FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[1]Dissertation on Phalaris, p. 273.[2]In Lib. de Philosophorum Sectis.[3]The following extract from Bentley’s Eighth Sermon at Boyle’s Lectures, sufficiently shows the doctor’s deficiency in intellect. “Nor do we count it any absurdity, that such a vast and immense universe should be made for the sole use of such mean and unworthy creatures as the children of men. For if we consider the dignity of an intelligent being, and put that in the scales against brute inanimate matter, we may affirm, without overvaluing human nature, that the soul of one virtuous and religious man is of greater worth and excellency than the sun and his planets, and all the stars in the world.” For this opinion is not only stupid and arrogant in the extreme, but is also contrary to the doctrine of the Scriptures, of which the doctor was a teacher. For as I have observed in p. 13 of the Introduction to my translation of Proclus On the Theology of Plato, “the stars are not called Gods by the Jewish legislator, as things inanimate like statues fashioned of wood or stone.” This is evident from what is said in the book of Job, and the Psalms. “Behold even the moon and it shineth not, yea the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man that is a worm, and the son of man which is a worm?” (Job, xxv. v. 5 and 6). And, “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained; what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him.” (Psalm viii. v. 3 and 4.) It is evident, therefore, from these passages, that the heavens and the stars are more excellent than man; but nothing inanimate can be more excellent than that which is animated. To which may be added, that in the following verse David says, that God has made man a little lower than the angels. But the stars, as I have demonstrated in the above mentioned Introduction, were considered by Moses as angels and Gods; and consequently they are animated beings, and superior to man.Farther still, it is said in Psalm xi. v. 4, that “the Lord’s throne is in heaven.” And again, in Isaiah, chap. lxvi. v. 1. “Thus saith the Lord, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.” If, therefore, the heavens are the throne of Deity, they must evidently be deified. For nothing can come into immediate contact with divinity, without being divine. Hence, says Simplicius, (in Comment in Lib. ii. de Cælo.) “That it is connascent with the human soul to think the celestial bodies are divine, is especially evident from those (the Jews), who look to these bodies through preconceptions about divine natures. For they also say that the heavens are the habitation of God, and the throne of God, and are alone sufficient to reveal the glory and excellence of God to those who are worthy; than which assertions what can be more venerable?”Indeed, that the heavens are not the inanimate throne and residence of Deity, is also evident from the assertion in the nineteenth Psalm, that “the heavens declare the glory of God.” For R. Moses, a very learned Jew, (See Gaffarel’s Unheard-of Curiosities, p. 391.) says, “that the wordsaphartodeclare, orset forth, is never attributed to things inanimate.” Hence he concludes, “that the heavens are not without some soul; which, says he, is no other than that of those blessed intelligences who govern the stars, and dispose them into such letters as God has ordained;declaringunto us men, by means of this writing, what events we are to expect. And hence this same writing is called by all the ancients,chetab hamelachim; that is to say,the writing of the angels.”[4]In the Fragments of his Life of Isidorus the Platonist, preserved by Photius. The greater part of what Suidas has said about Hierocles is taken from these memoirs of Isidorus.[5]The discourses of Socrates in Plato.[6]For so the Christians were called by the heathens, when the religion of the latter was rapidly declining, and that of the former had gained the ascendency. Thus Porphyry, in a passage preserved by Theodoret, (in lib. i. De Curat. Græc. Superst.)Χαλκοδετος γαρ η προς θεους οδος, αιπεινη τε και τραχεια, ης πολλας ατραπους Βαρβαροι μεν εξευρον, Ελληνες δε επλανηθησαν, οι δε κρατουντες ηδη και διεφθειραν.i.e. “For the way which leads to the Gods is bound with chains of brass, and is arduous and rough, many paths of which were indeed discovered by the Barbarians; but the Greeks have wandered from them, and they are entirely corrupted bythose who now prevail.”This passage of Porphyry, derived its origin from the following oracle of Apollo, preserved by Eusebius:Αιπεινη γαρ οδος μακαρων τρηχεια τε πολλον,Χαλκοδετοις τα πρωτα διοιγομενη πυλεωσιν.Ατραπετοι δε εασσιν αθεσφατοι εγγεγαυιαι,Ας πρωτοι μεροπων επ’ απειρονα πρηξιν εφηνανΟι το καλον πινοντες υδωρ Νειλωτιδος αιης·Πολλας και Φοινικες οδους μακαρων εδαησαν,Ασσυριοι Λυδοι τε, και Εβραιων γενος ανδρων.But forΕβραιων, in the last line, I readΧαλδαιων, it not being at all reasonable to suppose that an oracle of Apollo would say that the Hebrews knew many paths which led to the knowledge of the Gods. It is probable, therefore, that either Aristobulus the Jew, well known for interpolating the writings of the heathens, or the wicked Eusebius, as he is called by the Emperor Julian, has fraudulently substituted the former word for the latter. The Oracle, with this emendation, will be in English as follows:The path by which to deity we climbIs arduous, rough, ineffable, sublime;And the strong massy gates, through which we passIn our first course, are bound with chains of brass.Those men the first who of Egyptian birthDrank the fair water of Nilotic earth,Disclosed by actions infinite this road,And many paths to God Phœnicians show’d.This road the Assyrians pointed out to view,And this the Lydians and Chaldeans knew.But when Porphyry says that the Greeks have wandered from the path which leads to divinity, he alludes to their worshipping men as Gods; which, as I have shown in the Introduction to my translation of Proclus On the Theology of Plato, is contrary to the genuine doctrine of the heathen religion; and was the cause of its corruption, and final extinction, among the Greeks and Romans.[7]Odyss. lib. ix. v. 347.[8]Fragments of this work are to be found in Photius. But they are fragments of a treatise or treatises, OnProvidence, Fate, and Free Will.[9]An adept in the philosophy of Plato will at once be convinced of the truth of this assertion, by comparing what Hierocles has said about prayer in his Commentary On the Golden Verses of the Pythagoreans, with what is said respecting it by Iamblichus, in his Treatise on the Mysteries; and by Proclus, at the beginning of the second book of his Commentary On the Timæus of Plato. See the Introduction to the second Alcibiades, in Vol. 4. of my translation of Plato, and the Notes to my translation of Maximus Tyrius; in which the reader will find what Iamblichus, Proclus, and Hierocles have said on this subject. And that he was not consummately accurate in his knowledge, will be evident by comparing what he says in his above mentioned Commentary, about that middle order of beings denominatedthe illustrious heroes, with what Iamblichus and Proclus have most admirably unfolded concerning them. And this will still more plainly appear from what he says about the celebratedtetrad, ortetractysof the Pythagoreans, in p. 166, and 170, of the same Commentary. For in both these places, he clearly asserts, that this tetrad is the same with theDemiurgus, ormakerofthe universe. Thus, in the former of these placesκαι την τετραδα πηγην της αιδιου διακοσμησεως, αποφαινεται την αυτην ουσαν τῳ δημιουργῳ θεῳ.i.e. “And the author of these verses shows that the tetrad, which is the fountain of the perpetual orderly distribution of things, is the same with the God who is the Demiurgus.” And in the latter passage,εστι γαρ ως εφαμεν, δημιουργος των ολων και αιτια η τετρας, θεος νοητος, αιτιος του ουρανιου και αισθητου θεου.i.e. “For as we have said, the tetrad is the Demiurgus and cause of the wholes of the universe, being an intelligible God, the source of the celestial and sensible God.” The tetrad, however, or theanimal itself, (το αυτωζωον) of Plato; who, as Syrianus justly observes, was the best of the Pythagoreans; subsists at the extremity of theintelligibletriad, as is most satisfactorily shown by Proclus in the third book of his Treatise On the Theology, and in the fourth book of his Commentary On the Timæus of Plato. But the Demiurgus, as it is demonstrated by the same incomparable man, in the fifth book of the former of these works, subsists at the extremity of theintellectualtriad. And between these two triads another order of Gods exists, which is denominatedintelligible, and at the same time intellectual, as partaking of both the extremes. The English reader who has a genius for such speculations, will be convinced of this by diligently perusing my translations of the above mentioned works. Notwithstanding, however, the knowledge of Hierocles was not so consummately accurate on certain most abstruse theological dogmas as that of Iamblichus, Proclus, and Damascius, yet where ethics are concerned, his notions are most correct, most admirable, and sublime.[10]Thus, too, Plato in his Laws mingles his polity from a democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. He was, however, decidedly of opinion, as is evident from his Politicus, that the best form of government is that in which either one man, who is a most excellent character, is the supreme ruler, or a few excellent men rule conjointly.[11]In the original there is onlyπρωτος ὦν ο νομος, which is evidently defective; but by addingεμψυχοςthe sense will be complete. And in what immediately followsτουτω γαρ ο μεν βασιλευς νομιμοςwhich also is defective, Gesner addsτηρησει after τουτω γαρ, but he should doubtless have addedει τηρησει.[12]i.e.To a perfect subjugation of the passions to reason, and not to a perfect insensibility, as is stupidly supposed by many who do not understand the proper meaning of the wordapathy, as used by the Pythagoreans, Platonists, and Stoics.[13]The original is, I conceive, evidently defective in this place; for it is,ουτε γαρ γα τως αυτως καρπως, ουτε ψυχα ανθρωπων ταν αυταν αρεταν παραδεξασθαι δυναται.It appears, therefore, to me, thatπανταχουshould be added afterκαρπως, and that forουτε ψυχαwe should readουτε πασα ψυχα.[14]Among the Lacedæmonians the three men were thus denominated, who were chosen by the Ephori to preside over the equestrian order. But the ephori were magistrates corresponding to thetribunesof the people among the Romans.[15]In the original,α μεν γαρ πλεονεκτια γινεται περι το αγουμενον μερος τας ψυχας· λογικα γαρ α επιθυμια. But forαγουμενον, I readαλογον; and forλογικα, it is necessary to readου λογικα. For the vices, according to the Pythagoreans, subsist about the irrational part of the soul, which consists, according to them, as well as according to Plato, ofangeranddesire. Hence Metopus, the Pythagorean, says: “Since there are two parts of the soul, the rational and the irrational, the latter is divided into the irascible and the appetitive. And the rational part, indeed, is that by which we judge and contemplate; but the irrational part is that by which we are impelled and desire.” See my translation of Pythagoric Ethical Fragments, at the end of my translation of Iamblichus’ Life of Pythagoras.[16]I here read, with Victorius,κατ’ οικειοτατα εγγενη, forκαι οικειοτατον εν γενοιν.[17]This sentence within the brackets is not to be found in Stobæus.[18]i.e. God is not in want of ministers or servants to assist him in the government of the universe: for he produces and provides for all things at once by his own immediate energy. But the cooperation of subordinate divine powers with him is necessary to the proper participation of him by the different beings which the universe contains.[19]Forοι μιμευμενοι των αυτωνin this place, I readοι μιμευμενοι τον αυτον.[20]Instead ofενιοτεhere, I readπαντοτε.[21]Conformably to this, Plato also in the Politicus says: “It is requisite to call him royal who possesses the royal science, whether he governs or not.”[22]Plato says somewhere (I think in his Laws), that a greater evil than impudence cannot befall either cities or individuals.[23]i.e.The seed which pertains to the propagation of his children.[24]i.e.To his children while they live in his house under his protection and are unmarried; and who are in danger through having a stepmother of losing that property which ought to be theirs on the death of their father.[25]Pæan is a song of rejoicing, which was sung at festivals and on other occasions, in honour of Apollo, for having slain the serpent Python.[26]A kind of harp beaten with sticks.[27]In the originalουρανιον ζωονacelestialanimal; but as Callicratidas is here speaking of the Demiurgus, or artificer of the universe, who is anintellectualgod, forουρανιονI readνοερον. For the Demiurgus is the maker, and not one of the celestial gods. But he is called ananimal, as being the cause oflifeto all things. Thus, too, Aristotle, in the 12th book of his Metaphysics, says, “that God is an animal eternal and most excellent.”[28]This Perictyone is different from her who was the mother of Plato.[29]In this extract no mention whatever is made of the harmony of a woman; for it wholly consists of the duty of children to their parents.[30]και νοσῳis omitted in the original, but ought, as it appears to me, to be inserted.[31]It is well observed by Olympiodorus, on the Phædo of Plato, “that the soul is not punished by divinity through anger but medicinally; and that by eternity of punishment we must understand punishment commensurate with the soul’s partial period; because souls that have committed the greatest offences cannot be sufficiently purified in one period.”[32]Forφρονεεινin this place, which is evidently erroneous, I readφθονεειν.[33]The whole of this extract is to be found in the fourth book of Plato’s Laws. (See tom. viii. p. 187, and 188, of the Bipont edition.) But there is occasionally some little difference between the text of Plato and that of Aristoxenus, as the critical reader will easily discover. Neither Fabricius nor the editors of Stobæus have noticed the source of this extract.[34]The whole of this extract is taken from the eleventh book of Plato’s Laws, but what is there said is here somewhat amplified.[35]See p. 137, and 138, of my Translation of Iamblichus on the Mysteries.[36]Iliad IX. v. 495. 6. 7.[37]Iliad IX. v. 493. Hierocles is mistaken in saying that poetryrashly asserts that the Gods are flexible. For as I have observed in my Notes to Iamblichus on the Mysteries, divine flexibility indicates in Homer, and other theological poets of antiquity, that those who through depravity become unadapted to receive the illuminations of the Gods, when they afterwards obtain pardon of their guilt through prayers and sacrifices, again become partakers of the goodness of the Gods. So that divine flexibility is a resumption of the participation of divine light and goodness, by those who through inaptitude were before deprived of it.[38]See on this most interesting subject, that divinity is not the cause of evil, my translation of the Fragments of Proclus on the Subsistence of Evil, at the end of my translation of his six books On the Theology of Plato.[39]See Odyss. I. v. 32, 33, 34.[40]See the first book of his Republic.[41]i.e. Such things as are neither really good, nor really evil, but media between these.[42]After this last sentence, the wordsταυτα χρη, follow in the original; which evidently show that something is wanting: as they are only the beginning of another sentence. This defect, however, is supplied in my copy of Stobæus, (Eclog. Ethic. lib. II. p. 207), by some one in manuscript, as follows:ταυτα χρη προνοειν, μη δια νου τυφλοτητα και αγνωμοσυνην, τα (lege ταυτα) ημιν απαντασωσι; and he has also added the following Latin translation of these words: “Hæc oportet prospicere ne per mentis cæcitatem et ignorantiam hæc nobis occurrant.” But the addition, from whatever source it was obtained, does not appear to me to be at all apposite; and therefore I conceive it to be spurious.[43]This is true of the whole which consists of parts, so as not to be able to subsist without them. For whole has a triple substance; viz. it is either prior to parts, or in other words, is a whole containing parts causally; or it consists of parts; or is in a part, so that a part, also, becomes a whole according to participation. A city, therefore, is a whole consisting of parts, any part of which being absent, diminishes the whole. See Prop. 67 of my translation of Proclus’ Elements of Theology; and the second book of my translation of Proclus on the Timæus.[44]When the intelligent reader considers that Hierocles flourished about the middle of the fifth century after Christ, he will immediately understand what therecent customsare to which Hierocles, in the above passage, alludes. Needham, in his translation of this passage, either did not understand the meaning of it, or wilfully omitted to translate it.[45]The honours which we pay to divinity can be of no advantage to him, but benefit us; but the honours which we pay to our parents are beneficial to them. And in this sense, and in this only, the latter are to be honoured more than the former.[46]This reminds me of what Pope, no less piously than pathetically says, respecting his mother, in the following most beautiful lines:“Me let the tender office long engage,To rock the cradle of reposing age,With lenient arts extend a mothers breath,Make languor smile, and smooth the bed of death;Explore the thought, explain the asking eye,And keep awhile one parent from the sky.”See his Seventh Epistle, near the end.[47]The following extract from Sir William Jones, as given by Moor in his Hindu Pantheon, p. 421, demonstrates the great antiquity of this precept:“Our divine religion has no need of such aids as many are willing to give it; by asserting that the wisest men of this world were ignorant of the two great maxims—thatwe must act in respect of others as we should wish them to act in respect of ourselves—and that,instead of returning evil for evil, we should confer benefits on those who injure us. But the first rule is implied in a speech of Lysias, and expressed in distinct phrases by Thales and Pittacus; and I have even seen it word for word, in the original of Confucius, which I carefully compared with the Latin translation. If the conversion, therefore, of thePanditsandMaulavis, in India, shall ever be attempted by protestant missionaries, they must beware of asserting, while they teach the gospel, what thosePanditsandMaulaviswould know to be false. The former would cite the beautifulAryacouplet, which was written at least three centuries before our era, and which pronounce the duty of a good man, even in the moment of destruction, to consist,not only in forgiving, but even in a desire of benefiting his destroyer—asthe sandal tree, in the instant of its overthrow, sheds perfume on the axe which fells it. And the latter would triumph, in repeating the verse ofSadi, who representsa return of good for good as a slight reciprocity; but says to the virtuous man, ‘Confer benefits on him who has injured thee:’ using anArabicsentence, and a maxim apparently of the ancient Arabs. Nor would theMussulmansfail to recite four distichs ofHafiz, who has illustrated that maxim with fanciful but elegant allusions:—“Learn from yon orient shell to love thy foe,And store with pearls the hand that brings thee woe:Free, like yon rock, from base vindictive pride,Emblaze with gems the wrist that rends thy side.Mark where yon tree rewards the stony showerWith fruit nectarious, or the balmy flower:All nature calls aloud—‘Shall man do lessThan heal the smiter, and the railer bless?’”As. Res. Vol. IV.[48]viz. Such circumstances as induced Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, and many other ancient philosophers, not to engage in wedlock, because they found that they could give greater assistance to philosophy by continuing single; but Pythagoras and Socrates, though they rank among the wisest men that ever lived, did not find a married life incompatible with the cultivation of philosophy in the highest perfection possible to man. Wedlock, therefore, is never to be avoided from any sordid and selfish motives.[49]Hence Diogenes, in perfect conformity with that dignified independence of character which he so eminently possessed, and which is to be found more or less in the conduct of all the ancient philosophers, when a certain wealthy and ostentatious man brought him to a fine house which he had built, and desired him not to spit, as he perceived he begun to hawk, spit in the man’s face, observing at the same time, that he could not find a worse place to spit in.[50]Odyss. lib. 7, v. 183.[51]This admirable passage is so conformable to the following beautiful lines in Pope’s Essay on Man, that it is most probably the source from whence they were derived. The lines are these:“Self love but serves the virtuous mind to wake,As the small pebble stirs the peaceful lake,The centre moved, a circle straight succeeds,Another still, and still another spreads,Friend, parent, neighbour first it will embrace,His country next, and next all human race;Wide and more wideth’ o’erflowingsof the mind,Take every creature in of every kind.”In Hierocles, however, the circles are scientifically detailed; but in Pope they are synoptically enumerated. Pope, too, has added another circle to that which is the outermost with Hierocles, viz. the circle which embraces every creature of every kind. But as Hierocles in this fragment is only speaking of our duties to kindred, among which the whole human race is, in a certain respect, included, he had no occasion to introduce another circle, though the Platonic doctrine of benevolence is as widely extended as that of Pope.As the selflove, however, mentioned here by our poet is of a virtuous nature, and is wholly different from that selflove which is reprehensible, and is possessed by the vulgar, I shall present the reader with what Aristotle says concerning the former in the 9th book of his Nicomachean Ethics, as the distinction between the two is at present but little known.Aristotle, therefore, having observed, that the selflove of the multitude leads them to distribute to themselves the greater part in wealth and honours, and corporeal pleasures, and that in consequence of vindicating to themselves more of these things than is fit, they are subservient to desires and passions, and the irrational part of the soul, adds as follows:“He who always earnestly endeavours to act justly or temperately, or to act according to any other of the virtues, the most of all things, and, in short, who always vindicates to himself that which is beautiful in conduct; such a man will never be called by any one a lover of himself, nor will he be blamed by any one. It would seem, however, that such a man as this is, in a greater degree, a lover of himself; for he distributes to himself things which are most eminently beautiful and good, is gratified in his most principal part [intellect], and in all things is obedient to it. But as that which is the most principal thing in a city appears to be most eminently the city, and this is the case in every other system of things; thus, also, that which is most principal in man is especially the man. He, therefore, who loves this principal part of himself, is especially a lover of himself, and is gratified with this. That every man, therefore, is principally intellect, and that the worthy man principally loves this is not immanifest. Hence, he will be especially a lover of himself, according to a different species of selflove from that which is disgraceful, and differing as much from it as to live according to reason differs from living according to passion, and as much as the desire of that which is beautiful in conduct differs from the desire of that which appears to be advantageous. Hence it is necessary that a good man should be a lover of himself; for he himself is benefited by acting well, and he also benefits others. But it is not proper that a depraved man should be a lover of himself; for he will hurt both himself and his neighbours, in consequence of being subservient to base passions. With the depraved man, therefore, there is a dissonance between what he ought to do and what he does; butwith the worthy man, those things which he ought to do he also does.”Conformably to what Aristotle asserts in this last sentence, Seneca also says, “Sapiens nihil facit quod non debet, et nihil prætermittit quod debet.” i.e. “The wise man does nothing which he ought not to do, and omits nothing which he ought to do.”[52]There is a deficiency here in the original, which I have endeavoured to supply in the translation by the words in the brackets. It appears to me, therefore, that the wordsχρησθαι καλωςare wanting.[53]Forενστασεως, in this place in the original, I readεπιστασεως.

[1]Dissertation on Phalaris, p. 273.

[2]In Lib. de Philosophorum Sectis.

[3]The following extract from Bentley’s Eighth Sermon at Boyle’s Lectures, sufficiently shows the doctor’s deficiency in intellect. “Nor do we count it any absurdity, that such a vast and immense universe should be made for the sole use of such mean and unworthy creatures as the children of men. For if we consider the dignity of an intelligent being, and put that in the scales against brute inanimate matter, we may affirm, without overvaluing human nature, that the soul of one virtuous and religious man is of greater worth and excellency than the sun and his planets, and all the stars in the world.” For this opinion is not only stupid and arrogant in the extreme, but is also contrary to the doctrine of the Scriptures, of which the doctor was a teacher. For as I have observed in p. 13 of the Introduction to my translation of Proclus On the Theology of Plato, “the stars are not called Gods by the Jewish legislator, as things inanimate like statues fashioned of wood or stone.” This is evident from what is said in the book of Job, and the Psalms. “Behold even the moon and it shineth not, yea the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man that is a worm, and the son of man which is a worm?” (Job, xxv. v. 5 and 6). And, “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained; what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him.” (Psalm viii. v. 3 and 4.) It is evident, therefore, from these passages, that the heavens and the stars are more excellent than man; but nothing inanimate can be more excellent than that which is animated. To which may be added, that in the following verse David says, that God has made man a little lower than the angels. But the stars, as I have demonstrated in the above mentioned Introduction, were considered by Moses as angels and Gods; and consequently they are animated beings, and superior to man.Farther still, it is said in Psalm xi. v. 4, that “the Lord’s throne is in heaven.” And again, in Isaiah, chap. lxvi. v. 1. “Thus saith the Lord, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.” If, therefore, the heavens are the throne of Deity, they must evidently be deified. For nothing can come into immediate contact with divinity, without being divine. Hence, says Simplicius, (in Comment in Lib. ii. de Cælo.) “That it is connascent with the human soul to think the celestial bodies are divine, is especially evident from those (the Jews), who look to these bodies through preconceptions about divine natures. For they also say that the heavens are the habitation of God, and the throne of God, and are alone sufficient to reveal the glory and excellence of God to those who are worthy; than which assertions what can be more venerable?”Indeed, that the heavens are not the inanimate throne and residence of Deity, is also evident from the assertion in the nineteenth Psalm, that “the heavens declare the glory of God.” For R. Moses, a very learned Jew, (See Gaffarel’s Unheard-of Curiosities, p. 391.) says, “that the wordsaphartodeclare, orset forth, is never attributed to things inanimate.” Hence he concludes, “that the heavens are not without some soul; which, says he, is no other than that of those blessed intelligences who govern the stars, and dispose them into such letters as God has ordained;declaringunto us men, by means of this writing, what events we are to expect. And hence this same writing is called by all the ancients,chetab hamelachim; that is to say,the writing of the angels.”

Farther still, it is said in Psalm xi. v. 4, that “the Lord’s throne is in heaven.” And again, in Isaiah, chap. lxvi. v. 1. “Thus saith the Lord, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.” If, therefore, the heavens are the throne of Deity, they must evidently be deified. For nothing can come into immediate contact with divinity, without being divine. Hence, says Simplicius, (in Comment in Lib. ii. de Cælo.) “That it is connascent with the human soul to think the celestial bodies are divine, is especially evident from those (the Jews), who look to these bodies through preconceptions about divine natures. For they also say that the heavens are the habitation of God, and the throne of God, and are alone sufficient to reveal the glory and excellence of God to those who are worthy; than which assertions what can be more venerable?”

Indeed, that the heavens are not the inanimate throne and residence of Deity, is also evident from the assertion in the nineteenth Psalm, that “the heavens declare the glory of God.” For R. Moses, a very learned Jew, (See Gaffarel’s Unheard-of Curiosities, p. 391.) says, “that the wordsaphartodeclare, orset forth, is never attributed to things inanimate.” Hence he concludes, “that the heavens are not without some soul; which, says he, is no other than that of those blessed intelligences who govern the stars, and dispose them into such letters as God has ordained;declaringunto us men, by means of this writing, what events we are to expect. And hence this same writing is called by all the ancients,chetab hamelachim; that is to say,the writing of the angels.”

[4]In the Fragments of his Life of Isidorus the Platonist, preserved by Photius. The greater part of what Suidas has said about Hierocles is taken from these memoirs of Isidorus.

[5]The discourses of Socrates in Plato.

[6]For so the Christians were called by the heathens, when the religion of the latter was rapidly declining, and that of the former had gained the ascendency. Thus Porphyry, in a passage preserved by Theodoret, (in lib. i. De Curat. Græc. Superst.)Χαλκοδετος γαρ η προς θεους οδος, αιπεινη τε και τραχεια, ης πολλας ατραπους Βαρβαροι μεν εξευρον, Ελληνες δε επλανηθησαν, οι δε κρατουντες ηδη και διεφθειραν.i.e. “For the way which leads to the Gods is bound with chains of brass, and is arduous and rough, many paths of which were indeed discovered by the Barbarians; but the Greeks have wandered from them, and they are entirely corrupted bythose who now prevail.”This passage of Porphyry, derived its origin from the following oracle of Apollo, preserved by Eusebius:Αιπεινη γαρ οδος μακαρων τρηχεια τε πολλον,Χαλκοδετοις τα πρωτα διοιγομενη πυλεωσιν.Ατραπετοι δε εασσιν αθεσφατοι εγγεγαυιαι,Ας πρωτοι μεροπων επ’ απειρονα πρηξιν εφηνανΟι το καλον πινοντες υδωρ Νειλωτιδος αιης·Πολλας και Φοινικες οδους μακαρων εδαησαν,Ασσυριοι Λυδοι τε, και Εβραιων γενος ανδρων.But forΕβραιων, in the last line, I readΧαλδαιων, it not being at all reasonable to suppose that an oracle of Apollo would say that the Hebrews knew many paths which led to the knowledge of the Gods. It is probable, therefore, that either Aristobulus the Jew, well known for interpolating the writings of the heathens, or the wicked Eusebius, as he is called by the Emperor Julian, has fraudulently substituted the former word for the latter. The Oracle, with this emendation, will be in English as follows:The path by which to deity we climbIs arduous, rough, ineffable, sublime;And the strong massy gates, through which we passIn our first course, are bound with chains of brass.Those men the first who of Egyptian birthDrank the fair water of Nilotic earth,Disclosed by actions infinite this road,And many paths to God Phœnicians show’d.This road the Assyrians pointed out to view,And this the Lydians and Chaldeans knew.But when Porphyry says that the Greeks have wandered from the path which leads to divinity, he alludes to their worshipping men as Gods; which, as I have shown in the Introduction to my translation of Proclus On the Theology of Plato, is contrary to the genuine doctrine of the heathen religion; and was the cause of its corruption, and final extinction, among the Greeks and Romans.

This passage of Porphyry, derived its origin from the following oracle of Apollo, preserved by Eusebius:

Αιπεινη γαρ οδος μακαρων τρηχεια τε πολλον,Χαλκοδετοις τα πρωτα διοιγομενη πυλεωσιν.Ατραπετοι δε εασσιν αθεσφατοι εγγεγαυιαι,Ας πρωτοι μεροπων επ’ απειρονα πρηξιν εφηνανΟι το καλον πινοντες υδωρ Νειλωτιδος αιης·Πολλας και Φοινικες οδους μακαρων εδαησαν,Ασσυριοι Λυδοι τε, και Εβραιων γενος ανδρων.

Αιπεινη γαρ οδος μακαρων τρηχεια τε πολλον,

Χαλκοδετοις τα πρωτα διοιγομενη πυλεωσιν.

Ατραπετοι δε εασσιν αθεσφατοι εγγεγαυιαι,

Ας πρωτοι μεροπων επ’ απειρονα πρηξιν εφηναν

Οι το καλον πινοντες υδωρ Νειλωτιδος αιης·

Πολλας και Φοινικες οδους μακαρων εδαησαν,

Ασσυριοι Λυδοι τε, και Εβραιων γενος ανδρων.

But forΕβραιων, in the last line, I readΧαλδαιων, it not being at all reasonable to suppose that an oracle of Apollo would say that the Hebrews knew many paths which led to the knowledge of the Gods. It is probable, therefore, that either Aristobulus the Jew, well known for interpolating the writings of the heathens, or the wicked Eusebius, as he is called by the Emperor Julian, has fraudulently substituted the former word for the latter. The Oracle, with this emendation, will be in English as follows:

The path by which to deity we climbIs arduous, rough, ineffable, sublime;And the strong massy gates, through which we passIn our first course, are bound with chains of brass.Those men the first who of Egyptian birthDrank the fair water of Nilotic earth,Disclosed by actions infinite this road,And many paths to God Phœnicians show’d.This road the Assyrians pointed out to view,And this the Lydians and Chaldeans knew.

The path by which to deity we climb

Is arduous, rough, ineffable, sublime;

And the strong massy gates, through which we pass

In our first course, are bound with chains of brass.

Those men the first who of Egyptian birth

Drank the fair water of Nilotic earth,

Disclosed by actions infinite this road,

And many paths to God Phœnicians show’d.

This road the Assyrians pointed out to view,

And this the Lydians and Chaldeans knew.

But when Porphyry says that the Greeks have wandered from the path which leads to divinity, he alludes to their worshipping men as Gods; which, as I have shown in the Introduction to my translation of Proclus On the Theology of Plato, is contrary to the genuine doctrine of the heathen religion; and was the cause of its corruption, and final extinction, among the Greeks and Romans.

[7]Odyss. lib. ix. v. 347.

[8]Fragments of this work are to be found in Photius. But they are fragments of a treatise or treatises, OnProvidence, Fate, and Free Will.

[9]An adept in the philosophy of Plato will at once be convinced of the truth of this assertion, by comparing what Hierocles has said about prayer in his Commentary On the Golden Verses of the Pythagoreans, with what is said respecting it by Iamblichus, in his Treatise on the Mysteries; and by Proclus, at the beginning of the second book of his Commentary On the Timæus of Plato. See the Introduction to the second Alcibiades, in Vol. 4. of my translation of Plato, and the Notes to my translation of Maximus Tyrius; in which the reader will find what Iamblichus, Proclus, and Hierocles have said on this subject. And that he was not consummately accurate in his knowledge, will be evident by comparing what he says in his above mentioned Commentary, about that middle order of beings denominatedthe illustrious heroes, with what Iamblichus and Proclus have most admirably unfolded concerning them. And this will still more plainly appear from what he says about the celebratedtetrad, ortetractysof the Pythagoreans, in p. 166, and 170, of the same Commentary. For in both these places, he clearly asserts, that this tetrad is the same with theDemiurgus, ormakerofthe universe. Thus, in the former of these placesκαι την τετραδα πηγην της αιδιου διακοσμησεως, αποφαινεται την αυτην ουσαν τῳ δημιουργῳ θεῳ.i.e. “And the author of these verses shows that the tetrad, which is the fountain of the perpetual orderly distribution of things, is the same with the God who is the Demiurgus.” And in the latter passage,εστι γαρ ως εφαμεν, δημιουργος των ολων και αιτια η τετρας, θεος νοητος, αιτιος του ουρανιου και αισθητου θεου.i.e. “For as we have said, the tetrad is the Demiurgus and cause of the wholes of the universe, being an intelligible God, the source of the celestial and sensible God.” The tetrad, however, or theanimal itself, (το αυτωζωον) of Plato; who, as Syrianus justly observes, was the best of the Pythagoreans; subsists at the extremity of theintelligibletriad, as is most satisfactorily shown by Proclus in the third book of his Treatise On the Theology, and in the fourth book of his Commentary On the Timæus of Plato. But the Demiurgus, as it is demonstrated by the same incomparable man, in the fifth book of the former of these works, subsists at the extremity of theintellectualtriad. And between these two triads another order of Gods exists, which is denominatedintelligible, and at the same time intellectual, as partaking of both the extremes. The English reader who has a genius for such speculations, will be convinced of this by diligently perusing my translations of the above mentioned works. Notwithstanding, however, the knowledge of Hierocles was not so consummately accurate on certain most abstruse theological dogmas as that of Iamblichus, Proclus, and Damascius, yet where ethics are concerned, his notions are most correct, most admirable, and sublime.

[10]Thus, too, Plato in his Laws mingles his polity from a democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. He was, however, decidedly of opinion, as is evident from his Politicus, that the best form of government is that in which either one man, who is a most excellent character, is the supreme ruler, or a few excellent men rule conjointly.

[11]In the original there is onlyπρωτος ὦν ο νομος, which is evidently defective; but by addingεμψυχοςthe sense will be complete. And in what immediately followsτουτω γαρ ο μεν βασιλευς νομιμοςwhich also is defective, Gesner addsτηρησει after τουτω γαρ, but he should doubtless have addedει τηρησει.

[12]i.e.To a perfect subjugation of the passions to reason, and not to a perfect insensibility, as is stupidly supposed by many who do not understand the proper meaning of the wordapathy, as used by the Pythagoreans, Platonists, and Stoics.

[13]The original is, I conceive, evidently defective in this place; for it is,ουτε γαρ γα τως αυτως καρπως, ουτε ψυχα ανθρωπων ταν αυταν αρεταν παραδεξασθαι δυναται.It appears, therefore, to me, thatπανταχουshould be added afterκαρπως, and that forουτε ψυχαwe should readουτε πασα ψυχα.

[14]Among the Lacedæmonians the three men were thus denominated, who were chosen by the Ephori to preside over the equestrian order. But the ephori were magistrates corresponding to thetribunesof the people among the Romans.

[15]In the original,α μεν γαρ πλεονεκτια γινεται περι το αγουμενον μερος τας ψυχας· λογικα γαρ α επιθυμια. But forαγουμενον, I readαλογον; and forλογικα, it is necessary to readου λογικα. For the vices, according to the Pythagoreans, subsist about the irrational part of the soul, which consists, according to them, as well as according to Plato, ofangeranddesire. Hence Metopus, the Pythagorean, says: “Since there are two parts of the soul, the rational and the irrational, the latter is divided into the irascible and the appetitive. And the rational part, indeed, is that by which we judge and contemplate; but the irrational part is that by which we are impelled and desire.” See my translation of Pythagoric Ethical Fragments, at the end of my translation of Iamblichus’ Life of Pythagoras.

[16]I here read, with Victorius,κατ’ οικειοτατα εγγενη, forκαι οικειοτατον εν γενοιν.

[17]This sentence within the brackets is not to be found in Stobæus.

[18]i.e. God is not in want of ministers or servants to assist him in the government of the universe: for he produces and provides for all things at once by his own immediate energy. But the cooperation of subordinate divine powers with him is necessary to the proper participation of him by the different beings which the universe contains.

[19]Forοι μιμευμενοι των αυτωνin this place, I readοι μιμευμενοι τον αυτον.

[20]Instead ofενιοτεhere, I readπαντοτε.

[21]Conformably to this, Plato also in the Politicus says: “It is requisite to call him royal who possesses the royal science, whether he governs or not.”

[22]Plato says somewhere (I think in his Laws), that a greater evil than impudence cannot befall either cities or individuals.

[23]i.e.The seed which pertains to the propagation of his children.

[24]i.e.To his children while they live in his house under his protection and are unmarried; and who are in danger through having a stepmother of losing that property which ought to be theirs on the death of their father.

[25]Pæan is a song of rejoicing, which was sung at festivals and on other occasions, in honour of Apollo, for having slain the serpent Python.

[26]A kind of harp beaten with sticks.

[27]In the originalουρανιον ζωονacelestialanimal; but as Callicratidas is here speaking of the Demiurgus, or artificer of the universe, who is anintellectualgod, forουρανιονI readνοερον. For the Demiurgus is the maker, and not one of the celestial gods. But he is called ananimal, as being the cause oflifeto all things. Thus, too, Aristotle, in the 12th book of his Metaphysics, says, “that God is an animal eternal and most excellent.”

[28]This Perictyone is different from her who was the mother of Plato.

[29]In this extract no mention whatever is made of the harmony of a woman; for it wholly consists of the duty of children to their parents.

[30]και νοσῳis omitted in the original, but ought, as it appears to me, to be inserted.

[31]It is well observed by Olympiodorus, on the Phædo of Plato, “that the soul is not punished by divinity through anger but medicinally; and that by eternity of punishment we must understand punishment commensurate with the soul’s partial period; because souls that have committed the greatest offences cannot be sufficiently purified in one period.”

[32]Forφρονεεινin this place, which is evidently erroneous, I readφθονεειν.

[33]The whole of this extract is to be found in the fourth book of Plato’s Laws. (See tom. viii. p. 187, and 188, of the Bipont edition.) But there is occasionally some little difference between the text of Plato and that of Aristoxenus, as the critical reader will easily discover. Neither Fabricius nor the editors of Stobæus have noticed the source of this extract.

[34]The whole of this extract is taken from the eleventh book of Plato’s Laws, but what is there said is here somewhat amplified.

[35]See p. 137, and 138, of my Translation of Iamblichus on the Mysteries.

[36]Iliad IX. v. 495. 6. 7.

[37]Iliad IX. v. 493. Hierocles is mistaken in saying that poetryrashly asserts that the Gods are flexible. For as I have observed in my Notes to Iamblichus on the Mysteries, divine flexibility indicates in Homer, and other theological poets of antiquity, that those who through depravity become unadapted to receive the illuminations of the Gods, when they afterwards obtain pardon of their guilt through prayers and sacrifices, again become partakers of the goodness of the Gods. So that divine flexibility is a resumption of the participation of divine light and goodness, by those who through inaptitude were before deprived of it.

[38]See on this most interesting subject, that divinity is not the cause of evil, my translation of the Fragments of Proclus on the Subsistence of Evil, at the end of my translation of his six books On the Theology of Plato.

[39]See Odyss. I. v. 32, 33, 34.

[40]See the first book of his Republic.

[41]i.e. Such things as are neither really good, nor really evil, but media between these.

[42]After this last sentence, the wordsταυτα χρη, follow in the original; which evidently show that something is wanting: as they are only the beginning of another sentence. This defect, however, is supplied in my copy of Stobæus, (Eclog. Ethic. lib. II. p. 207), by some one in manuscript, as follows:ταυτα χρη προνοειν, μη δια νου τυφλοτητα και αγνωμοσυνην, τα (lege ταυτα) ημιν απαντασωσι; and he has also added the following Latin translation of these words: “Hæc oportet prospicere ne per mentis cæcitatem et ignorantiam hæc nobis occurrant.” But the addition, from whatever source it was obtained, does not appear to me to be at all apposite; and therefore I conceive it to be spurious.

[43]This is true of the whole which consists of parts, so as not to be able to subsist without them. For whole has a triple substance; viz. it is either prior to parts, or in other words, is a whole containing parts causally; or it consists of parts; or is in a part, so that a part, also, becomes a whole according to participation. A city, therefore, is a whole consisting of parts, any part of which being absent, diminishes the whole. See Prop. 67 of my translation of Proclus’ Elements of Theology; and the second book of my translation of Proclus on the Timæus.

[44]When the intelligent reader considers that Hierocles flourished about the middle of the fifth century after Christ, he will immediately understand what therecent customsare to which Hierocles, in the above passage, alludes. Needham, in his translation of this passage, either did not understand the meaning of it, or wilfully omitted to translate it.

[45]The honours which we pay to divinity can be of no advantage to him, but benefit us; but the honours which we pay to our parents are beneficial to them. And in this sense, and in this only, the latter are to be honoured more than the former.

[46]This reminds me of what Pope, no less piously than pathetically says, respecting his mother, in the following most beautiful lines:“Me let the tender office long engage,To rock the cradle of reposing age,With lenient arts extend a mothers breath,Make languor smile, and smooth the bed of death;Explore the thought, explain the asking eye,And keep awhile one parent from the sky.”See his Seventh Epistle, near the end.

[46]This reminds me of what Pope, no less piously than pathetically says, respecting his mother, in the following most beautiful lines:

“Me let the tender office long engage,To rock the cradle of reposing age,With lenient arts extend a mothers breath,Make languor smile, and smooth the bed of death;Explore the thought, explain the asking eye,And keep awhile one parent from the sky.”See his Seventh Epistle, near the end.

“Me let the tender office long engage,

To rock the cradle of reposing age,

With lenient arts extend a mothers breath,

Make languor smile, and smooth the bed of death;

Explore the thought, explain the asking eye,

And keep awhile one parent from the sky.”

See his Seventh Epistle, near the end.

[47]The following extract from Sir William Jones, as given by Moor in his Hindu Pantheon, p. 421, demonstrates the great antiquity of this precept:“Our divine religion has no need of such aids as many are willing to give it; by asserting that the wisest men of this world were ignorant of the two great maxims—thatwe must act in respect of others as we should wish them to act in respect of ourselves—and that,instead of returning evil for evil, we should confer benefits on those who injure us. But the first rule is implied in a speech of Lysias, and expressed in distinct phrases by Thales and Pittacus; and I have even seen it word for word, in the original of Confucius, which I carefully compared with the Latin translation. If the conversion, therefore, of thePanditsandMaulavis, in India, shall ever be attempted by protestant missionaries, they must beware of asserting, while they teach the gospel, what thosePanditsandMaulaviswould know to be false. The former would cite the beautifulAryacouplet, which was written at least three centuries before our era, and which pronounce the duty of a good man, even in the moment of destruction, to consist,not only in forgiving, but even in a desire of benefiting his destroyer—asthe sandal tree, in the instant of its overthrow, sheds perfume on the axe which fells it. And the latter would triumph, in repeating the verse ofSadi, who representsa return of good for good as a slight reciprocity; but says to the virtuous man, ‘Confer benefits on him who has injured thee:’ using anArabicsentence, and a maxim apparently of the ancient Arabs. Nor would theMussulmansfail to recite four distichs ofHafiz, who has illustrated that maxim with fanciful but elegant allusions:—“Learn from yon orient shell to love thy foe,And store with pearls the hand that brings thee woe:Free, like yon rock, from base vindictive pride,Emblaze with gems the wrist that rends thy side.Mark where yon tree rewards the stony showerWith fruit nectarious, or the balmy flower:All nature calls aloud—‘Shall man do lessThan heal the smiter, and the railer bless?’”As. Res. Vol. IV.

[47]The following extract from Sir William Jones, as given by Moor in his Hindu Pantheon, p. 421, demonstrates the great antiquity of this precept:

“Our divine religion has no need of such aids as many are willing to give it; by asserting that the wisest men of this world were ignorant of the two great maxims—thatwe must act in respect of others as we should wish them to act in respect of ourselves—and that,instead of returning evil for evil, we should confer benefits on those who injure us. But the first rule is implied in a speech of Lysias, and expressed in distinct phrases by Thales and Pittacus; and I have even seen it word for word, in the original of Confucius, which I carefully compared with the Latin translation. If the conversion, therefore, of thePanditsandMaulavis, in India, shall ever be attempted by protestant missionaries, they must beware of asserting, while they teach the gospel, what thosePanditsandMaulaviswould know to be false. The former would cite the beautifulAryacouplet, which was written at least three centuries before our era, and which pronounce the duty of a good man, even in the moment of destruction, to consist,not only in forgiving, but even in a desire of benefiting his destroyer—asthe sandal tree, in the instant of its overthrow, sheds perfume on the axe which fells it. And the latter would triumph, in repeating the verse ofSadi, who representsa return of good for good as a slight reciprocity; but says to the virtuous man, ‘Confer benefits on him who has injured thee:’ using anArabicsentence, and a maxim apparently of the ancient Arabs. Nor would theMussulmansfail to recite four distichs ofHafiz, who has illustrated that maxim with fanciful but elegant allusions:—

“Learn from yon orient shell to love thy foe,And store with pearls the hand that brings thee woe:Free, like yon rock, from base vindictive pride,Emblaze with gems the wrist that rends thy side.Mark where yon tree rewards the stony showerWith fruit nectarious, or the balmy flower:All nature calls aloud—‘Shall man do lessThan heal the smiter, and the railer bless?’”As. Res. Vol. IV.

“Learn from yon orient shell to love thy foe,

And store with pearls the hand that brings thee woe:

Free, like yon rock, from base vindictive pride,

Emblaze with gems the wrist that rends thy side.

Mark where yon tree rewards the stony shower

With fruit nectarious, or the balmy flower:

All nature calls aloud—‘Shall man do less

Than heal the smiter, and the railer bless?’”

As. Res. Vol. IV.

[48]viz. Such circumstances as induced Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, and many other ancient philosophers, not to engage in wedlock, because they found that they could give greater assistance to philosophy by continuing single; but Pythagoras and Socrates, though they rank among the wisest men that ever lived, did not find a married life incompatible with the cultivation of philosophy in the highest perfection possible to man. Wedlock, therefore, is never to be avoided from any sordid and selfish motives.

[49]Hence Diogenes, in perfect conformity with that dignified independence of character which he so eminently possessed, and which is to be found more or less in the conduct of all the ancient philosophers, when a certain wealthy and ostentatious man brought him to a fine house which he had built, and desired him not to spit, as he perceived he begun to hawk, spit in the man’s face, observing at the same time, that he could not find a worse place to spit in.

[50]Odyss. lib. 7, v. 183.

[51]This admirable passage is so conformable to the following beautiful lines in Pope’s Essay on Man, that it is most probably the source from whence they were derived. The lines are these:“Self love but serves the virtuous mind to wake,As the small pebble stirs the peaceful lake,The centre moved, a circle straight succeeds,Another still, and still another spreads,Friend, parent, neighbour first it will embrace,His country next, and next all human race;Wide and more wideth’ o’erflowingsof the mind,Take every creature in of every kind.”In Hierocles, however, the circles are scientifically detailed; but in Pope they are synoptically enumerated. Pope, too, has added another circle to that which is the outermost with Hierocles, viz. the circle which embraces every creature of every kind. But as Hierocles in this fragment is only speaking of our duties to kindred, among which the whole human race is, in a certain respect, included, he had no occasion to introduce another circle, though the Platonic doctrine of benevolence is as widely extended as that of Pope.As the selflove, however, mentioned here by our poet is of a virtuous nature, and is wholly different from that selflove which is reprehensible, and is possessed by the vulgar, I shall present the reader with what Aristotle says concerning the former in the 9th book of his Nicomachean Ethics, as the distinction between the two is at present but little known.Aristotle, therefore, having observed, that the selflove of the multitude leads them to distribute to themselves the greater part in wealth and honours, and corporeal pleasures, and that in consequence of vindicating to themselves more of these things than is fit, they are subservient to desires and passions, and the irrational part of the soul, adds as follows:“He who always earnestly endeavours to act justly or temperately, or to act according to any other of the virtues, the most of all things, and, in short, who always vindicates to himself that which is beautiful in conduct; such a man will never be called by any one a lover of himself, nor will he be blamed by any one. It would seem, however, that such a man as this is, in a greater degree, a lover of himself; for he distributes to himself things which are most eminently beautiful and good, is gratified in his most principal part [intellect], and in all things is obedient to it. But as that which is the most principal thing in a city appears to be most eminently the city, and this is the case in every other system of things; thus, also, that which is most principal in man is especially the man. He, therefore, who loves this principal part of himself, is especially a lover of himself, and is gratified with this. That every man, therefore, is principally intellect, and that the worthy man principally loves this is not immanifest. Hence, he will be especially a lover of himself, according to a different species of selflove from that which is disgraceful, and differing as much from it as to live according to reason differs from living according to passion, and as much as the desire of that which is beautiful in conduct differs from the desire of that which appears to be advantageous. Hence it is necessary that a good man should be a lover of himself; for he himself is benefited by acting well, and he also benefits others. But it is not proper that a depraved man should be a lover of himself; for he will hurt both himself and his neighbours, in consequence of being subservient to base passions. With the depraved man, therefore, there is a dissonance between what he ought to do and what he does; butwith the worthy man, those things which he ought to do he also does.”Conformably to what Aristotle asserts in this last sentence, Seneca also says, “Sapiens nihil facit quod non debet, et nihil prætermittit quod debet.” i.e. “The wise man does nothing which he ought not to do, and omits nothing which he ought to do.”

[51]This admirable passage is so conformable to the following beautiful lines in Pope’s Essay on Man, that it is most probably the source from whence they were derived. The lines are these:

“Self love but serves the virtuous mind to wake,As the small pebble stirs the peaceful lake,The centre moved, a circle straight succeeds,Another still, and still another spreads,Friend, parent, neighbour first it will embrace,His country next, and next all human race;Wide and more wideth’ o’erflowingsof the mind,Take every creature in of every kind.”

“Self love but serves the virtuous mind to wake,

As the small pebble stirs the peaceful lake,

The centre moved, a circle straight succeeds,

Another still, and still another spreads,

Friend, parent, neighbour first it will embrace,

His country next, and next all human race;

Wide and more wideth’ o’erflowingsof the mind,

Take every creature in of every kind.”

In Hierocles, however, the circles are scientifically detailed; but in Pope they are synoptically enumerated. Pope, too, has added another circle to that which is the outermost with Hierocles, viz. the circle which embraces every creature of every kind. But as Hierocles in this fragment is only speaking of our duties to kindred, among which the whole human race is, in a certain respect, included, he had no occasion to introduce another circle, though the Platonic doctrine of benevolence is as widely extended as that of Pope.

As the selflove, however, mentioned here by our poet is of a virtuous nature, and is wholly different from that selflove which is reprehensible, and is possessed by the vulgar, I shall present the reader with what Aristotle says concerning the former in the 9th book of his Nicomachean Ethics, as the distinction between the two is at present but little known.

Aristotle, therefore, having observed, that the selflove of the multitude leads them to distribute to themselves the greater part in wealth and honours, and corporeal pleasures, and that in consequence of vindicating to themselves more of these things than is fit, they are subservient to desires and passions, and the irrational part of the soul, adds as follows:

“He who always earnestly endeavours to act justly or temperately, or to act according to any other of the virtues, the most of all things, and, in short, who always vindicates to himself that which is beautiful in conduct; such a man will never be called by any one a lover of himself, nor will he be blamed by any one. It would seem, however, that such a man as this is, in a greater degree, a lover of himself; for he distributes to himself things which are most eminently beautiful and good, is gratified in his most principal part [intellect], and in all things is obedient to it. But as that which is the most principal thing in a city appears to be most eminently the city, and this is the case in every other system of things; thus, also, that which is most principal in man is especially the man. He, therefore, who loves this principal part of himself, is especially a lover of himself, and is gratified with this. That every man, therefore, is principally intellect, and that the worthy man principally loves this is not immanifest. Hence, he will be especially a lover of himself, according to a different species of selflove from that which is disgraceful, and differing as much from it as to live according to reason differs from living according to passion, and as much as the desire of that which is beautiful in conduct differs from the desire of that which appears to be advantageous. Hence it is necessary that a good man should be a lover of himself; for he himself is benefited by acting well, and he also benefits others. But it is not proper that a depraved man should be a lover of himself; for he will hurt both himself and his neighbours, in consequence of being subservient to base passions. With the depraved man, therefore, there is a dissonance between what he ought to do and what he does; butwith the worthy man, those things which he ought to do he also does.”

Conformably to what Aristotle asserts in this last sentence, Seneca also says, “Sapiens nihil facit quod non debet, et nihil prætermittit quod debet.” i.e. “The wise man does nothing which he ought not to do, and omits nothing which he ought to do.”

[52]There is a deficiency here in the original, which I have endeavoured to supply in the translation by the words in the brackets. It appears to me, therefore, that the wordsχρησθαι καλωςare wanting.

[53]Forενστασεως, in this place in the original, I readεπιστασεως.

Back to Index Next