Part 21

[27]“Well-instituted polities,” (says Proclus in MS. Comment. in Alcibiad. prior.) “are averse to the art of playing on wind-instruments; and therefore neither does Plato admit it. The cause of this is the variety of this instrument, the pipe, which shows that the art which uses it should be avoided. For instruments called Panarmonia, and those consisting of many strings, are imitations of pipes. For every hole of the pipe emits, as they say, three sounds at least; but if the cavity above the holes be opened, then each hole will emit more than three sounds.”

[28]Odyss. lib. 4.

[29]Iamblichus derived what he has said in this chapter about music, from Nicomachus.

[30]The first part of this sentence in the original is ξενου τινος εκβεβληκοτος εν Ασκληπιειῳ Ζωνην χρυσιον εχουσαν, and in translating it I have followed the version of Obrechtus, because it appeared to me to convey the meaning of Iamblichus, though the translation is certainly forced, and not such as the natural construction of the words will admit. The translation of Arcerius is, “Cum hospes quidam in æde Æsculapii fœminam zonam auream habentem ejecisset;” and this is perfectly conformable to the natural construction of the words, but then it is void of sense.

[31]This history is copiously narrated in chap. 33.

[32]See chap. 33.

[33]These lines are as the numbers 4, 3, 2. For 4 to 3 is sesquitertian, 3 to 2 is sesquialter, and 2 is an arithmetical medium between 4 and 3.

[34]For an explanation of this assertion of Plato in the Republic, see my Theoretic Arithmetic.

[35]“The Pythagoreans,” (says Syrianus in Aristot. Metaphys. lib. 13.) “received from the theology of Orpheus, the principles of intelligible and intellectual numbers, they assigned them an abundant progression, and extended their dominion as far as to sensibles themselves.” Hence that proverb was peculiar to the Pythagoreans, that _all things are assimilated to number_. Pythagoras, therefore, in the Sacred Discourse, clearly says, that “number is the ruler of forms and ideas, and is the cause of Gods and dæmons.” He also supposes, that “to the most ancient and artificially ruling deity, number is the canon, the artificial reason, the intellect also, and the most undeviating balance of the composition and generation of all things.” αυτος μεν Πυθαγορας, εν τῳ ιερῳ λογῳ, διαρρηδην μορφων και ιδεων κραντορα τον αριθμον ελεγεν ειναι, και θεων και δαιμονων αιτιον· και τῳ πρεσβυτατῳ και κρατιστευοντι τεχνιτῃ θεῳ κανονα, και λογον τεχνικον, νουν τε και σταθμαν ακλινεσταταν τον αριθμον υπεικε συστασιος και γενεσεως των παντων. Syrianus adds, “But Philolaus declared that number is the governing and self-begotten bond of the eternal permanency of mundane natures.” Φιλολαυς δε, της των κοσμικων αιωνιας διαμονης την κρατιστευουσαν και αυτογενη συοχην ειναι απεφῃνατο τον αριθμον. “And Hippasus, and all those who were destined to a quinquennial silence, called number the judicial instrument of the maker of the universe, and the first paradigm of mundane fabrication.” οι δε περι Ιππασον ακουσματικοι ειπον κριτικον κοσμουργου θεου οργανον, και παραδειγμα πρωτον κοσμοποιϊας. “But how is it possible they could have spoken thus sublimely of number, unless they had considered it as possessing an essence separate from sensible, and a transcendency fabricative, and at the same time paradigmatic?”

[36]i. e. To spheres; Iamblichus indicating by this, that Pythagoras as well as Orpheus considered a spherical figure as the most appropriate image of divinity. For the universe is spherical; and, as Iamblichus afterwards observes, the Gods have a nature and _morphe_ similar to the universe; _morphe_, as we learn from Simplicius, pertaining to the color, figure, and magnitude of superficies. Keissling, having no conception of this meaning, and supposing the whole passage to be corrupt, has made nonsense of it by his alterations. For according to his version, Pythagoras, after the manner of Orpheus, worshipped the Gods not bound to a human form, but _to divine numbers_. For instead of ιδρυμασι he reads αριθμοις. But divine numbers both according to Orpheus and Pythagoras are the Gods themselves.

[37]i. e. Futurity is long; Pythagoras signifying by this, that those who do not take an oath religiously, will be punished in some future period, if they are not at present.

[38]i. e. From the time in which the Gods are fabulously said to have reigned in Egypt.

[39]I wonder that the learned Obrechtus should translate ηβηδον, _cum omni juventute sua_. Had his translation, which is on the whole very excellent, been reviewed by English or Scotch critics, they would have immediately said from this circumstance, that he did not understand Greek.

[40]Iamblichus here alludes to a right-angled triangle, and the Pythagoric theorem of 47. 1 of Euclid. For the square described on the longest side is equal to the two squares described on the two other sides. The longest side therefore is said by geometricians to be equal in power to the powers of the other sides. This however Kiessling not understanding, says, “that power is the space contained between the concurring lines of figures, and is the area of the triangle.” “Δυναμις idem est, quod εμβαδον, spatium, quod infra concurrentes lineas figurarum continetur, area trigoni.” But Kiessling, though a good verbalist, is a bad geometrician, and no philosopher.

[41]In the original δεκατον _the tenth month_; but as it very seldom happens that a woman is in a state of pregnancy more than nine months, it appears to me that for δεκατον we should read εκτον _the sixth month_, as in the above translation.

[42]Obrechtus by translating περι δε δοξης in this place, “De fama et gloria,” has evidently mistaken the meaning of Iamblichus.

[43]The wise and magnanimous Pythagoreans, Platonists, Peripatetics and Stoics, among the ancients, looked to virtue as its own reward, and performed what is right, because it is right to do so. And though they firmly believed in the immortality of the soul, their conduct was not at all influenced by the hope of future reward. This great truth indeed, that virtue brings with it its own recompense, is almost at present obsolete; and it is no unusual thing to hear a man, when afflicted, exclaiming with Methodistical cant,

“The many troubles that I meet, In getting to a Mercy-seat!”

[44]These energies are called beneficent, because they are of a purifying character. Hence Plato in the Timæus says, that a deluge is the consequence of the Gods _purifying_ the earth by water.

[45]Iamblichus a little before informs us, that Pythagoras suspected that Phalaris intended to put him to death, but at the same time knew that he was not destined to die by Phalaris. This being the case therefore, Pythagoras has no claim to fortitude in this instance, in being free from the fear of death. But he has great claim to it, when it is considered that he was in the power of a tyrant who might have caused him to suffer tortures worse than death.

[46]i. e. _Humble_ (ταπεινης ουσης.) With the Pythagoreans, therefore, humility was no virtue, though in modern times it is considered to be the greatest of the virtues. With Aristotle likewise it is no virtue; for in his Nicomachean Ethics he says, “that all humble men are flatterers, and all flatterers are humble.”

[47]See the Cave of Plato, in the 7th book of his Republic.

[48]The original is, Μητροδωρος τε ο Θυρσου του πατρος Επιχαρμου, which Obrechtus erroneously translates, “Metrodorus Epicharmi filius Thyrsi nepos.”

[49]This observation applies also to those of the present day, who, from a profound ignorance of human nature, attempt to enlighten by education the _lowest_ class of mankind. For this, as I have elsewhere observed, is an attempt to break the golden chain of beings, to disorganise society, and to render the vulgar dissatisfied with the servile situations in which God and nature intended them to be placed. See p. 73. of the introduction to my translation of Select Works of Plotinus.

[50]This also is asserted, as I have before observed, in the Scholia on the 10th book of Commandine’s edition of Euclid’s Elements, p. 122.

[51]Obrechtus has omitted to translate the words ηδη πρεσβυτην οντα, “being now an elderly man.”

[52]In the original ακρατος, which Obrechtus very erroneously translates _impotens_.

[53]i. e. To the Pythagoreans.

[54]The whole of this paragraph, the greater part of which is a repetition of what has been said elsewhere, does not certainly belong to this place.

[55]In the original, και την γην αναδαστον εποιησαν, which Obrechtus erroneously translates, “et agrorum divisionem introduxerunt.”

[56]The words within the brackets are from a Latin Manuscript, which was in the possession of Fabricius.

[57]In the original, ουδεν γαρ αυταρκες, ο τουτων των μοριων ποιει το ολον. This Canter erroneously translates, “Quandoquidem horum nulla pars totum queat constituere.” And Gale has noticed the error.

[58]Gale says in his notes, that after οφθαλμων he adds φυσιος, but he should evidently have added αρετα, as in the above translation.

[59]In the original συν τᾳ οξυδορκιᾳ, which Canter very defectively translates, _videndi facultate_.

[60]For ου μετριαν here, I read ασυμμετριαν.

[61]i. e. So far as he is considered as energizing in conjunction with the body; but so far as he has an energy independent of the body, viz. so far as he is a rational soul, the body is not to be considered as a part of his essence. And the energy of the rational soul by itself alone, without any assistance from the corporeal organs, constitutes the true man, into the definition of which body does not enter.

[62]Canter, in his version of these Pythagoric fragments, uniformly translates ευτυχια _felicitas_, contrary to the obvious meaning of the word, as is evident in this, and many other passages. It is also directly contrary to what Aristotle says in cap. 13. lib. 7. of his Nicomachean Ethics: δια δε το προσδεισθαι της τυχης, δοκει τισι ταυτον ειναι η ευτυχια τῃ ευδαιμονιᾳ, ουκ ουσα· επει και αυτη υπερβαλλουσα, εμποδιος εστι. i. e. “Because felicity requires fortune, it appears to some persons that prosperity is the same with felicity. This however is not the case; since prosperity, when it is excessive, is an impediment to felicity.” But Canter did not, I believe, pretend to have any knowledge of philosophy: and Gale, who did, has not corrected him in this and many other places in which he has erred through the want of this knowledge. Gale however, though verbally learned, was but a garrulous smatterer in philosophy, as is evident from his notes on Iamblichus de Mysteriis.

[63]For επιπρεπειαν here, I read απρεπειαν.

[64]In the original, ωστε ουδεποκα δει θαυμαινεν, ει παντ’ αντεστραμμενως ενιοκα κρινεται, τας αληθινας διαθεσιος μεταπιπτοισας, which Canter erroneously translates as follows: “Quocirca mirandum non est, si cuncta nonnunquam, verâ affectione mutatâ, aliter eveniunt.” Nor is the error noticed by Gale.

[65]i. e. In the etherial vehicle of the soul, which when the soul energizes intellectually is spherical, and is moved circularly. This vehicle also is αυγοειδης, or luciform, throughout diaphanous, and of a star-like nature. Hence Marcus Antoninus beautifully observes: σφαιρα ψυχης αυτοειδης, (lege αυγοειδης) οταν μητε εκτεινηται επι τι, μητε εσω συντρεχῃ μητε συνιζανῃ, αλλα φωτι λαμπηται, ῳ την αληθειαν ορᾳ την παντων, και την εν αυτῃ. Lib. II. i. e. “The sphere of the soul is then luciform, when the soul is neither extended to any thing [external] nor inwardly concurs with it, nor is depressed by it, but is illuminated with a light by which she sees the truth of all things, and the truth that is in herself.”

[66]M. Meibomius observes, that Canter did not see that λογιστικω should be written in this place for αλογω. Canter however was right in retaining αλογω. For the dianoetic is the same with the logistic part of the soul; and it is evident that a part of the soul different from the dianoetic is here intended to be signified. Besides, as Aristotle shows in his Nicomachean Ethics, when the irrational becomes obedient to the rational part of the soul, the former then prohibits and vanquishes base appetites in conjunction with the latter.

[67]viz. Such as have the theoretic virtues.

[68]i. e. Such as have the ethical and political virtues.

[69]The original is, α δε δυναμις, οιον αλκα τις τω σκανεος, ᾳ υφισταμεθα, και εμμενομες τοις πραγμασιν. This sentence in its present state is certainly unintelligible. For σκανεος therefore, I read φυσεως, and then the sense will be as in the above translation. The version of Canter is certainly absurd; for it is, “Facultas tanquam robur et causæ, quo ferimus, et in rebus permanemus.” And Gale, as usual, takes no notice of the absurdity.

[70]viz., The equal and that which is arranged, belong to the order of bound, and the unequal and that which is without arrangement, to the order of infinity. And bound and infinity are the two great principles of things after the ineffable cause of all. See the third book of my translation of Proclus, On the Theology of Plato.

[71]viz. The salvation of the universe arises from the co-adaptation of the sublunary region to the heavens.

[72]In the Greek επῳδας; on which Gale observes, “Forte αμαθιας, nisi aliud subsit mysterium.” But it appears to me that there is no occasion to substitute any other word for επῳδας. For in the education of youth, it is certainly requisite to unite allurement with erudition. And the substitution of αμαθιας, _ignorance_, is monstrous.

[73]In the original αυτα γαρ α διενεργουσα, instead of which Gale proposes to read αυτα γαρ αδε ενεργοισα, which still leaves the sentence involved in obscurity. But if for διενεργουσα we read διοριζουσα as in the above translation, the meaning is clear.

[74]For νοηται in this place, I read φυεται.

[75]Neither of the Latin translators North and Arcerius have understood this passage, and therefore have erroneously translated it. For the original is: και παντα τα εν τᾳ συστοιχειᾳ και ταξει τα εκεινου κατακεχωρισμενα. This North translates: “Atque omnia in rerum serie et ordine ab illo separata.” But Arcerius: “Atque omnia quæ sunt in naturæ cognatione ordineque ab illo separata.” By the things however co-ordinate with, and successive to God, Archytas means the other Gods, who, though subordinate to the supreme, yet in consequence of partaking of the same nature, are said to be co-ordinate with him. Gale, likewise, did not perceive the error of the Latin translators.

[76]Plato says this of God in his Laws.

[77]The above sentences are from Stobæi Sententiæ, p. 3. (the edition that of 1609,) and are ascribed to Pythagoras.

[78]The above seven sentences are to be found in p. 4. of Stobæus, and as it appears to me are erroneously ascribed to Socrates. For I conceive them to have been written either by Democrates or Demophilus.

[79]Stob. p. 48.

[80]Hence the dogma of the Stoics derived its origin, that the wise man is independent of Fortune.

[81]Stob. p. 65. These three sentences are ascribed to Pythagoras.

[82]Stob. p. 80. These two sentences are ascribed to Socrates, but I have no doubt originally formed a part of the sentences of Demophilus.

[83]Stob. p. 104. This sentence is ascribed to Democritus in Stobæus, but has doubtless either Democrates or Demophilus for its author.

[84]Stob. p. 147. The above four sentences, are in Stobæus ascribed to Socrates; but I refer them either to Democrates or Demophilus.

[85]This sentence in Stobæus is ascribed to Socrates, as is also the one which immediately precedes it, viz. “The wealth of the avaricious man, like the sun descending under the earth, delights no living thing.” But as this sentence is to be found among the Similitudes of Demophilus, there can be no doubt of the other belonging to the same work.

[86]This and the preceding sentence, are in Stobæus ascribed to Democritus, but I attribute them to Democrates or Demophilus.

[87]This sentence in Stobæus is ascribed to Pythagoras, but, excepting the part within the brackets, is to be found among the sentences of Demophilus.

[88]This sentence in Stobæus, is ascribed to Democritus, and that immediately preceding it, to Socrates; but I ascribe both of them to Democrates, or Demophilus.

[89]This and the preceding sentences, together with two other sentences that accompany them, are in Stobæus ascribed to Democritus; but as the other two are to be found in the Collection of Democrates, there can be no doubt that all of them are from the same author.

[90]For as every cause of existence to a thing, is better than that thing, so far as the one is cause and the other effect; thus also that which gives a name to any thing is better than the thing named, so far as it is named, i. e. so far as pertains to its possession of a name. For the nominator is the cause, and the name the effect.

[91]In the Latin it is “post _dispositionem_ corporis.” But for _dispositionem_ it is evidently necessary to read _dissolutionem_.

[92]This is conformable to the well-known Pythagoric precept, “Follow God.”

[93]“We can by no other means,” (says Porphyry De Abstinen. lib. I.) “obtain the true end of a contemplative, intellectual life than by _adhering_ to God, if I may be allowed the expression, as if fastened by a nail, at the same time being torn away and separated from body and corporeal delights; having procured safety from our deeds, and not from the mere attention to words.”

[94]But intellect is the recipient of wisdom, and therefore intellect is the true man. This also is asserted by Aristotle.

[95]In the Latin _fidelis_; but as Ruffinus, the Latin translator of these sentences, frequently adulterates the true meaning of Sextus, by substituting one word for another, I have no doubt that in this sentence the original was πεπαιδευμενος _eruditus_, and not πιστος _fidelis_. My reason for so thinking is, that in one of the sentences of Demophilus it is said, “that the life of _ignorant_ men is a disgrace,” των αμαθων ονειδος ειναι τον βιον; and this in the sentences of Sextus is, “Hominum _infidelium_ vita, opprobrium est.” If, therefore, Ruffinus translates αμαθων, _infidelium_, there is every reason to suppose that he would translate πεπαιδευμενος, _fidelis_.

[96]Several of these sentences as published by Arcerius, are in a very defective state; but which, as the learned reader will perceive, I have endeavoured to amend in my translation of them.

[97]This work is unfortunately lost.

[98]According to Ælian and Suidas also, _melanurus_ is a fish; but as the word signifies that which has a black termination, it is very appropriately used as a symbol of a material nature.

[99]viz. Those Gods that are characterized by the _intelligible_, and _intellect_. See my translation of Proclus, On the Theology of Plato.

[100]See the second edition of this work in Nos. 15 and 16 of the Pamphleteer.

[101]i. e. Natures which are not connected with body.

[102]See an extract of some length, and of the greatest importance, from this dialogue, in my translation of Select Works of Plotinus, p. 553, &c.

[103]Forms subsist at the extremity of the intelligible triad, which triad consists of _being_, _life_, and _intellect_. But being and life, with all they contain, subsist here involved in impartible union. See my Proclus on the Theology of Plato.

[104]In Aristot. Metaphys. Lib. 13.

[105]Because ¾ is to ⅔ as 9 to 8.

[106]In Mathemat. p. 147.

[107]Instead of περιττουται, it is necessary to read περατουται; the necessity of which emendation, I wonder the learned Bullialdus did not observe.

[108]This philosophic apathy is not, as is stupidly supposed by most of the present day, insensibility, but a perfect subjugation of the passions to reason.

[109]The words και δικαιοσυνη are omitted in the original. But it is evident from Plotinus, that they ought to be inserted.

[110]Instead of κατ’ αυτην here, it is necessary to read κατ’ αισθησιν.

THE END.

Transcriber’s Notes

—Silently corrected a few typos.

—Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook is public-domain in the country of publication.

—Added a Table of Contents based on the chapter headings in the text.

—In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by _underscores_.