{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/005/footnote/fn4.htm","path":"chr/ecf/005/footnote/fn4.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/005/footnote/fn4.htm","text":"83 The textual reading is in the present, but obviously requires a past tense.\n84 Some confusion has crept into the text. The first clause of the second sentence belongs probably to the first. The sense would then run thus: \"Ecphantus affirmed the impossibility of dogmatic truth, for that every one was permitted to frame definitions as he thought proper.\"\n85 Or, \"that there is, according to this, a multitude of defined existences, and that such is infinite.\"\n87 [So far anticipating modern science.]\n89 Or, \"writing.\" Still Socrates may be called the father of the Greek philosophy. \"From the age of Aristotle and Plato, the rise of the several Greek sects may be estimated as so many successful or abortive efforts to carry out the principles enunciated by Socrates.\"-Translator's Treatise on Metaphysics, chap. iii. p. 45.\n90 This word signifies to take impressions from anything, which justifies the translation, historically correct, given above. Its literal import is \"wipe clean,\" and in this sense Hippolytus may intend to assert that Plato wholly appropriated the philosophy of Socrates. (See Diogenes Laertius, xi. 61, where the same word occurs.)\n91 De Legibus, iv, 7 (p. 109, vol. viii. ed. Bekker).\n92 Timeus, c xvi. (p. 277, voL vii. ed. Bekker). The passage runs thus in the original: \"Gods of gods, of whom I am Creator and Father of works, which having been formed by Me, are indissoluble, through, at all events, My will.\"\n93 The word is literally a cup or bowl, and, being employed by Plato in an allegorical sense, is evidently intended to signify the anima mundi (soul of the world), which constituted a sort of depository for all spiritual existences in the world.\n94 Or, \"that, there exists a necessity for the corruption of everything created.\"\n95 Or, \"are confirmed by that (philosopher Plato), because he asserts,\" etc.; or, \"those who assert the soul's immortality are especially confirmed in their opinion, as many as affirm the existence of a future state of retribution.\"\n96 Or, \"that he changes different souls,\" etc.\n98 Diogenes Laertius, in describing the system of the Stoics, employs the same word in the case of their view of virtue.\n99 This is supplied from the original; the passage occurs in the Phaedrus, c. lx. (p. 86;, vol. i. ed. Bekker).\n100 The word Adrasteia was a name for Nemesis, and means here unalterable destiny.\n101 The passage occurs in Clilophon (p. 244, vol. vi ed Bekker).\n102 The text, as given by Miller, is scarcely capable of any meaning. The translation is therefore conjectural, in accordance with alterations proposed by Schneidewin.\n104 Or, \"the fifth body, in which it is supposed to be, along with the other four (elements); \" or,\"the fifth body, which is supposed to be (composed) of the other four.\"\n105 Hippolytus expresses himself in the words of Stobaeus, who says ( Eclog., ii. 274): \"And among reputed external blessings are nobility, wealth, glory, peace, freedom, friendship.\"\n106 Or, \"glory, the confirmed power of friends.\"\n107 One of the MSS. elucidated the simile in the text thus; \"But if he is not disposed, there is absolutely a necessity for his being drawn along. And in like manner men, if they do not follow fate, seem to be free agents, though the reason of (their being) fate holds assuredly valid. If, however, they do not wish to follow, they will absolutely be coerced to enter upon what has been fore-ordained.\"\n108 Or, \"is immortal.\" Diogenes Laertius (book vii) notices, in his section on Zino, as part of the Stoic doctrine, \"that the soul abides after death, but that it is perishable.\"\n109 Or, \"through what is incorporeal;\" that is, through what is void or empty space.\n110 Or, \"resurrection; \" or, \"resistance;\" that is, a resisting medium.\n111 The atomic theory is, as already mentioned by Hippolytus, of more ancient date than Epicurus' age, being First broached by Leucippus and Democritus. This fact, however, has, as Cudworth argues, been frequently overlooked by those who trace the doctrine to no older a source than the founder of the Epicurean philosophy.\n112 Or, \"that neither has He business to do, nor does He attend to any. As a consequence of which fact,\" etc.\n113 \"Among the Gentiles\" seems a mistake. One reading proposed is, \"some (intended) our sensuous passions; \" or, \"some understood the passions.\" The words \"among the Gentiles,\" the French commentator, the Abbe Cruice, is of opinion, were added by Christian hands, in order to draw a contrast between the virtuous Christian and the vicious pagan.\n114 See Diogenes Laertius' Lives, x. 63 (Bohn's Library); Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum, iv. 3.\n115 Diogenes Laertius, Lives, ix. 75; Sextus Empiricus, Hypotyp., i. 188-192.\n116 This is what the Academics called \"the phenomenon\" (Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrh. Hyp., i. i9-22).\n117 This is a mistake in the manuscript for Ganges, according to Roeper.\n118 Or, \"knowledge.\" (See Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom., i., xv., lxxii.; Eusebius, Prapaerat. Evang., ix. 6.)\n119 Athenaeus ( Deipn., book ix ) ascribes this opinion to Plato, who, he tells us, \"asserted that the soul was so constituted, that it should reject its last covering, that of vanity.\"\n120 Or, \"they name light their god; \" or, \"they celebrate in their own peculiar language God, whom they name,\" etc.\n121 The text here would seem rather confused. The above translation agrees with Cruice's and Schneidewin's Latin version. I have doubts about its correctness, however, and would render it thus: \"...enveloped in a body extrinsic to the divine essence, just as if one wore a sheepskin covering; but that his body, on being divested of this (covering), would appear visible to the naked eye.\" Or, \"This discourse whom they name God they affirm to be incorporeal, but enveloped in a body outside himself (or his own body) (just as if one carried a covering of sheepskin to have it seen); but having stripped off the body in which he is enveloped, that he no longer appears visible to the naked eye.\" (Roeper.) I am not very confident that this exactly conveys the meaning of Roeper's somewhat obscure Greek paraphrase.\n122 The parenthetical words Roeper considers introduced into the text from a marginal note.\n123 Or \"Zamalxis,\" or \"Zametris\" (see Menagius on Diogenes Laetrius, viii. 2).\n124 Or, \"of Thracian origin.\" The words are omitted in two MSS.\n125 There are several verbal differences from the original in Hippolytus' version. These may be seen on comparing it with Hesiod's own text. The particular place which Hesiod occupies in the history of philosophy is pointed out by Aristotle in his Metaphysics. The Stagyrite detects in the Hesiodic cosmogony, in the principle of \"love,\" the dawn of a recognition of the necessity of an efficient cause to account for the phenomena of nature. It was Aristotle himself, however, who built up the science of causation; and in this respect humanity owes that extraordinary man a deep debt of gratitude.","title":"chr/ecf/005/footnote/fn4.htm","type":"page"}