement concussions are attended with ruin, when by mutual rushing one thing impels another. But when debility runs against debility, the one is valid against the other, in the same manner as non-entity rushing on non-entity. And this we think a sufficient confutation of their opinion, who only place being in the genus of body, persuaded by the testimony of impulses and concussions, and the phantasms perceived through the senses, which testify that sense is the only standard of truth. Such as these are affected in a manner similar to those in a dream, who imagine that the perceptions of sleep are true. For sense is alone the employment of the dormant soul; since as much of the soul as is merged in body, so much of it sleeps. But a true elevation, and true vigilance are a resurrection from, and not with the dull mass of body. For indeed a resurrection with body, is only a transmigration from sleep to sleep, and from dream to dream, like a man passing in the dark from bed to bed. But that elevation is perfectly true, which entirely rises from the dead weight of bodies. For these possessing a nature repugnant to soul, possess something opposite to essence. And this is farther evident, from their generation, and their continual flowing and decay, which are properties entirely foreign from the nature of being substantial and real.”

[234] ποτε is omitted in the original.

[235] It is necessary here to supply the word αυθυποστατων.

[236] For εις το αιτιωτερον, it is necessary to read εις το αιτιατον.

[237] ολον is omitted in the original.

[238] i.e. Any thing which is not universal (το τι).

[239] του οντος seems to be wanting here in the original.

[240] αιτιου is omitted in the original.

[241] i.e. As the Greek Scholiast observes in the margin of this Proposition, from the efficacious cause of that which acts, and the aptitude of that which suffers.

[242] The words το ποιουν ενεργειᾳ ον ο αυτο δυναμει, are wanting in the original.

[243] The Proposition ends here in the Greek, though very erroneously; and its conclusion forms the beginning of the next Proposition, which should begin at the words εαν το οντως ον. But instead of εαν, we must read παν.

[244] i.e. With natures rising into existence, or becoming to be, as opposed to the things which are, or to beings _truly_ so called (τα οντως οντα).

[245] Instead of παντως το οντως ον, it is doubtless necessary to read παν το οντως ον.

[246] Instead of δει πρωτον εξ αμφοιν ειναι, it is necessary to read δει προ του εξ αμφοιν ειναι.

[247] τι is omitted in the original.

[248] After οτι, there is a chasm in the original, and the words that are wanting appear to be δε αϊδιοτης απειρια τις εστιν.

[249] There is evidently a very gross error here in the original which is as follows: και γαρ εν τοις μεριστοις αι δυναμεις συναγομεναι μεν, πολλαπλασιαζονται, μεριζομεναι δε, αμυδρουνται. For powers when congregated are not multiplied, but united. Hence it is necessary to read και γαρ εν τοις μεριστοις αι δυναμεις συναγομεναι μεν, ενιζονται, μεριζομεναι δε, πολλαπλασιαζονται, και αμυδρουνται.

[250] By a strange mistake the original has απειρον here, instead of πεπερασμενον, and in the next line πεπερασμενον instead of απειρον.

[251] For αιτιοις here it is necessary to read αιτιατοις.

[252] Hence, as all things proceed from _the ineffable_, that which is imparticipable proceeds also from it, yet not as from a cause, but as from that which is better than cause. The procession, therefore, of the imparticipable from the ineffable is αρρητος εκφανσις, _an ineffable evolution into light_.

[253] Instead of πολλα γαρ ζῃ μεν, ζῃ, και νοει, it is necessary to read πολλα γαρ οντα μεν ουδε ζῃ, ουδε νοει.

[254] For του θανατου here, it is necessary to read του αθανατου.

[255] Instead of ως δι’ ομοιων ανομοιον, it is necessary to read ως δι’ ομοιων εις ομοιον.

[256] Instead of πως here it is necessary to read πας, and consequently the proposition is not interrogatory as in the original.

[257] It is necessary here to supply the word μεθεξεις.

[258] It is here requisite to supply νου.

[259] For υποκειμενοις, it is necessary to read υπερκειμενοις.

[260] There are two chasms in this sentence in the original, which I have endeavoured to supply in the translation.

[261] That the principle of all things is something beyond intellect and being itself, was asserted by the most ancient Pythagoreans, as well as by Plato and his best disciples, as the following citations will abundantly evince.

And in the first place, this is evident from a fragment of Archytas, a most ancient Pythagorean, On the Principles of Things, preserved by Stobæus, Eclog. Phys. p. 82. and in which the following extraordinary passage occurs: ωστ’ αναγκα τρεις ειμεν τας αρχας, ταν τε εστω των πραγματων, και ταν μορφω, και το εξ αυτου κινατικον και αορατον δυναμει· το δε τοιουτον ον ου μονον[262] ειμεν δει, αλλα και νοω τι κρεσσον· νοω δε κρεσσον εστι, οπερ ονομαζομεν θεον φανερον.--i.e. “So that it is necessary to assert that there are three principles; _that which is [the subject] of things (or matter), form, and that which is of itself motive, and invisible in power_. With respect to the last of which, it is not only necessary that it should have a subsistence, _but that it should be something better than intellect_. But that which is better than intellect is evidently the same with that which we denominate god.” It must here however be observed, that by the word _god_ we are not only to understand the first cause, but every god: for, according to the Pythagoric theology, every deity, considered according to the characteristic of his nature, is superior to intellectual essence. Agreeably to the above passage is that also of Brotinus, as cited by Syrianus in Arist. Meta. p. 102, b. who expressly asserts that the first cause νου παντος και ουσιας δυναμει και πρεσβειᾳ υπερεχει--“surpasses every intellect and essence both in power and dignity.” Again, according to the same Syrianus, p. 103, b. we are informed “that the Pythagoreans called god the one, as the cause of union to the universe, and on account of his superiority to every being, to all life, and to all-perfect intellect. But they denominated him the measure of all things, on account of his conferring on all things through illumination, essence and bound; and containing and bounding all things by the ineffable supereminence of his nature, which is extended beyond every bound.” Των θειων ανδρων εν μεν λεγοντων τον θεον ως ενωσεως τοις ολοις αιτιον, και παντος του οντος, και πασης ζωης, και νου του παντελους επεκεινα. μετρον δε των παντων ως πασι την ουσιαν, και το τελος επιλαμποντα, και ως παντα περιεχοντα, και οριζοντα ταις αφραστοις αυτου, και παντος υπερηπλωμεναις περατος υπεροχαις. And again, this is confirmed by Clinius the Pythagorean, as cited by Syrianus, p. 104, in which place _præclari_ is erroneously substituted for _Clinii_. “That which is _the one_, and _the measure of all things_ (says he), is not only entirely exempt from bodies, and mundane concerns, but likewise from intelligibles themselves: since he is the venerable principle of beings, the measure of intelligibles, ingenerable, eternal, and alone (μονον), possessing absolute dominion (κυριωδες), and himself manifesting himself (αυτο το εαυτο δηλουν).” This fine passage I have translated agreeably to the manuscript corrections of the learned Gale, the original of which he has not inserted. To this we may likewise add the testimony of Philolaus; who, as Syrianus informs us, p. 102, knew that cause which is superior to the two first elements of things, _bound_ and _infinite_. For (says he) “Philolaus asserts that the deity established _bound_ and _infinite_: by bound indeed exhibiting every co-ordination, which is more allied to _the one_; but by infinity a nature subjected to _bound_. And prior to these two principles he places one, and a singular cause, separated from the universality of things, which Archainetus (Αρχαινετος) denominates a cause prior to cause; but which, according to Philolaus, is the principle of all things.” To all these respectable authorities for the superessential nature of the first cause, we may add the testimony of Sextus Empiricus himself. For in his books against the Mathematicians (p. 425) he informs us “that the Pythagoreans placed _the one_ as transcending the genus of things which are essentially understood.” και δη των μεν καθ’ αυτα νοουμενων γενος υπεστησαντο Πυθαγορικοι παιδες, ως επαναβεβηκος το εν. In which passage, by things which are essentially understood, nothing more is meant than intelligible essences, as is obvious to every tyro in the Platonic and Pythagoric philosophy.

But in consequence of this doctrine of the ancients concerning _the one_, or the first principle of things, we may discover the meaning and propriety of those appellations given by the Pythagoreans to unity, according to Photius and others: such as αλαμπια, σκοτωδια, αμιξία, βαραθρον υποχθονιον, Απολλων, &c. viz. _obscurity_, or _without illumination_, _darkness_, _without mixture_, _a subterranean profundity_, _Apollo_, &c. For, considered as ineffable, incomprehensible, and superessential, he may be very properly called _obscurity_, _darkness_, and _a subterranean profundity_; but considered as perfectly simple and one, he may with no less propriety be denominated _without mixture_, and _Apollo_; since Apollo signifies a privation of multitude. “For (says Plotinus) the Pythagoreans denominated the first God _Apollo_, according to a more secret signification, implying a negation of many.” Ennead. 5, lib. 5. To which we may add, that the epithets _darkness_ and _obscurity_ wonderfully agree with the appellation of _a thrice unknown darkness_, employed by the Egyptians, according to Damascius,[263] in their most mystical invocations of the first God; and at the same time afford a sufficient reason for the remarkable silence of the most ancient philosophers and poets concerning this highest and ineffable cause.

This silence is indeed remarkably obvious in Hesiod, when in his Theogony he says:

ητοι μεν πρωτιστα Χαος γενετ’,----

That is, “_Chaos was the first thing which was generated_”--and consequently there must be some cause prior to Chaos, through which it was produced; for there can be no effect without a cause. Such, however, is the ignorance of the moderns, that in all the editions of Hesiod, γενετο is translated _fuit_, as if the poet had said that _Chaos was the first of all things_; and he is even accused by Cudworth on this account, as leaning to the atheistical system. But the following testimonies clearly prove, that in the opinion of all antiquity, γενετο was considered as meaning _was generated_, and not _was_ simply. And in the first place, this is clearly asserted by Aristotle in lib. 3, de Cælo. “There are certain persons (says he) who assert that there is nothing unbegotten, but that all things are _generated_.--And this is especially the case with the followers of Hesiod.”--εισι γαρ τινες οι φασιν ουθεν αγεννητον ειναι, αλλα παντα γιγνεσθαι.----μαλιστα μεν οι περι τον Ησιοδον. And again, by Sextus Empiricus in his treatise Adversus Mathemat. p. 383, edit. Steph. who relates, that this very passage was the occasion of Epicurus applying himself to philosophy. “For (says he) when Epicurus was as yet but a young man, he asked a grammarian, who was reading to him this line of Hesiod,

Chaos of all things was the first produc’d,

from what Chaos was _generated_, if it was the first thing generated. And upon the grammarian replying that it was not his business to teach things of this kind, but was the province of those who are called philosophers.--To those then, says Epicurus, must I betake myself, since they know the truth of things.” κομιδη γαρ μειρακισκος ων, ῃρετο τον επαναγινωσκοντα αυτῳ Γραμματιστην (η τοι μεν πρωτιστα Χαος γενετ’) εκ τινος το χαος εγενετο, ειπερ πρωτον εγενετο. τουτου δε ειποντος μη αυτου εργον ειναι τα τοιαυτα διδασκειν, αλλα των καλουμενων φιλοσοφων· τοινυν εφησεν ο Επικουρος, επ’ εκεινους μοι βαδιστεον εστιν, ειπερ αυτοι την των οντων αληθειαν ισασιν.

Simplicius too, in commenting on the passage above cited from Aristotle, beautifully observes as follows: “Aristotle (says he) ranks Hesiod among the first physiologists, because he sings Chaos was first _generated_. He says, therefore, that Hesiod in a particular manner makes all things to be generated, because that which is first is by him said to be generated. But it is probable that Aristotle calls Orpheus and Musæus the first physiologists, who assert that _all things are generated, except the first_. It is, however, evident that those theologists, singing in fabulous strains, meant nothing more by _generation_ than the procession of things from their causes; on which account _all of them consider the first cause as unbegotten_. For Hesiod also, when he says that _Chaos was first generated_, insinuates that there was something prior to Chaos, from which Chaos was produced. For it is always necessary that every thing which is generated should be generated from something. But this likewise is insinuated by Hesiod, that the first cause is above all knowledge and every appellation.” (De Cœlo, p. 147.)

[262] Instead of ον ου μονον, which is evidently the true reading, ονομον μονον is erroneously printed in Stobæus.

[263] περι αρχων.

[264] Instead of μαλλον here, it is necessary to read ηττον.

[265] η πλειονων is omitted in the original.

[266] δυναμενον is omitted in the original.

[267] By the echo of soul, Proclus means that vital quality by which the soul is united to the body; and which is nothing more than the last image and shadow of the soul. The necessity of such a connecting quality will easily appear, from considering that a truly incorporeal nature, like that of soul, cannot be connected with body, without a vital medium. In consequence of this we may consider with Plotinus (Ennead. 4. lib. 4.) the animated body as resembling illuminated and heated air. And the pains and pleasures of the body will be conversant with this shadow of the soul.

[268] The original here is defective: for it is ενωσιν δε θειαν, απο της μετεχο **** εαυτου υπαρξεως μεταδιδωσι τοις εφεξης. From the version of Patricius, however, the defect may be supplied as follows: ενωσιν δε θειαν, απο της μετεχομενης εναδος. εκαστον γαρ τουτων εαυτου κ. τ. λ. This emendation is adopted in the above translation.

[269] For το υπερουσιον ον, it is necessary to read το υπερουσιον εν.

[270] Thus too Hippocrates, ξυρροια μια, συμπνοια μια, παντα συμπαθεα. i.e. “_there is one conflux, one conspiration, and all things sympathize with all_.” He who understands this will see that the _magic_ cultivated by the ancient philosophers, is founded in a theory no less sublime than rational and true. Such a one will survey the universe as one great animal, all whose parts are in union and consent with each other; so that nothing is foreign and detached; nothing, strictly speaking, void of sympathy and life. For though various parts of the world, when considered as separated from the whole, are destitute of _peculiar_ life; yet they possess some degree of animation, however inconsiderable, when viewed with relation to the universe. Life indeed may be compared to a perpetual and universal sound; and the soul of the world resembles a lyre, or some other musical instrument, from which we may suppose this sound to be emitted. But from the unbounded diffusion as it were of the mundane soul, every thing participates of this harmonical sound, in greater or less perfection, according to the dignity of its nature. So that while life every where resounds, the most abject of beings may be said to retain a faint echo of the melody produced by the mundane lyre. It was doubtless from profoundly considering this sympathy between the mundane soul, and the parts of the world, that the ancient philosophers were enabled to procure the presence of divinity, and perform effects beyond the comprehension of the vulgar. And that this was the opinion of Plotinus, the following passage evinces: “It appears to me that the ancient wise men, who wished to procure the presence of the Gods, by fabricating statues and performing sacred rites, directed their intellectual eye to the nature of the universe, and perceived that the nature of soul was every where easy to be attracted, when a proper subject was at hand, easily passive to its influence. But every thing adapted to imitation, is readily passive, and is like a mirror able to seize a certain form, and reflect it to the view.” Ennead 4. lib. 3.

[271] The word στερησεως is omitted in the original.

[272] For μετα δε παντα θεων, it is necessary to read μεστα δε παντα θεων.

[273] There is a chasm here in the original. And it appears from the version of Patricius, that the words και γαρ απειρος εστιν οντως εκαστος, are wanting.

[274] In Prop. 93.

[275] The words within the brackets are wanting in the original, which I have supplied from the version of Patricius. In the Greek therefore it is necessary to supply the words παν το τελειον εν τοις θεοις.

[276] For εξῃρημενων it is necessary to read εξῃρημενον.

[277] Here also we must read ενιδρυμενον for ενιδρυμενων.