of divine worship will excuse from idolatry, the Heathens were not to blame for it.” See Stillingfleet’s answer to a book entitled Catholics [26] Both Arnobius therefore and Minucius Felix were very unfortunate in quoting this impostor to prove that the Gods of the ancients had formerly been men. Vid. Arnob. lib. 4. Adversus Gentes, et Minucii [27] Answer to Catholics no Idolaters Lond. 1676. p. 211.
[28] Arrian. de Exped. Alex. l. 4, et Curt. lib. 8.
[29] Vit. Artaxerx. Ælian. Var. hist. lib. 1. c. 21.
[30] Justin. lib. 6.
[31] Panegyr.
[32] Lib. 7.
[34] Καὶ κολασεως δε ειδος ειναι αθειαν ουκ απεικος. Τους γαρ γνοντας θεους, και καταφρονησαντας, ευλογον εν ετερῳ βιῳ και της γνωσεως στερεσθαι, και τους ταυτων βασιλιας ως θεους τιμησαντας, εδει την δικην αυτων ποιησαι των θεων εκπεσειν. Cap. 18.
[35] Και χρη τον επι τας αρχας αναβαινοντα ζητειν, ει δυνατον ειναι τι κρειττον της υποτεθεισης αρχης κᾳν ευρεθῃ, παλιν επ’ εκεινου ζητειν, εως αν εις τας ακροτατας εννοιας ελθωμεν, ων ουκετι σεμνοτερας εχομεν· και μη στησαι την ανωβασιν. Ουδε γαρ ευλαβητεον μη κενεμβατωμεν, μειζονα τινα και υπερβαινοντα τας πρωτας αρχας περι αυτων εννοουντες.
Ου γαρ δυνατον τηλικουτον πηδημα πηδησαι τας ημετερας εννοιας, ως παρισωθηναι τῃ αξιᾳ των πρωτων αρχων, ου λεγω και υπερπτηναι· μια γαρ αυτη προς θεον ανατασις αριστη, και ως δυνατον απταιστος. Και ων εννοουμεν αγαθων τα σεμνοτατα, και αγιωτατα, και πρωτουργα, και ονοματα, και πραγματα αυτῳ ανατιθεντας ειδεναι βεβαιως, οτι μηδεν ανατεθεικαμεν αξιον· αρκει δε ημιν εις συγγνωμην, το μηδεν εχειν εκεινων υπερτερον. Simplic. in Epict. Enchir. p. 207. Lond. 1670. 8vo.
[36] Of the first principle, says Damascius (in M. S. περι αρχων) the Egyptians said nothing, but celebrated it as a darkness beyond all intellectual conception, a thrice unknown darkness, πρωτην αρχην ανυμνηκασαν, σκοτος υπερ πασαν νοησιν, σκοτος αγνωστον, τρις τουτο επιφημιζοντες.
[37] See chap. 15 and 16, of my translation of this excellent work.
[38] See Vol. 2 of my translation of his Dissertations, Dissertat. 38, the title of which is, “Whether statues should be dedicated to the Gods.”
[39] The philosopher Isidorus was a man of this description, as we are informed by Damascius in the extracts from his life preserved by Photius. For he says of him: ουτε τα αγαλματα προσκυνειν εθελων, αλλ’ ηδη επ’ αυτους τους θεους ιεμενος, εισω κρυπτομενους ουκ εν αδυτοις, αλλ’ εν αυτῳ τῳ απορρητῳ, ο, τι ποτε εστι της παντελους αγνωσιας· πως ουν επ’ αυτους ιετο τοιουτους οντας; ερωτι δεινῳ απορρητῳ και τουτῳ· και τις δε αλλος η αγνωστος και ο ερως; και τινα τουτο φαμεν, ισασιν οι πειραθεντες· ειπειν δε αδυνατον, καὶ νοησαι γε ουδεν μαλλον ραδιον.
i.e. “He was not willing to adore statues, but approached to the Gods themselves, who are inwardly concealed not in adyta, but in the occult itself, whatever it may be of all-perfect ignorance. How therefore to them being such did he approach? Through vehement love, this also being occult. And what else indeed, could conduct him to them than a love which is also unknown? What my meaning is those who have experienced this love know; but it is impossible to reveal it by words, and it is no less difficult to understand what it is.”
[40] Instead of και δικης, I read και μετα δικης.
[41] i.e. Should be perfectly impartial.
[42] Instead of διπλοτατοις μοναδος as in the original, which is nonsense, it is necessary to read, as in the above translation απλοτητι της μοναδος.
[44] For τελος εχειν φιλοσοφιαν, it is necessary to read as in the translation, τελος εχειν φιλοσοφιας.
[45] Meaning those divine bodies the celestial orbs, which in consequence of participating a divine life from the incorporeal powers from which they are suspended, may be very properly called _secondary Gods_.
[46] Dr. Stillingfleet quotes this part of the extract, in his answer to a book entitled Catholics no Idolaters, and calls Julian the devout emperor.
[47] “Dio Chrysostome (says Dr. Stillingfleet in the before-cited work, p. 414) at large debates the case about images, in his Olympic Oration; wherein he first shows, that all men have a natural apprehension of one supreme God the father of all things; and that this God was represented by the statue made by Phidias of Jupiter Olympius, for so he said παρ’ ῳ νυν εσμεν, _before whom we now are_; and then describes him to be the king, ruler, and father of all, both Gods and men. This image he calls the most blessed, the most excellent, the most beautiful, the most beloved image of God. He says there are four ways of coming to the knowledge of God, by nature, by the instructions of the poets, by the laws, and by images; but neither poets, nor lawgivers, nor artificers were the best interpreters of the deity, but only the philosophers who both understood and explained the divine nature most truly and perfectly. After this, he supposes Phidias to be called to account for making such an image of God, as unworthy of him; when Iphitus, Lycurgus, and the old Eleans, made none at all of him, as being out of the power of man to express his nature. To this Phidias replies, that no man can express mind and understanding by figures, or colours, and therefore they are forced to fly to that in which the soul inhabits, and from thence they attribute the seat of wisdom and reason to God, having nothing better to represent him by. And by that means joining power and art together, they endeavour by something which may be seen and painted, to represent that which is invisible and inexpressible.
But it may be said, we had better then have no image or representation of him at all. No, says he; for mankind doth not love to worship God at a distance, but to come near and feel him, and with assurance to sacrifice to him and crown him. Like children newly weaned from their parents, who put out their hands towards them in their dreams as if they were still present; so do men out of the sense of God’s goodness and their relation to him, love to have him represented as present with them, and so to converse with him. Thence have come all the representations of God among the barbarous nations, in mountains, and trees, and stones.”
The same conceptions also about statues are entertained by the Brachmans in Benares on the Ganges. For Monsieur Bernier when he was at their university, and was discoursing with one of the most learned men among them, proposed to him the question about the adoration of their idols, and reproaching him with it as a thing very unreasonable, received from him this remarkable answer: “We have indeed in our temples many different statues, as those of Brahma, Mahaden, Genick, and Gavani, who are some of the chief and most perfect Deutas (or Deities); and we have also many others of less perfection, to whom we pay great honour, prostrating ourselves before them, and presenting them flowers, rice, oyles, saffron, and the like, with much ceremony.
But we do not believe these statues to be Brahma or Bechen, &c.
themselves, but only their images and representations, and we only give them that honour on account of the beings they represent. They are in our temples, because it is necessary in order to pray well, to have something before our eyes that may fix the mind. And when we pray, it is not the statue we pray to, but he that is represented by it.” The Brahmans have also another way of defending their worship of statues, of which the same author gives the following account: “That God, or that sovereign being whom they call Achar (immutable) has produced or drawn out of his own substance, not only souls, but also whatever is material and corporeal in the universe, so that all things in the world are but one and the same thing with God himself, as all numbers are but one and the same unity repeated.” Bernier Memoires, tome 3. p. 171. 178.
From this latter extract it appears that the Brachmans as well as the ancient Egyptians, believe that the supreme principle is all things.
According to the best of the Platonists likewise, this principle is _all things prior to all_. For by being _the one_, it is _all things_ after the most _simple_ manner, i.e. so as to transcend all multitude.
[48] See its Homilies, tome 2. p. 46.
[49] Tome 2. p. 54.
[50] p. 49.
[51] The ineffable principle of things, as is demonstrated in the Elements of Theology in this work, is beyond self-subsistence. Hence the first ineffable evolution from him consists of self-subsistent natures. As we therefore are only the dregs of the rational nature, many media are necessary to conjoin us with a principle so immensely exalted above us. And these media are the golden chain of powers that have deified summits, or that have the ineffable united with the effable.
[52] Σχεδον γαρ ως εμοι δοκει, ουκ εστι τουτων προς τους πολλους καταγελαστοτερα ακουσματα, ου δ’ αυ προς τους ευφυεις θαυμαστοτερα τε καὶ ενθουσιαστικωτερα. Epist. 2.
[53] Plato means by this, that he has never written perspicuously about _intelligibles_ or _true beings_, the proper objects of intellect.
[54] This light is a thing of a very different kind from that which is produced by the evidence arising from truths perceptible by the multitude, as those who have experienced it well know.
[55] Τοσονδε γε μην περι παντων εχω φραζειυ των γεγραφοτων και γραψαντων, οσοι φασιν ειδεναι περι ων εγω σπουδαζω, ειτ’ εμου ακηκοοτες, ειτ’ αλλων, ειθ’ ως ευροντες αυτοι, τουτους ουκ εστι κατα γε την εμην δοξαν περι του πραγματος επαϊειν ουδεν. ουκ ουν εμον γε περι αυτων εστι συγγραμμα, ουδε μη ποτε γεγηται· ρητον γαρ ουδαμως εστιν, ως αλλα μαθηματα, αλλ’ εκ πολλης συνουσιας γιγνομενης περι το πραγμα αυτο, και του συζην, εξαιφνης οιον απο πυρος πηδησαντος (lege πηδησαν) εξαφθεν φως, εν τῃ ψυχῃ γενομενον αυτο εαυτο ηδη τρεφει.----Ει δε μοι εφαινετο γραπτεα θ’ ικανως ειναι προς τους πολλους και ρητα, τι τουτου καλλιον επεπρακτ’ αν ημιν εν τῳ βιῳ, η τοις τε ανθρωποισι μεγα οφελος γραψαι, και την φυσιν εις φως τοις πασι προσαγαγειν; αλλ’ ουτε ανθρωποις ηγουμαι την επιχειρησιν περι αυτων λεγομενην αγαθον, ει μη τισιν ολιγοις, οποσοι δυνατοι ανευρειν αυτοι δια μικρας ενδειξεως· των τε δη αλλων, τους μεν καταφρονησεως ουκ ορθως εμπλησειεν αν ουδαμῃ εμμελους, τους δε υψηλης και χαυνης ελπιδος, ως σεμν’ αττα μεμαθηκοτας.
[56] See the sixth book of the Republic of Plato.
[57] This Olympiodorus is not the same with the philosopher of that name whose learned commentaries on certain dialogues of Plato are extant in manuscript; as in these, not only Proclus, but Damascius who flourished after Proclus is celebrated.
[58] This truly great man appears to have been the first who thoroughly penetrated the profundity contained in the writings of the more ancient philosophers, contemporary with and prior to Plato, and to have demonstrated the admirable agreement of their doctrines with each other. Unfortunately but few of his works are extant.
[59] Socrates in the Phædo of Plato, Orphically calls the multitude thyrsus-bearers as living Titannically. For the thyrsus, says Olympiodorus, (in MS. comment in Phæd.) is a symbol of material and partible fabrication, on account of its divulsed continuity, whence also it is a Titannic plant. “For it is extended, says he, before Bacchus, instead of his paternal sceptre, and through this they call him into a partial nature. He adds, “Besides the Titans are thyrsus-bearers; and Prometheus concealed fire in a reed, whether by this we are to understand that he draws down celestial light into generation, or impels soul into body, or calls forth divine illumination, the whole of which is ungenerated, into generation.”
[60] Alluding to the beautiful description given of Ulysses in the third book of the Iliad, v. 22. which is thus elegantly paraphrased by Pope.
But when he speaks what elocution flows!
Soft as the fleeces of descending snows The copious accents fall with easy art; Melting they fall and sink into the heart.
[61] Nicephorus in his commentary on Synesius de Insomniis, p. 362.
informs us that the Hecatic orb is a golden sphere, which has a sapphire stone inclosed in its middle part, and through its whole extremity characters, and various figures. He adds, that turning this sphere round, the Chaldeans perform invocations which they call Iyngæ.
Thus too, according to Suidas, the magician Julian of Chaldæa, and Arnuphis the Egyptian brought down showers of rain, by a magical power.
And by an artifice of this kind, Empedocles was accustomed to restrain the fury of the winds; on which account he was called αλεξανεμος, _an expeller of wind_.
[62] This signifies that the divine splendor which is the cause of the prophetic energy, would leave the earth, in consequence of the then existing inaptitude of persons, places, and instruments, to receive it.
[63] No opinion is more celebrated, than that of the metempsychosis of Pythagoras; but perhaps no doctrine is more generally mistaken. By most of the present day it is exploded as ridiculous; and the few who retain some veneration for its founder, endeavour to destroy the literal, and to confine it to an allegorical meaning. By some of the ancients this mutation was limited to similar bodies; so that they conceived the human soul might transmigrate into various human bodies, but not into those of brutes. And this was the opinion of Hierocles, as may be seen in his Commentary on the Golden Verses. But why may not the human soul become connected with subordinate, as well as with superior lives, by a tendency of inclination? Do not similars love to be united; and is there not in all kinds of life something similar and common?
Hence when the affections of the soul verge to a baser nature, while connected with a human body, these affections, on the dissolution of such a body, become enveloped as it were, in a brutal nature, and the rational eye, in this case, clouded with perturbations, is oppressed by the irrational energies of the brute, and surveys nothing but the dark phantasms of a degraded imagination. But this doctrine is vindicated by Proclus with his usual acuteness, in his admirable Commentaries on the Timæus, lib. 5. p. 329, as follows: “It is usual, says he, to enquire how human souls can descend into brute animals. And some indeed, think that there are certain similitudes of men to brutes, which they call savage lives: for they by no means think it possible that the rational essence can become the soul of a savage animal. On the contrary, others allow it may be sent into brutes, because all souls are of one and the same kind; so that they may become wolves and panthers, and ichneumons.
But true reason indeed, asserts that the human soul may be lodged in brutes, yet in such a manner, as that it may obtain its own proper life, and that the degraded soul may, as it were, be carried above it, and be bound to the baser nature by a propensity and similitude of affection. And that this is the only mode of insinuation, we have proved by a multitude of arguments, in our Commentaries on the Phædrus.
If however, it be requisite to take notice, that this is the opinion of Plato, we add that in his Republic he says, that the soul of Thersites assumed an ape, but not the body of an ape: and in the Phædrus, that the soul descends into a savage life, but not into a savage body. For life is conjoined with its proper soul. And in this place he says it is changed into a brutal nature. For a brutal nature is not a brutal body, but a brutal life.”
[64] Proclus at the end of the first book of this work says, “that divine names will be accurately discussed by him, when he comes to speak of partial powers.” This, however, is not done by him in any one of the six books that are extant; which shows that another book is wanting.
[65] Ποιει α κρινεις ειναι καλα, κᾳν ποιων μελλης αδοξησειν· φαυλος γαρ κριτης καλου πραγματος οχλος. Demophilus.
[66] The 12th chapter is not marked in the original; but it begins conformably to my translation.
[67] The 15th chapter also is not marked in the original; and is comprehended in my translation in the 14th chapter. Perhaps it should begin at the words, “If therefore the Gods produce all things,” in p.
49.
[68] Such is the title of this chapter in the Greek, which is obviously erroneous. For the proper title is, “What that is which unites us to _the good_; and that it is divine faith.” What is said indeed in the Greek to be the contents of this, belong to the preceding chapter.
[69] For εν φαιδρῳ it is necessary to read εν φαιδωνι.
[70] In the Greek το μονοειδες _the uniform_, but it should evidently be το νοητον, _the intelligible_.
[71] For υποθεσεως I read υποστασεως.
[72] These four chapters are comprehended in one in my translation, as they are not marked in the Greek; and I had not divided them, when this work was sent to the press, as I have done the chapters of the other books, in which there is a similar defect in the original.
[73] The fifth and sixth chapters are comprehended in the second chapter in my translation.
[74] For ουσιαι it is necessary to read αιτιαι.
[75] The seventh and eighth chapters form the third in my translation.
[76] For εν, it is necessary to read ον.
[77] And the ninth and tenth are the fourth and fifth chapters in my translation.
[78] This is the sixth chapter in my translation.
[79] It appears from this account of the contents of the twelfth chapter, that a considerable part of it is wanting in the original; because nothing is said in it about the manner in which the second triad proceeds analogous to the first.
[80] For πλατωνος, it is necessary to read παντος.
[81] The contents of chapter thirty-seven in the original erroneously form the conclusion of the contents of chapter thirty-six. And instead of ως την ακροτητα, it is therefore necessary to read πως την ακροτητα.
Hence what are marked as κεφ. λζ, κεφ. λη, and κεφ. λθ, should be marked κεφ. λη, κεφ. λθ, and κεφ. μ’. It will be found also that chapter forty is wanting.
[82] Meaning Plato.
[83] Meaning his preceptor Syrianus.
[84] The word μονον is omitted in the original.
[85] Instead of νοησις μετα λογου, it is necessary to read, νοησει μετα λογου.
[86] Hyparxis, is the summit of any nature, or blossom, as it were, of its essence.
[87] Wherever this word occurs in this translation, it signifies that which is characterized by unity.
[88] i.e. Of the nature of _the one_.
[89] i.e. The discursive energy of reason, or the power of the soul that reasons scientifically.
[90] i.e. The object of opinion.
[91] i.e. Evil dæmons.
[92] εν τιμαιῳ is omitted in the Greek.
[93] For οικειαις it is necessary to read οικειας.
[94] τριαδος is omitted in the original.
[95] των θεων, is omitted in the original.
[96] For μυθικων, it is necessary to read, τα μεν ηθικων.
[97] For επιστολας it is necessary to read επιβολας.
[98] For μονον αρμοστεον, it is necessary to read ειδος αναρμοστεον.
[99] τελος is omitted in the original.
[100] For διαιτης, I read διατριβης.
[101] For πραξεων, it is necessary to read ταξεων.
[102] For εχοντων, it is necessary to read εχομενων.
[103] For αποστασεως, it is necessary to read υποστασεως.
[104] For ανομοιοτητα, it is necessary to read ομοιοτητα.
[105] Instead of οτε ως τα ολα, read ουτε ως τα ενυλα.
[106] For αρχῃ δευτερα, it is necessary to read αρχειοτερα.
[107] For αξων read αζων.
[108] For και της εναδος, read, και απο της εναδος.
[109] For και ο νου, ενοειδη μια και η ψυχη, read, και ο νους ενοειδης, και η ψυχη μια.
[110] For αιων ενεργειᾳ, read, αει ων ενεργειᾳ.
[111] The sense requires that θειου should be here supplied.
[112] Instead of ομοιου μη κατα δυναμιν, it is necessary to read και κατα δυναμιν τῳ παντι ομοιον, as both the sense of the whole sentence and the version of Portus require.
[113] It seems requisite to supply here the word υπερκοσμιων as in the translation.
[114] For δευτερον read δευτερα.
[115] It is necessary here to supply the words, εκ των νοερων θεων.
[116] και is omitted in the original.
[117] For απῃωρηται it is requisite to read, παρῃρηνται.
[118] For αυτου it is necessary to read αυτων.
[119] For αλλων it is necessary to read ολων.
[120] For εμβαινοντα read εκβαινοντα.
[121] It is necessary here to supply the word αιτιον.
[122] For παρασκευαζοντα it is requisite to read περισκιαζοντα.
[123] For το it is necessary to read τῃ.
[124] ουχ is omitted in the original.
[125] After απλουν in the original, it is requisite to insert ειναι και.
[126] δυνατον is erroneously printed instead of αγαθον.
[127] Instead of μονιμῳ it is necessary to read γονιμῳ.
[128] For γεννησεως it is requisite to read γνωσεως.
[129] The same emendation is necessary here as above.
[130] Instead of προς αυτον it is requisite to read πρωτιστοις.
[131] For το ον it is necessary to read τῳ οντι.
[132] For γευσεσθε read τευξεσθε.
[133] πατρικον is omitted in the original.
[134] και is omitted in the original.
[135] For ουσιαν it is necessary to read αιτιαν.
[136] For ουτος it is necessary to read αυτος.
[137] Ουχ is omitted in the original.
[138] Instead of το ον it is necessary to read το εν.
[139] The εν in the original which immediately precedes ουχ εν seems to be superfluous, and is therefore omitted in the translation.
[140] The words ασωματος εστι are omitted in the original.
[141] For essence and _the one_ being two things will participate of the many, i.e. of the first many, or two.
[142] For ον it is necessary to read εν.
[143] viz. which are multitude only without any participation of _the one_.
[144] For εξῃρηται it is necessary to read εξηρτηται. The punctuation also of the text in this place, must be altered agreeably to the translation.
[145] For αυτο το εν is necessary to read αυτο το ον.
[146] This sentence is very erroneous in the original, as will be evident from comparing it with the above translation.
[147] For εν it is necessary to read ον.
[148] Here also ον must be substituted for εν.
[149] For παντα παροντα, I read παντα τα οντα.
[150] For και here, it is necessary to read αλλα.
[151] For σοφως, it is necessary to read σαφως.
[152] In the original μη is wanting after ει.
[153] For πραξιν, it is necessary to read ταξιν.
[154] For της απλοτητος, I read την απλοτητα.
[155] For του θεου, it is necessary to read των θεων.
[156] For αιτιον it is necessary to read αιτιου.
[157] For δι’ ου, it is necessary to read δι’ ο; since the former denotes the _instrumental_, but the latter the _final_ cause.
[158] For αδυνατων, it is necessary to read αδυτων. For the occult and invisible order of Night and Phanes is called by Orpheus the _adytum_. So that by the _first adyta_, Proclus means the highest order of intelligibles.
[159] For των θεων, it is necessary to read τοις θεοις.
[160] For αιτιαν, it is necessary to read αιτιᾳ.
[161] For αναλυσεως it is necessary to read αναλογιας.
[162] For εν it is necessary to read ον.
[163] For παροντος it appears requisite to read παραγοντος.
[164] Here also for εν it is necessary to read ον.
[165] For ανομοιων it is necessary to read ομοιων.
[166] οντως is omitted in the original.
[167] Instead of τα μεν γαρ πλειονων αιτια, και των παντων αιτιων κατα την δυναμιν των προ αυτων ποικιλωτερων κατα την ουσιαν εστιν, it is necessary to read τα μεν γαρ πλειονων αιτια, και των παντων αιτιον κατα δυναμιν μιμουνται, τα δε των ελασσονων των προ αυτων ποικιλωτερα κατα την ουσιαν εστιν.
[168] For αυτοειδεσιν it is requisite to read αυγοειδεσιν.
[169] In the original here, about a line and a half is so defective, that not being able to supply the deficiency, I have not attempted to translate it.
[170] Instead of ζωης here it is necessary to read ψυχης.
[171] For εντονοις it is necessary to read εν τορνοις.
[172] For αυτοις read αυτης.
[173] For αιτιων it is necessary to read αιτιας.
[174] For τινος it is necessary to read τινες.
[175] For εξηρηται it is necessary to read εξηρτηται.
[176] Here also it is necessary for εξηρηται to read εξηρτηται.
[177] μενειν is omitted in the original.
[178] For εσχατων it is necessary to read εσχατως.
[179] The word γεννητικης is omitted in the original.
[180] τριτον is omitted in the original.
[181] For πληθος in the original it is necessary to read ειδος.
[182] The punctuation in the latter part of this sentence in the original is erroneous: for instead of και την εν εκεινῃ του πληθους ωδινα δυναμει γενομενη, το πληθος απεικασατο, it should be και την εν εκεινῃ του πληθους ωδινα δυναμει γενομενη το πληθος, απεικασατο.
[183] For πρωτου here, it is necessary to read εσχατου. For in this place, Proclus is speaking of body.
[184] For αλογων it is necessary to read αναλογων.
[185] The words των μετα in the original immediately before το νοητον θεων γενος, are to be rejected as superfluous.
[186] εκφαινει is omitted in the original.
[187] For εκεινοις, it is necessary to read εκεινης.
[188] viz. Intelligible life, or life itself, or the first life.
[189] For Φαιδρῳ it is necessary to read Φαιδωνι.
[190] It is here necessary to supply αλλ’ ουδε κατα τον νουν τον νοῃτον.
[191] ο χρονος is omitted in the original.
[192] Instead of αϊδιοτητα, it is necessary to read ιδιοτητα.
[193] ζωης is omitted in the original.
[194] Instead of προ του περατος, and προ της απειριας, it is necessary to read προς του περατος, and προς της απειριας.
[195] For νοητοις it is necessary to read νοεροις.
[196] For δευτερα it is necessary to read δευτερως.
[197] Instead of το πραγμα τῳ ονοματι, it is necessary to read το ονομα τῳ πραγματι.
[198] For νοερας here it is necessary to read νοητας.
[199] It is requisite here to supply το εν.
[200] For αυτο το ενεργειν it is necessary to read αυτῳ τῳ ενεργειν.
[201] For προσχοντες it is necessary to read προεχοντες.
[202] In the original εν ον, but the true reading is evidently εν alone.
[203] Instead of οντος it is necessary to read ενος.
[204] It is necessary to correct the text here, and to read as follows: τι ουν; των μοριων εκατερον τουτων του ενος οντος το, τε εν και το ον αρα απολειπεσθον, ἢ το εν. κ. τ. λ.
[205] Instead of απειριας, it is necessary to read αποριας.
[206] It seems requisite to supply the word αιτιον after the words το εν νοητον ειδος.
[207] Instead of τα καθ’ ενωσιν, it is requisite to read παντα καθ’ ενωσιν, and then the end of this book will be complete, and not defective as the Latin translator Portus imagined it was.
[208] For αυτης it is necessary to read αυτων.
[209] It is necessary to supply in this place in the original, νοεροι θεοι.
[210] In the original, after και νουν in this sentence, it is necessary to supply νοητως και νοερως, το δε νοερον. And after νοερως, it is also requisite to supply και νοητως, as in the above translation.
[211] For τελειοτατοι it is necessary to read τελειοτητος.
[212] After την υπουρανιαν αψιδα, it is obviously necessary to add και τον υπερουρανιον τοπον.
[213] The sentence that immediately follows this in the original, is so defective, as to be perfectly unintelligible. I have not therefore, attempted to translate it.
[214] “The word τελετη or _initiation_,” says Hermeas, in his MS. Commentary on the Phædrus, “was so denominated from rendering the soul perfect. The soul therefore was once perfect. But here it is divided, and is not able to energize wholly by itself.” He adds: “But it is necessary to know that _telete_, _muesis_, and _epopteia_, τελετη, μυησις, and εποπτεια, differ from each other.
_Telete_, therefore, is analogous to that which is preparatory to purifications. But _muesis_, which is so called from closing the eyes, is more divine. For to close the eyes in initiation is no longer to receive by sense those divine mysteries, but with the pure soul itself. And εποπτεια _epopteia_ is to be established in, and become a spectator of the mysteries.”
[215] φυσει is omitted in the original.
[216] Instead of ως εν τοις πρωτιστοις νοητοις νοερος, it is necessary to read ως εν τοις πρωτιστοις νοεροις νοητος.
[217] For αυτην, it is necessary to read αυτοις.
[218] δε is omitted in the original, which the sense evidently requires to be inserted.
[219] For ενωσεως it is necessary to read νοησεως.
[220] Here also it is requisite to adopt the same reading as before, p.
252.
[221] Instead of κατα την προσηκουσαν εκεινῃ, it seems requisite to read κατα την προσηκουσαν αξιαν, ωσπερ εκεινη, as in the translation.
[222] For εικων I read αιτιων.
[223] i.e. Perfection proceeding every where.
[224] For κηρυγματι, it is requisite to read κηρυγμα τι.
[225] For _νοητων_, it is necessary to read _νοερων_.
[226] For συνεχον, it is necessary to read συνεχομενον.
[227] For των ολων it is necessary to read την ολην.
[228] i.e. That which connectedly contains.
[229] For εκατερον I read εκατερα, in order that it may agree with αψις.
[230] Viz. as forming the celestial profundity.
[231] For δυναμεων it is necessary to read δυναμεως.
[232] For πρωτην it is necessary to read τριτην.
[233] For γονιμου it is necessary to read μονιμου.
[234] For εκεινη it is necessary to read συνεκτικη.
[235] For λογον it is necessary to read λογων.
[236] It is here necessary to supply και την ουσιαν του ενος.
[237] Instead of ἢ μεθεξις, I read ἡ μεθεξις.
[238] It appears to me that the word προαγει is wanting in the original, and I have therefore supplied it in the translation.
[239] It is requisite to supply in this place εν τῃ ακροτητι ταυτῃ.
[240] For νοερων, it is necessary to read νοητων.
[241] For υπουρανια, it seems to be necessary that we should read ουρανια.
[242] In the original αριθμος is omitted.
[243] το αρτιοπερισσον is omitted in the original.
[244] Instead of πανταχου γαρ τα πρωτιστα των υφισταμενων, την ιδιαν εχει μορφην, it is necessary to read πανταχου γαρ τα πρωτιστα των υφειμενων, των προϋφισταμενων, την ιδιαν εχει μορφην.
[245] Instead of αλληλοις, I read αλλοις.
[246] Instead of απαγων ημας απο των νοητων επι την αισθητην φυσιν, it is necessary to read επαγων ημας επι των νοητων απο της αισθητης φυσεως.
[247] Every perpetually circulating body is called by Plato, a divine generated nature.
[248] εν τῃ ενεργειᾳ is omitted in the original.
[249] For αϊδιοτητος, it is necessary to read ιδιοτητος.
[250] το μικτον is omitted in the original.
[251] For περιοδου it is necessary to read προοδου.
[252] After και it is necessary to supply τα μεν ενουται και.
[253] For νοερων, it is necessary to read νοητων.
[254] It appears from the version of Portus, that the words ο μεν κατα την νοητην δυναμιν των νοερων are omitted in the original. Indeed, the sense requires that they should be inserted.
[255] For πρωτην, it is necessary to read πρωτως. It was also requisite to alter the punctuation in the preceding sentence.
[256] For το γαρ it is necessary to read εκεινος γαρ.
[257] For εκειναις, it is necessary to read εκεινοις.
[258] For εμφανους it is necessary to read αφανους.
[259] For υπερουρανιαν in this place, it is necessary to read υπουρανιαν.
[260] For [Greek: ακμαιος], it is necessary to read [Greek: ακμαιοις].
[261] [Greek: απο] is omitted in the original.
[262] For εξηρηται, it appears to me that we should read εκει ειρηται.
[263] ολικως is omitted in the original.
[264] For νοερως, it is necessary to read νοητως.
[265] For φυρομενων read φερομενων.
[266] There is evidently something wanting in the original in this part; and as it appears to me after καθαπερ (οιμαι) και ο συμπας ουτοσι κοσμος, it is requisite to supply the words εις τους εγκοσμιους θεους ανηρτηται, οι.
[267] It appears from the version of Portus that the words θεια γενη are omitted in the original.
[268] For πασι, it is necessary to read πασαι.
[269] For ποιουμενον, it is necessary to read ποιουμενης.
[270] Morphe pertains to the colour, figure, and magnitude of superficies.
[271] For δημιουργου, it is necessary to read δημιουργει.
[272] For αυτων it seems necessary to read αυτου.
[273] i.e. Of the father of Tantalus.
[274] For δυσειδες, it is necessary to read δυοειδες.
[275] In the original διο, but it is evidently necessary to read δια.
[276] For ενεστι, it is necessary to read εν εστι.
[277] For διαφερει, it is necessary to read αναφερει.
[278] For τελεσιουργα it is necessary to read γενεσιουργα.
[279] For και γαρ it is necessary to read ου γαρ.
[280] For εν αλλοις, it is requisite to read εν αλληλοις.
[281] δυναμιν is omitted in the original.
[282] For πλεον it is evidently necessary to read ηττον.
[283] For αριστοις, it is necessary to read αρρητοις.
[284] For αρρητον, it is necessary to read αριστον.
[285] Instead of του παντος, it is doubtless necessary to read τα παντα. For the demiurgus also has an hypostasis which is above the forms of the universe.
[286] For εξηρημενοις, it is necessary to read εξηρτημενοις.
[287] The words τα δε μεριστα are omitted in the original, but evidently ought to be inserted.
[288] For δεχομεθα, it is necessary to read δεχομενα.
[289] For αυτου, it is necessary to read αυτων.
[290] το εσχατον is omitted in the original.
[291] For αυτων, it is necessary to read αυτου.
[292] The same emendation is here also necessary, as above.
[293] For αυτης, it is requisite to read αυτου.
[294] Κρατης is erroneously printed in the original for Σωκρατης.
[295] For καθ’ εν it is necessary to read καθ’ ην.
[296] For εν αυτῳ, it is necessary to read εν εαυτῳ.
[297] For νοητων, it is obviously necessary to read νοερων.
[298] For πρωτων, it is necessary to read προ των.
[299] For εαυτοτητι read παντοτητι.
[300] For εκφοιτητα read ανεκφοιτητα.
[301] For αναλυοντες, it is necessary to read ανακαλουντες.
[302] In the original, after εν δε τοις νοητοις και νοεροις, it is necessary to supply καθ’ υπαρξιν, εν δε τοις νοεροις, κ. τ. λ.
[303] In the original ἡ δε is omitted.
[304] After αλλα in the original it is necessary to supply the words και ταυτον εαυτῳ, καὶ ετερον εαυτου.
[305] For κοινωνιαν, it is necessary to read κοινωνιας.
[306] The word παραγειν is omitted in the original, but ought doubtless to be inserted.