{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_75391/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_75391","id":"gutenberg_75391","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75391","summary":null,"tags":["Astrology -- Early works to 1800","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Science -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"OCELLUS LUCANUS\n\nON THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE;\n\n_&c. &c. &c._\n\n\n\n\n                             OCELLUS LUCANUS\n                      ON THE NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE.\n\n                    TAURUS, THE PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER,\n                      ON THE ETERNITY OF THE WORLD.\n\n                         JULIUS FIRMICUS MATERNUS\n                           OF THE THEMA MUNDI;\n                IN WHICH THE POSITIONS OF THE STARS AT THE\n                   COMMENCEMENT OF THE SEVERAL MUNDANE\n                            PERIODS IS GIVEN.\n\n                             SELECT THEOREMS\n                  ON THE PERPETUITY OF TIME, BY PROCLUS.\n\n                     TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINALS BY\n                              THOMAS TAYLOR.\n\n    \u0391\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1 \u03c4\u03c9\n    \u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n    _i. e._ The knowledge of divine and the most honourable things,\n    is the principle and cause and rule of human felicity.\u2014ARCHYTAS.\n\n                                 LONDON:\n            PRINTED FOR THE TRANSLATOR; AND SOLD BY JOHN BOHN,\n                HENRIETTA-STREET; HENRY BOHN, YORK-STREET;\n                  AND THOMAS RODD, GREAT NEWPORT-STREET.\n                                MDCCCXXXI.\n\n                        PRINTED BY RICHARD TAYLOR,\n                      RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nThe Tracts contained in this small volume will, I trust, be perused with\nconsiderable interest by every English reader who is a lover of ancient\nlore; and whatever innovations may have been made in the philosophical\ntheories of the ancients by the accumulated experiments of the moderns,\nyet the scientific deductions of the former will, I am persuaded,\nultimately predominate over the futile and ever-varying conclusions of\nthe latter. For science, truly so called, is, as Aristotle accurately\ndefines it to be, the knowledge of things eternal, and which have a\nnecessary existence. Hence it has for its basis _universals_, and not\n_particulars_; since the former are _definite_, _immutable_, and _real_;\nbut the latter are _indefinite_, are so incessantly changing, that they\nare not for a moment the same, and are so destitute of reality, that,\nin the language of the great Plotinus, they may be said to be \u201cshadows\nfalling upon shadow[1], like images in water, or in a mirror, or a dream.\u201d\n\nWith respect to Ocellus Lucanus, the author of the first of these Tracts,\nthough it is unknown at what _precise_ period he lived, yet as Archytas,\nin his epistle to Plato (apud Diog. Laert. viii. 80.), says \u201cthat he\nconversed with the descendants of Ocellus, and received from them the\ntreatises of this philosopher On Laws, On Government, Piety, and the\nGeneration of the Universe[2],\u201d \u201cwe cannot be a great way off the truth,\u201d\nas my worthy and very intelligent friend Mr. J. J. Welsh, in a letter\nto me, observes, \u201cif we say that he lived about the time Pythagoras\nfirst opened his school in Italy, B.C. 500; which would give him for\ncontemporaries in the _political_ world, Phalaris, Pisistratus, Cr\u0153sus,\nPolycrates, and Tarquin the Proud; and in the _philosophical_ world, the\nseven sages of Greece, Heraclitus of Ephesus, Democritus of Abdera, &c.\n&c.\u201d\n\nAll that is extant of his works is the treatise On the Universe[3], and\na Fragment preserved by Stob\u00e6us of his treatise On Laws. And in such\nestimation was the former of these works held by Plato and Aristotle,\nthat the latter, as Syrianus observes (in Aristot. Metaphys.), \u201chas\nnearly taken the whole of his two books on Generation and Corruption from\nthis work;\u201d and that the former anxiously desired to see it, is evident\nfrom his Epistle to Archytas, of which the following is a translation:\n\n    \u201cPlato to Archytas the Tarentine, prosperity.\n\n    \u201cIt is wonderful with what pleasure we received the\n    Commentaries which came from you, and how very much we were\n    delighted with the genius of their author. To us, indeed, he\n    appeared to be a man worthy of his ancient progenitors. For\n    these men are said to have been _ten thousand_[4] in number;\n    and, according to report, were the best of all those Trojans\n    that migrated under Laomedon.\n\n    \u201cWith respect to the Commentaries by me about which you write,\n    they are not yet finished. However, such as they are, I have\n    sent them to you. As to guardianship, we both accord in our\n    sentiments, so that in this particular there is no need of\n    exhortation.\u201d\n\n    \u201cIn the Preface to the Marquis d\u2019Argens\u2019 French translation of\n    this Tract, he says: \u2018I have often thought that it would be\n    much more advantageous to read what some of the Greek authors\n    have said of the philosophy of the ancients, in order to obtain\n    a knowledge of it, than to consult modern writers, who, though\n    they may perhaps write well, are in general too prolix[5].\u2019\n\n    \u201cIn 1762 the Marquis d\u2019Argens published Ocellus Lucanus, and\n    afterwards Tim\u00e6us Locrus, both writers, who according to\n    Chalmers\u2019 Biography had been neglected by universal consent. To\n    show, however, the glaring absurdity and outrageous injustice\n    of what Chalmers says of this Tract of Ocellus, it is necessary\n    to observe, that independently of the approbation of this\n    work by those two great luminaries of philosophy, Plato and\n    Aristotle, an enumeration of the various editions of it will\n    be sufficient. Ocellus was first printed in Greek at Paris\n    1539, and afterwards with a Latin version by Chretien 1541; by\n    Bosch 1554 and 1556; by Nogarola, Ven. 1559; by Commelin 1596;\n    at Heidelberg 1598; Bologna, 1646, and revised by Vizanius\n    1661; and lastly, by Gale, Cambridge, 1671. Here are ten\n    editions, the last of which is only 49 years prior to the year\n    1700; so that the universal consent had not yet been given to\n    neglect this work. Let us see when it could have taken place\n    afterwards. D\u2019Argens\u2019 translation appeared in 1762. A new\n    French translation by the Abb\u00e9 Batteux was printed in 1768;\n    and he made it without knowing of the other. D\u2019Argens\u2019 version\n    was reprinted in 1794; and an amended Greek and Latin text by\n    Rudolph was printed at Leipsic in 1801; so that there are in\n    all fourteen known editions, of which Gale\u2019s is the best. This\n    book has certainly been read in Greek, Latin, and French, and\n    it most certainly will be read in English, if any competent\n    translator will favour us with a good version.\n\n    \u201cIn addition to the testimonies of Plato and Aristotle in\n    favour of this work, Philo, the platonizing Jew, says: \u2018Some\n    are of opinion, that it was not Aristotle, but certain\n    Pythagoreans, who first maintained the eternity of the world;\n    but I have seen a treatise of Ocellus, in which he says, the\n    world was not generated, and is imperishable, and indeed he\n    proves it by most exquisite reasoning. Censorinus also, De Die\n    natali, cap. ii. says, \u2018that the opinion that the human race is\n    perpetual, has for its authors Pythagoras the Samian, Ocellus\n    Lucanus, and Archytas of Tarentum.\u2019 He is likewise mentioned by\n    Jamblichus in his Life of Pythagoras; by Syrianus in Aristot.\n    Metaphys.; by Proclus in his Commentary on the Tim\u00e6us of Plato,\n    who, as we have shown in the Notes on Ocellus, demonstrates\n    that he was wrong in ascribing two powers only instead of three\n    to each of the elements; and in the last place, this Tract\n    is cited by Stob\u00e6us in Ecl. Phys. lib. i. c. 24: all which\n    testimonies clearly prove that Chalmers is a man who cannot say\n    with Socrates (in Plat. Gorg.) that he has bid farewell to the\n    honours of the multitude, and has his eye solely directed to\n    truth[6].\u201d\n\nTo the treatise of Ocellus I have subjoined a translation of a Fragment\nof Taurus, a Platonic philosopher, On the Eternity of the World[7]; and\nalso a translation of the Mundi Thema, or _Geniture of the World_, from\nthe celebrated astrological work of Julius Firmicus Maternus, because it\nnot only admits with Ocellus the perpetuity of the universe, but unfolds\nthe position of the stars at the commencement of each of the periods\ncomprehended in the greater mundane apocatastasis, which consists of\n300,000 years; the first period after a deluge and conflagration, being,\nas it were, a reproduction of the world.\n\nI have likewise annexed a translation of select theorems from the\n2nd Book of Proclus on Motion, in which the perpetuity of time, and\nof the bodies which are naturally moved with a circular motion, is\nincontrovertibly proved, and is demonstrated by what Plato calls\n\u201c_geometrical necessities_\u201d (\u03b3\u03b5\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2).\n\nIn the last place, I have added copious Notes to these treatises, in\norder that nothing might be wanting to render the meaning of them\nperspicuous to the unprejudiced and intelligent reader.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] viz. falling on _matter_, or the general receptacle of all sensible\nforms. See my Translation of the admirable treatise of Plotinus \u201cOn the\nImpassivity of Incorporeal Natures.\u201d\n\n[2] \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2.\n\n[3] It is rightly observed by Fabricius, \u201cthat this work of Ocellus was\noriginally written in the Doric dialect, but was afterwards translated by\nsome grammarian into the common dialect, in order that it might be more\neasily understood by the reader.\u201d\u2014Vid. Biblioth. Gr\u00e6c. tom. i. p. 510.\n\n[4] In all the editions of Plato, \u03bc\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9, conformably to the above\ntranslation; but from Diogenes Laertius, who, in his Life of Archytas,\ngives this epistle of Plato, it appears that the true reading is \u039c\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9,\ni. e. Myrenees, so called from Myra, a city of Lycia in Asia Minor,\n(see Pliny, v. 27. Strabo xiv. 666.) This 12th epistle of Plato, though\nascribed by Thrasyllus and Diogenes Laertius to Plato, yet is marked in\nthe Greek manuscripts of it as spurious.\n\n[5] Of the Philosophy of Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle, very few of\nthe moderns have any accurate knowledge, and therefore on this subject\nthey may be prolix, but they cannot write well. See this largely and\nincontrovertibly proved in the Third and Fourth Books of my Dissertation\non the Philosophy of Aristotle.\n\n[6] For nearly the whole of what is contained in the above three\nparagraphs, I am indebted to my excellent friend Mr. J. B. Inglis, who\nhas also read Ocellus with great attention, and made Notes upon it;\nanother proof that the work is not neglected.\n\n[7] This Taurus flourished under Marcus Antoninus, and the original of\nthe above-mentioned Fragment is only to be found in the treatise of\nPhiloponus against Proclus, \u201cOn the Eternity of the World.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nOCELLUS LUCANUS ON THE UNIVERSE.\n\n\nCHAP. I.\n\nOcellus Lucanus has written what follows concerning the Nature of the\nUniverse; having learnt some things through clear arguments from Nature\nherself, _but others from opinion, in conjunction with reason_[8], it\nbeing his intention [in this work] to derive what is probable from\nintellectual perception.\n\nIt appears, therefore, to me, that the Universe is indestructible and\nunbegotten, since it always was, and always will be; for if it had a\ntemporal beginning, it would not have always existed: thus, therefore,\nthe universe is unbegotten and indestructible; for if some one should\nopine that it was once generated, he would not be able to find anything\ninto which it can be corrupted and dissolved, since that from which it\nwas generated would be the first part of the universe; and again, that\ninto which it would be dissolved would be the last part of it.\n\nBut if the universe was generated, it was generated together with all\nthings; and if it should be corrupted, it would be corrupted together\nwith all things. This, however, is impossible[9]. The universe,\ntherefore, is without a beginning, and without an end; nor is it possible\nthat it can have any other mode of subsistence.\n\nTo which may be added, that everything which has received a beginning\nof generation, and which ought also to participate of dissolution,\nreceives two mutations; one of which, indeed, proceeds from the less\nto the greater, and from the worse to the better; and that from which\nit begins to change is denominated generation, but that at which it at\nlength arrives, is called acme. The other mutation, however, proceeds\nfrom the greater to the less, and from the better to the worse: but the\ntermination of this mutation is denominated corruption and dissolution.\n\nIf, therefore, the whole and the universe were generated, and are\ncorruptible, they must, when generated, have been changed from the less\nto the greater, and from the worse to the better; but when corrupted,\nthey must be changed from the greater to the less, and from the better to\nthe worse. Hence, if the world was generated, it would receive increase,\nand would arrive at its acme; and again, it would afterwards receive\ndecrease and an end. For every nature which has a progression, possesses\nthree boundaries and two intervals. The three boundaries, therefore, are\ngeneration, acme, and end; but the intervals are, the progression from\ngeneration to acme, and from acme to the end.\n\nThe whole, however, and the universe, affords, as from itself, no\nindication of a thing of this kind; for neither do we perceive it rising\ninto existence, or becoming to be, nor changing to the better and the\ngreater, nor becoming at a certain time worse or less; but it always\ncontinues to subsist in the same and a similar manner, and is itself\nperpetually equal and similar to itself.\n\nOf the truth of this, the orders of things, their symmetry, figurations,\npositions, intervals, powers, swiftness and slowness with respect to each\nother; and, besides these, their numbers and temporal periods, are clear\nsigns and indications. For all such things as these receive mutation and\ndiminution, conformably to the course of a generated nature: for things\nthat are greater and better acquire acme through power, but those that\nare less and worse are corrupted through imbecility of nature.\n\nI denominate, however, the whole and the universe, the whole world; for,\nin consequence of being adorned with all things, it has obtained this\nappellation; since it is from itself a consummate and perfect system of\nthe nature of all things; for there is nothing external to the universe,\nsince whatever exists is contained in the universe, and the universe\nsubsists together with this, comprehending in itself all things, some as\nparts, but others as supervenient.\n\nThose things, therefore, which are comprehended in the world, have a\ncongruity with the world; but the world has no concinnity with anything\nelse, but is itself co-harmonized with itself. For all other things have\nnot a consummate or self-perfect subsistence, but require congruity with\nthings external to themselves. Thus animals require a conjunction with\nair for the purpose of respiration, but sight with light, in order to\nsee; and the other senses with something else, in order to perceive their\npeculiar sensible object. A conjunction with the earth also is necessary\nto the germination of plants. The sun and moon, the planets, and the\nfixed stars, have likewise a coalescence with the world, as being parts\nof its common arrangement. The world, however, has not a conjunction with\nanything else than itself.\n\nFurther still[10], what has been said will be easily known to be true\nfrom the following considerations. Fire, which imparts heat to another\nthing, is itself from itself hot; and honey, which is sweet to the taste,\nis itself from itself sweet. The principles likewise of demonstrations,\nwhich are indicative of things unapparent, are themselves from themselves\nmanifest and known. Thus, also, that which becomes to other things the\ncause of self-perfection, is itself from itself perfect; and that which\nbecomes to other things the cause of preservation and permanency,\nis itself from itself preserved and permanent. That, likewise, which\nbecomes to other things the cause of concinnity, is itself from itself\nco-harmonized; but the world is to other things the cause of their\nexistence, preservation, and self-perfection. The world, therefore, is\nfrom itself perpetual and self-perfect, has an everlasting duration, and\non this very account becomes the cause of the permanency of the whole of\nthings.\n\nIn short, if the universe should be dissolved, it would either be\ndissolved into that which has an existence, or into nonentity. But it is\nimpossible that it should be dissolved into that which exists, for there\nwill not be a corruption of the universe if it should be dissolved into\nthat which has a being; for being is either the universe, or a certain\npart of the universe. Nor can it be dissolved into nonentity, since it\nis impossible for being either to be produced from non-beings, or to be\ndissolved into nonentity. The universe, therefore, is incorruptible, and\ncan never be destroyed.\n\nIf, nevertheless, some one should think that it may be corrupted, it\nmust either be corrupted from something external to, or contained in\nthe universe, but it cannot be corrupted by anything external to it;\nfor there is not anything external to the universe, since all other\nthings are comprehended in the universe, and the world is _the whole_\nand _the all_. Nor can it be corrupted by the things which it contains,\nfor in this case it will be requisite that these should be greater and\nmore powerful than the universe. This, however, is not true[11], for all\nthings are led and governed by the universe, and conformably to this\nare preserved and co-adapted, and possess life and soul. But if the\nuniverse can neither be corrupted by anything external to it, nor by\nanything contained within it, the world must therefore be incorruptible\nand indestructible; for we consider the world to be the same with the\nuniverse[12].\n\nFurther still, the whole of nature surveyed through the whole of itself,\nwill be found to derive continuity from the first and most honourable\nof bodies, attenuating this continuity proportionally, introducing it\nto everything mortal, and receiving the progression of its peculiar\nsubsistence; for the first [and most honourable] bodies in the\nuniverse, revolve according to the same, and after a similar manner.\nThe progression, however, of the whole of nature, is not successive and\ncontinued, nor yet local, but subsists according to mutation.\n\nFire, indeed, when it is congregated into one thing, generates air, but\nair generates water, and water earth. From earth, also, there is the\nsame circuit of mutation, as far as to fire, from whence it began to\nbe changed. But fruits, and most plants that derive their origin from\na root, receive the beginning of their generation from seeds. When,\nhowever, they bear fruit and arrive at maturity, again they are resolved\ninto seed, nature producing a complete circulation from the same to the\nsame.\n\nBut men and other animals, in a subordinate degree, change the universal\nboundary of nature; for in these there is no periodical return to the\nfirst age, nor is there an antiperistasis of mutation into each other,\nas there is in fire and air, water and earth; but the mutations of their\nages being accomplished in a four-fold circle[13], they are dissolved,\nand again return to existence; these, therefore, are the signs and\nindications that the universe, which comprehends [all things], will\nalways endure and be preserved, but that its parts, and such things in it\nas are supervenient, are corrupted and dissolved.\n\nFurther still, it is credible that the universe is without a beginning,\nand without an end, from its figure, from motion, from time, and its\nessence; and, therefore, it may be concluded that the world is unbegotten\nand incorruptible: for the form of its figure is circular; but a circle\nis on all sides similar and equal, and is therefore without a beginning,\nand without an end. The motion also of the universe is circular, but this\nmotion is stable and without transition. Time, likewise, in which motion\nexists is infinite, for this neither had a beginning, nor will have an\nend of its circulation. The essence, too, of the universe, is without\negression [into any other place], and is immutable, because it is not\nnaturally adapted to be changed, either from the worse to the better, or\nfrom the better to the worse. From all these arguments, therefore, it is\nobviously credible, that the world is unbegotten and incorruptible. And\nthus much concerning the whole and the universe.\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\nSince, however, in the universe, one thing is generation, but another the\ncause of generation; and generation indeed takes place where there is a\nmutation and an egression from things which rank as subjects; but the\ncause of generation then subsists where the subject matter remains the\nsame: this being the case, it is evident that the cause of generation\npossesses both an effective and motive power, but that the recipient of\ngeneration is adapted to passivity, and to be moved.\n\nBut the Fates themselves distinguish and separate the impassive part of\nthe world from that which is perpetually moved [or mutuable][14]. For\nthe course of the moon is the isthmus of immortality and generation. The\nregion, indeed, above the moon, and also that which the moon occupies,\ncontain the genus of the gods; but the place beneath the moon is the\nabode of strife and nature; for in this place there is a mutation of\nthings that are generated, and a regeneration of things which have\nperished.\n\nIn that part of the world, however, in which nature and generation\npredominate, it is necessary that the three following things[15] should\nbe present. In the first place, the body which yields to the touch,\nand which is the subject of all generated natures. But this will be an\nuniversal recipient, and a signature of generation itself, having the\nsame _relation_ to the things that are generated from it, as water to\ntaste, _silence to sound_[16], darkness to light, and the matter of\nartificial forms to the forms themselves. For water is tasteless and\ndevoid of quality, yet is capable of receiving the sweet and the bitter,\nthe sharp and the salt. Air, also, which is formless with respect to\nsound, is the recipient of words and melody. And darkness, which is\nwithout colour, and without form, becomes the recipient of splendour,\nand of the yellow colour and the white; but whiteness pertains to the\nstatuary\u2019s art; and to the art which fashions figures from wax. Matter,\nhowever, has a relation in a different manner to the statuary\u2019s art; for\nin matter all things prior to generation are in capacity, but they exist\nin perfection when they are generated and receive their proper nature.\nHence matter [or a universal recipient] is necessary to the existence of\ngeneration.\n\nThe second thing which is necessary, is the existence of contrarieties,\nin order that mutations and changes in quality may be effected, matter\nfor this purpose receiving passive qualities, and an aptitude to the\nparticipation of forms. Contrariety is also necessary, in order that\npowers, which are naturally mutually repugnant, may not finally vanquish,\nor be vanquished by, each other. But these powers are the hot and the\ncold, the dry and the moist.\n\nEssences rank in the third place; and these are fire and water, air and\nearth, of which the hot and the cold, the dry and the moist, are powers.\nBut essences differ from powers; for essences are locally corrupted by\neach other, but powers are neither corrupted nor generated, for the\nreasons [or forms] of them are incorporeal.\n\nOf these four powers, however, the hot and the cold subsist as causes and\nthings of an effective nature, but the dry and the moist rank as matter\nand things that are passive[17]; but matter is the first recipient of\nall things, for it is that which is in common spread under all things.\nHence, the body, which is the object of sense in capacity, and ranks as a\nprinciple, is the first thing; but contrarieties, such as heat and cold,\nmoisture and dryness, form the second thing; and fire and water, earth\nand air, have an arrangement in the third place. For these change into\neach other; but things of a contrary nature are without change.\n\nBut the differences of bodies are two: for some of them indeed are\nprimary, but others originate from these: for the hot and the cold, the\nmoist and the dry, rank as primary differences; but the heavy and the\nlight, the dense and the rare, have the relation of things which are\nproduced from the primary differences. All of them, however, are in\nnumber sixteen, viz. the hot and the cold, the moist and the dry, the\nheavy and the light, the rare and the dense, the smooth and the rough,\nthe hard and the soft, the thin and the thick, the acute and the obtuse.\nBut of all these, the touch has a knowledge, and forms a judgement;\nhence, also, the first body in which these differences exist in capacity,\nmay be sensibly apprehended by the touch.\n\nThe hot and the dry, therefore, the rare and the sharp, are the powers\nof fire; but those of water are, the cold and the moist, the dense and\nthe obtuse; those of air are, the soft, the smooth, the light, and the\nattenuated; and those of earth are, the hard and the rough, the heavy and\nthe thick.\n\nOf these four bodies, however, fire and earth are the transcendencies\nand summits [or extremities] of contraries. Fire, therefore, is the\ntranscendency of heat, in the same manner as ice is of cold: hence, if\nice is a concretion of moisture and frigidity, fire will be the fervour\nof dryness and heat. On which account, nothing is generated from ice, nor\nfrom fire[18].\n\nFire and earth, therefore, are the extremities of the elements, but\nwater and air are the media, for they have a mixed corporeal nature. Nor\nis it possible that there could be only one of the extremes, but it is\nnecessary that there should be a contrary to it. Nor could there be two\nonly, for it is necessary that there should be a medium, since media are\nopposite to the extremes.\n\nFire, therefore, is hot and dry, but air is hot and moist; water is\nmoist and cold, but earth is cold and dry. Hence, heat is common to air\nand fire; cold is common to water and earth; dryness to earth and fire;\nand moisture to water and air. But with respect to the peculiarities\nof each, heat is the peculiarity of fire, dryness of earth, moisture of\nair, and frigidity of water. The essences, therefore, of these remain\npermanent, through the possession of common properties; but they change\nthrough such as are peculiar, when one contrary vanquishes another.\n\nHence, when the moisture in air vanquishes the dryness in fire, but\nthe frigidity in water, the heat in air, and the dryness in earth, the\nmoisture in water, and vice vers\u00e2, when the moisture in water vanquishes\nthe dryness in earth, the heat in air, the coldness in water, and the\ndryness in fire, the moisture in air, then the mutations and generations\nof the elements from each other into each other are effected.\n\nThe body, however, which is the subject and recipient of mutations, is a\nuniversal receptacle, and is in capacity the first tangible substance.\n\nBut the mutations of the elements are effected, either from a change of\nearth into fire, or from fire into air, or from air into water, or from\nwater into earth. Mutation is also effected in the third place, when that\nwhich is contrary in each element is corrupted, but that which is of a\nkindred nature, and connascent, is preserved. Generation, therefore, is\neffected, when one contrariety is corrupted. For fire, indeed, is hot\nand dry, but air is hot and moist, and heat is common to both; but the\npeculiarity of fire is dryness, and of air moisture. Hence, when the\nmoisture in air vanquishes the dryness in fire, then fire is changed into\nair.\n\nAgain, since water is moist and cold, but air is moist and hot, moisture\nis common to both. The peculiarity however of water is coldness, but of\nair heat. When, therefore, the coldness in water vanquishes the heat in\nair, the mutation from air into water is effected.\n\nFurther still, earth is cold and dry, but water is cold and moist, and\ncoldness is common to both; but the peculiarity of earth is dryness, and\nof water moisture. When, therefore, the dryness in earth vanquishes the\nmoisture in water, a mutation takes place from water into earth.\n\nThe mutation, however, from earth, in an ascending progression, is\nperformed in a contrary way; but an alternate mutation is effected when\none whole vanquishes another, and two contrary powers are corrupted,\nnothing at the same time being common to them. For since fire is hot and\ndry, but water is cold and moist; when the moisture in water vanquishes\nthe dryness in fire, and the coldness in water the heat in fire, then a\nmutation is effected from fire into water.\n\nAgain, earth is cold and dry, but air is hot and moist. When, therefore,\nthe coldness in earth vanquishes the heat in air, and the dryness in\nearth, the moisture in air, then a mutation from air into earth is\neffected.\n\nBut when the moisture of air corrupts the heat of fire, from both of them\nfire will be generated; for the heat of air and the dryness of fire will\nstill remain. And fire is hot and dry.\n\nWhen, however, the coldness of earth is corrupted, and the moisture of\nwater, from both of them earth will be generated. For the dryness of\nearth, indeed, will be left, and the coldness of water. And earth is cold\nand dry.\n\nBut when the heat of air, and the heat of fire are corrupted, no element\nwill be generated; for the contraries in both these will remain, viz. the\nmoisture of air and the dryness of fire. Moisture, however, is contrary\nto dryness.\n\nAnd again, when the coldness of earth, and in a similar manner of water,\nare corrupted, neither thus will there be any generation; for the dryness\nof earth and the moisture of water will remain. But dryness is contrary\nto moisture. And thus, we have briefly discussed the generation of the\nfirst bodies, and have shown how and from what subjects it is effected.\n\nSince, however, the world is indestructible and unbegotten, and neither\nreceived a beginning of generation, nor will ever have an end, it is\nnecessary that the nature which produces generation in another thing,\nand also that which generates in itself, should be present with each\nother. And that, indeed, which produces generation in another thing, is\nthe whole of the region above the moon; but the more proximate cause is\nthe sun, who, by his accessions and recessions, continually changes the\nair, so as to cause it to be at one time cold, and at another hot; the\nconsequence of which is, that the earth is changed, and everything which\nthe earth contains.\n\nThe obliquity of the zodiac, also, is well posited with respect to the\nmotion of the sun, for it likewise is the cause of generation. And\nuniversally this is accomplished by the proper order of the universe;\nso that one thing in it is that which makes, but another that which is\npassive. Hence, that which generates in another thing, exists above the\nmoon; but that which generates in itself, has a subsistence beneath the\nmoon; and that which consists of both these, viz. of an ever-running\ndivine body, and of an ever-mutable generated nature, is the world.\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\nThe origin, however, of the generation of man was not derived from the\nearth, nor that of other animals, nor of plants; but the proper order of\nthe world being perpetual, it is also necessary that the natures which\nexist in it, and are aptly arranged, should, together with it, have a\nnever-failing subsistence. For the world primarily always existing, it\nis necessary that its parts should be co-existent with it: but I mean by\nits parts, the heavens, the earth, and that which subsists between these;\nwhich is placed on high, and is denominated aerial; for the world does\nnot exist without, but together with, and from these.\n\nThe parts of the world, however, being consubsistent, it is also\nnecessary that the natures, comprehended in these parts, should be\nco-existent with them; with the heavens, indeed, the sun and moon, the\nfixed stars, and the planets; but with the earth, animals and plants,\ngold and silver; with the place on high, and the aerial region, pneumatic\nsubstances and wind, a mutation to that which is more hot, and a mutation\nto that which is more cold; for it is the property of the heavens to\nsubsist in conjunction with the natures which it comprehends; of the\nearth to support the plants and animals which originate from it; and of\nthe place on high, and the aerial region, to be consubsistent with all\nthe natures that are generated in it.\n\nSince, therefore, in each division of the world, a certain genus of\nanimals is arranged, which surpasses the rest contained in that division;\nin the heavens, indeed, the genus of the gods, but in the earth men, and\nin the region on high demons;\u2014this being the case, it is necessary that\nthe race of men should be perpetual, since reason truly induces us to\nbelieve, that not only the [great] parts of the world are consubsistent\nwith the world, but also the natures comprehended in these parts.\n\nViolent corruptions, however, and mutations, take place in the parts of\nthe earth; at one time, indeed, the sea overflowing into another part\nof the earth; but at another, the earth itself becoming dilated and\ndivulsed, through wind or water latently entering into it. But an entire\ncorruption of the arrangement of the whole earth never did happen, nor\never will.\n\nHence the assertion, that the Grecian history derived its beginning\nfrom the Argive Inachus, must not be admitted as if it commenced from a\ncertain first principle, but that it originated from some mutation which\nhappened in Greece; for Greece has frequently been, and will again be,\nbarbarous, not only from the migration of foreigners into it, but from\nnature herself, which, though she does not become greater or less, yet is\nalways younger, and with reference to us, receives a beginning.\n\nAnd thus much has been sufficiently said by me respecting _the whole_\nand _the universe_; and further still, concerning the generation and\ncorruption of the natures which are generated in it, and the manner in\nwhich they subsist, and will for ever subsist; one part of the universe\nconsisting of a nature which is perpetually moved, but another part of a\nnature which is always passive; and the former of these always governing,\nbut the latter being always governed.\n\n\nCHAP. IV.\n\nConcerning the generation of men, however, from each other, after what\nmanner, and from what particulars, it may be most properly effected, law,\nand temperance and piety at the same time co-operating, will be, I think,\nas follows. In the first place, indeed, this must be admitted,\u2014that we\nshould not be connected with women for the sake of pleasure, but for the\nsake of begetting children.\n\nFor those powers and instruments, and appetites, which are subservient\nto copulation, were imparted to men by Divinity, not for the sake of\nvoluptuousness, but for the sake of the perpetual duration of the\nhuman race. For since it was impossible that man, who is born mortal,\nshould participate of a divine life, if the immortality of his genus\nwas corrupted; Divinity gave completion to this immortality through\nindividuals, and made this generation of mankind to be unceasing and\ncontinued. This, therefore, is one of the first things which it is\nnecessary to survey,\u2014that copulation should not be undertaken for the\nsake of voluptuous delight.\n\nIn the next place, the co-ordination itself of man should be considered\nwith reference to the whole, viz. that he is a part of a house and a\ncity, and (which is the greatest thing of all) that each of the progeny\nof the human species ought to give completion to the world[19], if it\ndoes not intend to be a deserter either of the domestic, or political,\nor divine Vestal hearth.\n\nFor those who are not entirely connected with each other for the sake of\nbegetting children, injure the most honourable system of convention. But\nif persons of this description procreate with libidinous insolence and\nintemperance, their offspring will be miserable and flagitious, and will\nbe execrated by gods and demons, and by men, and families, and cities.\n\nThose, therefore, who deliberately consider these things, ought not, in a\nway similar to irrational animals, to engage in venereal connections, but\nshould think copulation to be a necessary good. For it is the opinion of\nworthy men, that it is necessary and beautiful, not only to fill houses\nwith large families, and also the greater part of the earth[20], (for man\nis the most mild and the best of all animals,) but, as a thing of the\ngreatest consequence, to cause them to abound with the most excellent\nmen.\n\nFor on this account men inhabit cities governed by the best laws, rightly\nmanage their domestic affairs, and [if they are able] impart to their\nfriends such political employments as are conformable to the polities in\nwhich they live, since they not only provide for the multitude at large,\nbut [especially] for worthy men.\n\nHence, many err, who enter into the connubial state without regarding\nthe magnitude of [the power of] fortune, or public utility, but direct\ntheir attention to wealth, or dignity of birth. For in consequence of\nthis, instead of uniting with females who are young and in the flower of\ntheir age, they become connected with extremely old women; and instead of\nhaving wives with a disposition according with, and most similar to their\nown, they marry those who are of an illustrious family, or are extremely\nrich. On this account, they procure for themselves discord instead of\nconcord; and instead of unanimity, dissention; contending with each\nother for the mastery. For the wife who surpasses her husband in wealth,\nin birth, and in friends, is desirous of ruling over him, contrary to\nthe law of nature. But the husband justly resisting this desire of\nsuperiority in his wife, and wishing not to be the second, but the first\nin domestic sway, is unable, in the management of his family, to take the\nlead.\n\nThis being the case, it happens that not only families, but cities,\nbecome miserable. For families are parts of cities, but the composition\nof the whole and the universe derives its subsistence from parts[21].\nIt is reasonable, therefore, to admit, that such as are the parts, such\nlikewise will be the whole and the all which consists of things of this\nkind.\n\nAnd as in fabrics of a primary nature the first structures co-operate\ngreatly to the good or bad completion of the whole work; as, for\ninstance, the manner in which the foundation is laid in building a house,\nthe structure of the keel in building a ship, and in musical modulation\nthe extension and remission of the voice; so the concordant condition of\nfamilies greatly contributes to the well or ill establishment of a polity.\n\nThose, therefore, who direct their attention to the propagation of the\nhuman species, ought to guard against everything which is dissimilar and\nimperfect; for neither plants nor animals, when imperfect, are prolific,\nbut to their fructification a certain portion of time is necessary, in\norder that when the bodies are strong and perfect, they may produce seeds\nand fruits.\n\nHence, it is necessary that boys, and girls also while they are virgins,\nshould be trained up in exercises and proper endurance, and that they\nshould be nourished with that kind of food, which is adapted to a\nlaborious, temperate, and patient life.\n\nMoreover, there are many things in human life of such a kind, that it\nis better for the knowledge of them to be deferred for a certain time.\nHence, it is requisite that a boy should be so tutored, as not to seek\nafter venereal pleasures before he is twenty years of age, and then\nshould rarely engage in them. This, however, will take place, if he\nconceives that a good habit of body, and continence, are beautiful and\nhonourable.\n\nIt is likewise requisite that such legal institutes as the following\nshould be taught in Grecian cities, viz. that connection with a mother,\nor a daughter, or a sister, should not be permitted either in temples,\nor in a public place; for it is beautiful and advantageous that numerous\nimpediments to this energy should be employed.\n\nAnd universally, it is requisite that all preternatural generations\nshould be prevented, and those which are attended with wanton insolence.\nBut such as are conformable to nature should be admitted, and which are\neffected with temperance, for the purpose of producing a temperate and\nlegitimate offspring.\n\nAgain, it is necessary that those who intend to beget children, should\nprovidentially attend to the welfare of their future offspring. A\ntemperate and salutary diet, therefore, is the first and greatest thing\nwhich should be attended to by him who wishes to beget children; so\nthat he should neither be filled with unseasonable food, nor become\nintoxicated, nor subject himself to any other perturbation, from which\nthe habits of the body may become worse. But, above all things, it is\nrequisite to be careful that the mind, in the act of copulation, should\nbe in a tranquil state: for, from depraved, discordant, and turbulent\nhabits, bad seed is produced.\n\nIt is requisite, therefore, to endeavour, with all possible earnestness\nand attention, that children may be born elegant and graceful, and\nthat when born, they should be well educated. For neither is it just\nthat those who rear horses, or birds, or dogs, should, with the utmost\ndiligence, endeavour that the breed may be such as is proper, and from\nsuch things as are proper, and when it is proper[22]; and likewise\nconsider how they ought to be disposed when they copulate with each\nother, in order that the offspring may not be a casual production;\u2014but\nthat men should pay no attention to their progeny, but should beget them\ncasually; and when begotten, should neglect both their nutriment and\ntheir education: for these being disregarded, the causes of all vice and\ndepravity are produced, since those that are thus born will resemble\ncattle, and will be ignoble and vile.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[8] See Additional Notes, [a].\n\n[9] The universe could not be generated together with all things, for the\nprinciple of it must be unbegotten; since everything that is generated,\nis generated from a cause; and if this cause was also generated, there\nmust be a progression of causes ad infinitum, unless the unbegotten is\nadmitted to be the principle of the universe. Neither, therefore, can\nthe universe be corrupted together with all things; for the principle of\nit being unbegotten is also incorruptible; that only being corruptible,\nwhich was once generated.\n\n[10] Critolaus, the Peripatetic, employs nearly the same arguments as\nthose contained in this paragraph, in proof of the perpetuity of the\nworld, as is evident from the following passage, preserved by Philo,\nin his Treatise \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u0391\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u039a\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u201cOn the Incorruptibility of the\nWorld\u201d: \u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c5\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u00b7 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd\n\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b1\u03b3\u03c1\u03c5\u03c0\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd. \u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b1\u03ca\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd. \u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03bf \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b5\u03b9\u03b3\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. \u03b1\u03ca\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03bf \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd. i. e. \u201cThat which is the cause\nto itself of good health, is without disease. But, also, that which is\nthe cause to itself of a vigilant energy, is sleepless. But if this\nbe the case, that also which is the cause to itself of existence, is\nperpetual. The world, however, is the cause to itself of existence, since\nit is the cause of existence to all other things. The world, therefore,\nis perpetual.\u201d Everything divine, according to the philosophy of\nPythagoras and Plato, being a self-perfect essence, begins its own energy\nfrom itself, and is therefore primarily the cause to itself of that\nwhich it imparts to others. Hence, since the world, being a divine and\nself-subsistent essence, imparts to itself existence, it must be without\nnon-existence, and therefore must be perpetual.\n\n[11] i. e. It is not true that the universe can contain anything greater\nand more powerful than itself.\n\n[12] Philo Jud\u00e6us, in his before-mentioned Treatise \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u0391\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2\n\u039a\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, has adopted the arguments of Ocellus in this paragraph, but not\nwith the conciseness of his original.\n\n[13] This four-fold mutation of ages in the human race, consists of the\ninfant, the lad, the man, and the old man, as is well observed by Theo of\nSmyrna. See my Theoretic Arithmetic, p. 189.\n\n[14] In the original, \u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd,\nwhich is obviously erroneous. Nogarola, in his note on this passage,\nsays, \u201cMelius arbitror si legatur \u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd,\nut sit sensus, semper patibilem, et semper mobilem partem distinguunt ac\nseparant.\u201d But though he is right in reading \u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd for \u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd,\nhe is wrong in substituting \u03b1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2 for \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5\u03c2; for Ocellus is here\nspeaking of the distinction between the celestial and sublunary region,\nthe former of which is _impassive_, because not subject to generation and\ncorruption, but the latter being subject to both these is _perpetually\nmutable_.\n\n[15] Aristotle, in his treatise on Generation and Corruption, has\nborrowed what Ocellus here says about the three things necessary to\ngeneration. See my translation of that work.\n\n[16] In the original, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c8\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03b7\u03bd, instead of which it is\nnecessary to read \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b9\u03b3\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c8\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd, conformably to the above\ntranslation. See the Notes to my translation of the First Book of\nAristotle\u2019s Physics, p. 73, &c., in which the reader will find a treasury\nof information from Simplicius concerning matter. But as matter is devoid\nof all quality, and is a privation of all form, the necessity of the\nabove emendation is immediately obvious.\n\n[17] Thus also Aristotle, in his Treatise on Generation and Corruption,\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03b3\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u03b1 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c4\u1ff3\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1 \u03bb\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, i. e. \u201cWith respect to heat and cold, dryness and\nmoisture, the two former of these are said to be effective, but the two\nlatter passive powers.\u201d\n\n[18] The substance of nearly the whole of what Ocellus here says, and\nalso of the two following paragraphs, is given by Aristotle, in his\nTreatise on Generation and Corruption.\n\n[19] In the original, \u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf \u1f41\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f41\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5,\n\u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03bf\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba. \u03c4. \u03bb. Here, for\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5, \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd, \u03ba. \u03c4. \u03bb., it is requisite to read,\nconformably to the above translation, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd,\n\u03ba. \u03c4. \u03bb. Nogarola, in his version, from not perceiving the necessity of\nthis emendation, has made Ocellus say that man is the greatest part of\nthe universe; for his translation is as follows: \u201cMox eandem hominis\nconstitutionem ad universam referendam, quippe qui non solum dom\u00fbs et\ncivitatis, verum etiam mundi maxima habetur pars,\u201d &c.\n\n[20] This observation applies only to well regulated cities, but in\nLondon and other large cities, where the population is not restricted to\na definite number, this abundant propagation of the species is, to the\ngreater part of the community, attended with extreme misery and want.\nPlato and Aristotle, who rank among the wisest men that ever lived, were\ndecidedly of opinion, that the population of a city should be limited.\nHence, the former of these philosophers says, \u201cthat in a city where the\ninhabitants do not know each other, there is no light, but profound\ndarkness;\u201d and the latter, \u201cthat as 10,000 inhabitants are too few for a\ncity, so 100,000 are too many.\u201d\n\n[21] For _whole_, according to the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato,\nhas a triple subsistence; since it is either prior to parts, or consists\nof parts, or exists in each of the parts of a thing. But a _whole_, prior\nto parts, contains in itself parts causally. The universe is a whole of\nwholes, the wholes which it comprehends in itself (viz. the inerratic\nsphere, and the spheres of the planets and elements) being its parts. And\nin the whole which is in each part of a thing, every part according to\nparticipation becomes a whole, i. e. a partial whole.\n\n[22] In the original, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03be \u1f61\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u03b5\u03b9, a mode of\ndiction which frequently occurs in Aristotle, and from him in Platonic\nwriters.\n\n\n\n\nOCELLUS LUCANUS ON LAWS.\n\nA FRAGMENT PRESERVED BY STOB\u00c6US, ECLOG. PHYS. LIB. I. CAP. 16.\n\n\nLife, connectedly\u2014contains in itself bodies; but of this, soul is the\ncause. Harmony comprehends, connectedly, the world; but of this, God\nis the cause. Concord binds together families and cities; and of this,\nlaw is the cause. Hence, there is a certain cause and nature which\nperpetually adapts the parts of the world to each other, and never\nsuffers them to be disorderly and without connection. Cities, however,\nand families, continue only for a short time; the progeny of which,\nand the mortal nature of the matter of which they consist, contain in\nthemselves the cause of dissolution; for they derive their subsistence\nfrom a mutable and perpetually passive nature. For the destruction[23]\nof things which are generated, is the salvation of the matter from which\nthey are generated. That nature, however, which is perpetually moved[24]\ngoverns, but that which is always passive[25] is governed; and the one\nis in capacity prior, but the other posterior. The one also is divine,\nand possesses reason and intellect, but the other is generated, and is\nirrational and mutable.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[23] In the original, \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2; but the true reading is doubtless\n\u03b1\u03c0\u03c9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1, and Vizzanus has in his version _interitus_. What is here said\nby Ocellus is in perfect conformity with the following beautiful lines of\nour admirable philosophic poet, Pope, in his Essay on Man:\n\n    \u201cAll forms that perish other forms supply;\n    By turns they catch the vital breath and die;\n    Like bubbles on the sea of matter born,\n    They rise, they break, and to that sea return.\u201d\n\n[24] i. e. The celestial region.\n\n[25] i. e. The sublunary region.\n\n\nADDITIONAL NOTES.\n\n[a] Page 1.\u2014\u201c_But others from opinion in conjunction with reason_;\u201d\u2014which\nin the original is, \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u1fc3, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5. But Ocellus is not\naccurate in what he here asserts, as is evident from what Plato says in\nhis Tim\u00e6us. For the divine philosopher having, in the former part of this\ndialogue, proposed to consider \u201cwhat that is which is always being, but\nis without generation, and what that is which is generated [or consists\nin becoming to be], but is never [really] being,\u201d adds: \u201cThe former of\nthese, indeed, is comprehended by _intelligence in conjunction with\nreason_, since it always subsists with invariable sameness; but the\nlatter is perceived _by opinion in conjunction with irrational sense_,\nsince it is generated and corrupted, and never truly is.\u201d \u03a4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\n\u03b1\u03b5\u03b9, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5 \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba \u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u03bf\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5 \u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b4\u03b7, \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bb\u03b7\u03c0\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u2019\u03b1\u03c5 \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u1fc3\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5, \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b3\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5\n\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u03bd. Plato, as is evident from what is said in the Introduction\nto this work, had seen this tract of Ocellus, and corrects him in what he\nhere says, as he also did the opinions of other philosophers anterior to,\nor contemporary with him. For if Ocellus had spoken accurately, he should\nhave said, \u201cthat he had learnt some things through clear arguments from\nnature herself, but others from opinion in conjunction with irrational\nsense.\u201d For, as Proclus admirably demonstrates in his Commentary on\nthe above passage from the Tim\u00e6us of Plato, truly existing being is\nonly to be apprehended by us through illuminations from an intellect\nsuperior to the human, in conjunction with the energy of _the summit of\nour reasoning power_; for such is the accurate meaning of \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 in this\nplace. But opinion is a knowledge of sensibles conformable to reason,\nyet without being able to assign the cause of what it knows; and sense\nis an irrational knowledge of the objects to which it is passive, and\nthe instrument of sense is passion only. See the first volume of my\ntranslation of the Commentaries of Proclus on the Tim\u00e6us of Plato, p.\n202, &c.\n\nOcellus adds, \u201cthat it is his intention [in this treatise On the\nUniverse] to derive what is _probable_ from intellectual perception.\u201d For\nin physiological discussions we must be satisfied with probability and\nan approximation to the truth. Hence, Proclus, in his Commentary on that\npart of the Tim\u00e6us in which Plato says, \u201cWhat essence is to generation,\nthat truth is to faith,\u201d admirably observes as follows: \u201cThe faith of\nwhich Plato now speaks is rational, but is mingled with irrational\nknowledge, as it employs sense and conjecture; hence, it is filled with\nmuch of the unstable. For receiving from sense or conjecture the \u1f41\u03c4\u03b9, _or\nthat a thing is_, it thus explains causes. But these kinds of knowledge\nhave much of the confused and unstable. Hence, Socrates, in the Ph\u00e6do,\nreprehends sense in many respects, because we neither hear nor see\nanything accurately.\n\n\u201cHow, therefore, can the knowledge which originates from sense possess\nthe accurate and the irreprehensible? For the powers which use science\nalone, comprehend the whole of the thing known with accuracy; but those\nthat energise with sense, are deceived, and deviate from accuracy, on\naccount of sense, and because the object of knowledge is unstable. For,\nwith respect to that which is material, what can any one say of it?\nsince it is always changing and flowing, and is not naturally adapted\nto abide for a moment. But that which is celestial, in consequence of\nbeing remote from us, is not easily known, nor can it be apprehended\nby science, but we must be satisfied in the theory of it with an\napproximation to the truth, and with probability [instead of certainty].\nFor everything which is in place requires the being situated there, in\norder to a perfect knowledge of its nature. The intelligible, however,\nis not a thing of this kind, since it is not apprehended by us in\nplace; for, wherever any one establishes his reasoning energy, there,\ntruth being everywhere present, he comes into contact with it. But if\nit is possible to assert anything firm and stable about that which is\ncelestial, this also is possible, so far as it participates of being,\nand so far as it can be apprehended by intelligence. For, if anything\nnecessary can be collected concerning it, it is alone through geometrical\ndemonstrations which are universal. But so far as it is sensible, it is\ndifficult to be apprehended, and difficult to be surveyed.\u201d\u2014See the first\nvolume of my translation of Proclus on the Tim\u00e6us of Plato, p. 291.\n\nIn p. 293, he also observes, \u201cthat perfectly accurate arguments, and such\nas are truly scientific, are not to be expected in physical discussions,\nbut such as are assimilated to them. It is besides this requisite\nto know, that as the world is mingled from physical powers, and an\nintellectual and divine essence; for \u201cphysical works, as the [Chaldean]\nOracle says, co-subsist with the intellectual light of the father;\u201d\nthus, also, the discussion of the world makes a commixture of faith and\ntruth. For things which are assumed from sense participate largely of\nconjectural discussion; but things which commence from intelligibles,\npossess that which is irreprehensible, and cannot be confuted.\u201d And,\nlastly, in p. 296, he adds, \u201cthat the want of accuracy in the theory of\nthe images of being, arises from our imbecility; for, to the knowledge of\nthem we require imagination, sense, and many other organs. But the Gods\ncontractedly contain these in their unity and divine intellection; for,\nin sublunary natures, we are satisfied in apprehending that which, for\nthe most part, takes place on account of the instability of their subject\nmatter. But again, in celestial natures, we are filled with much of the\nconjectural, through employing sense and material instruments. On this\naccount we must be satisfied with proximity in the apprehension, of them,\nsince we dwell remotely at the bottom, as it is said, of the universe.\nThis also is evident from those that are conversant with them, who\ncollect the same things respecting them from different hypotheses; some\nthings, indeed, through eccentrics, others through epicycles, and others\nthrough evolvents, [in all these] preserving the ph\u00e6nomena.\u201d\n\nShuttleworth, in his Astronomy, has demonstrated that the celestial\nph\u00e6nomena may be solved by the hypotheses of Ptolemy and Tycho Brahe,\nequally as well as by those of Copernicus. But astronomers of the present\nday, from not being skilled in the logic of Aristotle, are not aware that\ntrue conclusions may be deduced from false premises; and hence, because\ntheir theory solves the ph\u00e6nomena, they immediately conclude that it\nis true. Aristotle, in his Posterior Analytics, has incontrovertibly\nshown, that the things from which demonstrative science consists, must\nbe necessarily true, the causes of, more known than, and prior to\nthe conclusion. But where the premises of a syllogism are false, the\nconclusion is not _scientifically_, i. e. _necessarily_, true. Thus in\nthe syllogism, Every stone is an animal; every man is a stone; therefore\nevery man is an animal,\u2014the conclusion is true, but not _scientific_.\n\n_Note to p. 14._\u2014Ocellus is wrong in ascribing two powers only to each\nof the elements, instead of three, as is clearly shown by Proclus, in\nthe following extract from his admirable Commentary on the Tim\u00e6us of\nPlato. \u201cThere are some physiologists (says he) who ascribe one power to\neach of the elements; to fire indeed heat, to air frigidity, to water\nmoisture, and to earth dryness; in so doing, entirely wandering from the\ntruth. In the first place, because they subvert the world and order. For\nit is impossible for things to be co-adapted to each other, when they\npossess the most contrary powers, unless they have something in common.\nIn the next place, they make the most contrary natures allied to each\nother, viz. the hot to the cold, and the moist to the dry[26]. It is\nnecessary, however, to make things which are hostile more remote than\nthings which are less foreign. For such is the nature of contraries. In\nthe third place, therefore, the first two powers will have no sympathy\nwhatever with the rest, but will be divulsed[27] from each other. For it\nis impossible to say what is common to humidity and frigidity. And in\naddition to all these things, as the elements are solids, they will not\nbe conjoined to each other by any medium. It has however been shown that\nit is not possible for solids to be conjoined through one medium. Nor can\nthey be conjoined without a medium. For this is alone the province of\nthings that are perfectly without interval.\n\n\u201cBut some others, as Ocellus, who was the precursor of Tim\u00e6us, attribute\ntwo powers to each of the elements; to fire indeed heat and dryness; to\nair, heat and moisture; to water, moisture and coldness; and to earth,\ncoldness and dryness. And these things are written by this man in his\ntreatise On Nature. In what, therefore, do these err who thus speak? In\nthe first place, indeed, wishing to discover the common powers in the\nelements, in order that they may preserve the co-arrangement of them with\neach other, they no more assign communion than separation to them, but\nequally honour their hostility and their harmony. What kind of world,\ntherefore, will subsist from these; what order will there be of things\nwhich are without arrangement and most foreign, and of things which are\nmost allied and co-arranged? For things which in an equal degree are\nhostile and peaceful, will in an equal mode dissolve and constitute\ncommunion. But this communion being similarly dissolved, and similarly\nimplanted, the universe will no more exist than not exist. In the second\nplace, they do not assign the greatest contrariety to the extremes, but\nto things most remote from the extremes; though we everywhere see, that\nof homogeneous natures, those which are most distant have the nature of\ncontraries, and not those which are less distant. How likewise did nature\narrange them, since they are most remote in their situation from each\nother? Was it not by perceiving their contrariety, and that the third\nwas more allied than the last to the first? How, also, did she arrange\nthe motions of them, since fire is most light and tends upward, but\nearth is most heavy and tends downward? But whence were the motions of\nthem which are most contrary derived, if not from nature? If, therefore,\nnature distributed to them most contrary motions, it is evident that they\nare themselves most contrary. For as the motions of simple beings are\nsimple, and those things are simple of which the motions are simple,\nthus also those things are most contrary of which the motions are most\ncontrary. And this may occasion some one to wonder at Aristotle, who, in\nwhat he says about motion, places earth as most contrary to fire; but in\nwhat he says about powers, he makes the most remote of similar natures\nto be more friendly than those that are proximate, when they are moved\nwith most contrary motions. For, as the elements have contrary places in\ntheir positions, as they have contrary motions in lations, as they have\ncontrary powers, gravity and levity, through which motions subsist in\ntheir forms, thus also they have contrary passive qualities. Aristotle\nhimself likewise manifests that earth is contrary to fire. For wishing to\nshow that it is necessary there should be more bodies than one, he says:\n\u201cMoreover, if earth exists, it is also necessary that fire should exist.\nFor in things, one of the contraries of which naturally is, the other\nlikewise has a natural subsistence.\u201d So that neither was he able after\nany other manner to show that there are more elements than one, than by\nasserting that fire is contrary to earth.\n\n\u201cFurther still, as the elements are solids, how can they be bound\ntogether through one medium? For this is impossible in solids, as we\nhave before observed. Hence those who assert these things, neither\nspeak mathematically nor physically, but unavoidably err in both these\nrespects. For physical are derived from mathematical entities. _Tim\u00e6us\ntherefore alone, or any other who rightly follows him, neither attributes\none or two powers alone to the elements, but triple powers; to fire\nindeed tenuity of parts, acuteness, and facility of motion; to air,\ntenuity of parts, obtuseness, and facility of motion; to water, grossness\nof parts, obtuseness, and facility of motion; and to earth, grossness of\nparts, obtuseness, and difficulty of motion._ But this is in order that\neach of the elements may have two powers, each[28] of which is common to\nthe element placed next to it, and one power which is different, in the\nsame manner as it was demonstrated in mathematical numbers and figures;\nthis different power being assumed from one of the extremes; and also in\norder that earth, according to all the powers, may subsist oppositely\nto fire; and that the extremes may have two media, and the continued\nquantities two; the latter having solids for the media, but the former,\ncommon powers. For let fire indeed be attenuated in its parts, acute, and\neasily moved. For it has an attenuated essence, and is acute, as having\na figure of this kind [i. e. a pyramidal figure], and on this account is\nincisive and fugitive[29], and permeates through all the other elements.\nIt is also moved with facility[30], as being most near to the celestial\nbodies, and existing in them. For the celestial fire itself is moved\nwith celerity, as is likewise sublunary fire, which is perpetually moved\nin conjunction with it, and according to one circle, and one impulse.\nSince, therefore, earth is contrary to fire, it has contrary powers, viz.\ngrossness, obtuseness, and difficulty of motion, all which we see are\npresent with it. But these being thus hostile, and being solids, are also\nsimilar solids. For their sides and their powers are analogous. For as\nthe gross is to the attenuated, so is the obtuse to the acute, and that\nwhich is moved with difficulty, to that which is moved with facility. But\nthose are similar solids of which the sides that constitute the bodies\nare analogous. _For the sides are the powers of which bodies consist._\nHence, as fire and earth are similar bodies, and similar solids, two\nanalogous media fall between them; and each of the media will have two\nsides of the extremes situated next to it, and the remaining side from\nthe other extreme. Hence, since fire has for its three physical sides the\ntriple powers, tenuity, acuteness, and facility of motion, by taking away\nthe middle power, acuteness, and introducing instead of it obtuseness, we\nshall produce air, which has two sides of fire, but one of earth, or two\npowers of fire, but one of earth; as it is fit that what is near should\nrather communicate with it, than what is separated in the third rank from\nit.\n\n\u201cAgain, since earth has three physical powers, contrary to the powers of\nfire, viz. grossness of parts, obtuseness, and difficulty of motion; by\ntaking away difficulty of motion, and introducing facility of motion, we\nshall produce water, which consists of gross parts, is obtuse, and is\neasily moved; and which has indeed two sides or powers common with earth,\nbut receives one from fire. And thus these media will be spontaneously\nconjoined with each other; communicating indeed in twofold powers, but\ndiffering in similitude by one power; and the extremes will be bound\ntogether by two media. Each element also will thus be in a greater\ndegree conjoined to, than separated from, the element which is near to\nit; and one world will be perfectly effected through all of them, and\none harmonious order, through the predominance of analogy. Thus also, of\nthe two cubes 8 and 27, the medium 12 being placed next to 8, will have\ntwo sides of this, but one side of 27. For 12 is produced by 2 \u00d7 2 \u00d7 3.\nBut it is vice vers\u00e2 with 18. For this is produced by 3 \u00d7 3 \u00d7 2. And the\nside of 27 is 3, in the same manner as 2 is the side of 8. The physical\ndogmas, therefore, of Plato, about the elements of the universe, accord\nwith mathematical speculations.\u201d\n\nIn the Introduction to my Translation of the Tim\u00e6us of Plato, I have\nadded the following numbers, for the purpose of representing this\nbeautiful distribution of the elements, by Proclus, arithmetically.\n\nLet the number 60 represent fire, and 480 earth; and the media between\nthese, viz. 120 and 240, will correspond to air and water. For, as 60 :\n120 :: 240 : 480. But 60 = 3 \u00d7 5 \u00d7 4, 120 = 3 \u00d7 10 \u00d7 4, 240 = 6 \u00d7 10 \u00d7\n4, and 480 = 6 \u00d7 10 \u00d7 8. So that these numbers will correspond to the\nproperties of the elements as follows:\n\n             Fire.                       Air.\n          3 \u00d7 5 \u00d7 4                   3 \u00d7 10 \u00d7 4 ::\n    Subtle, acute, moveable.    Subtle, blunt, moveable.\n\n            Water.                      Earth.\n          6 \u00d7 10 \u00d7 4 :                6 \u00d7 10 \u00d7 8.\n    Dense, blunt, moveable.     Dense, blunt, immoveable.\n\n\u201cHence,\u201d Proclus adds, \u201cthese things being thus determined, let us\nphysically adapt them to the words of Plato. We call a [physical]\nplane or superficies, therefore, that which has two powers only, but a\n[physical] solid that which has three powers. And we say, that if we\nfashion bodies from two powers, one medium would conjoin the elements\nto each other. But since, as we assert, bodies possess triple powers,\nthey are bound together by two media. For there are two common powers of\nthe adjacent media, and one power which is different. And the extremes\nthemselves, if they consisted of two powers, would be conjoined through\none medium. For let fire, if you will, be alone attenuated and easily\nmoved; but earth, on the contrary, have alone grossness of parts and\nimmobility. One medium, therefore, will be sufficient for these. For\ngrossness of parts and facility of motion, and tenuity of parts and\ndifficulty of motion, are all that is requisite to the colligation of\nboth. Since, however, each of the elements is triple, the extremes\nrequire two media, and the things themselves that are adjacent are bound\ntogether through two powers. For solids, and these are things that have\ntriple contrary powers, are never co-adapted by one medium.\u201d\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[26] For \u03c4\u03bf \u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 here, read \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, and for \u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff3\n\u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c1\u1ff3, read \u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03b5\u03c1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba. \u03c4. \u03bb.\n\n[27] For \u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 in this place, I read \u03b4\u03b9\u1fc3\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1.\n\n[28] For \u03bc\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd here, it is obviously necessary to read \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd.\n\n[29] For \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd in this place, read \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n[30] Instead of \u03b1\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd here, it is necessary to read \u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\n\n\n\nFRAGMENTS OF TAURUS, A PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER, ON THE ETERNITY OF THE WORLD.\n\nEXTRACTED FROM PHILOPONUS AGAINST PROCLUS.\n\n\nTaurus, in his Commentaries on the Tim\u00e6us of Plato, says: \u201cIn the\ninvestigation, whether according to Plato the world is unbegotten,\nphilosophers differ in their opinions. For Aristotle asserts that\nTim\u00e6us says the world was generated[31]. And Theophrastus also, in his\ntreatise On Physical Opinions, says that, according to Plato, the world\nwas generated, and therefore writes in opposition to him. At the same\ntime, however, he asserts that Tim\u00e6us perhaps supposed the world to be\ngenerated, for the sake of perspicuity. Certain other persons also infer,\nthat, according to Plato, the world was generated. But, again, others\ncontend that Plato believed the world to be unbegotten. Since, however,\nthose who assert that the world was generated, cite many other words\nof Plato, and likewise the passage in which Plato[32] says, \u2018the world\nwas generated, for it is visible and tangible;\u2019 this being the case, it\nis requisite to direct our attention to the different ways in which a\nthing is said to be generated, and thus we shall know that Plato asserts\nthe world to be generated, not according to the signification in which\nwe affirm this of things which derive their subsistence from a certain\ntemporal beginning. For this it is which deceives the multitude, when\nthey conceive the word _generated_ to imply a temporal origin. A thing,\ntherefore, is said to be generated, which never indeed had a beginning\nin time, but yet is in the same genus with generated natures. Thus we\ncall a thing visible, which is not seen, nor has been seen, nor will be\nseen, but yet is in the same genus with things of a visible nature. And\nthis will take place with a body which may exist about the centre of the\nearth. That also is said to be generated, which, in mental conception,\nsubsists as a composite, though it never has been a composite. Thus, in\nmusic, the middle chord is said to be composed of the lowest and highest\nchord. For though it is not thus composed, yet there is perceived in it\nthe power of the one with reference to the other. The like also takes\nplace in flowers and animals. In the world, therefore, composition and\nmixture are perceived; according to which, we are able to withdraw\nand separate qualities from it, and resolve it into a first subject.\nThe world also is said to be generated, because it always subsists in\nbecoming to be, like Proteus changing into all-various forms; hence,\nwith respect to the world, the earth, and the natures, as far as to the\nmoon, are continually changed into each other. But the natures above the\nmoon are as to their subject nearly the same, sustaining only a small\nmutation. They change, however, according to figure; just as a dancer\nbeing one and the same according to subject, is changed into various\nforms by a certain gesture and motion of the hands. The celestial bodies,\ntherefore, are thus changed, and different habitudes of them take place,\nbetween the motions of the planets with reference to the fixed stars, and\nof the fixed stars with respect to the planets.\n\n\u201cThe world, likewise, may be said to be generated, because it derives\nits existence from something different from itself, viz. from God, by\nwhom it is adorned. Thus, also, with those who directly admit that the\nworld is perpetual, the moon possesses a generated light from the sun,\nthough there never was a time when the former was not illuminated by\nthe latter. If, therefore, some one asserts that the world is generated\naccording to Plato, conformably to these significations of the word, what\nhe says may be admitted. But so far as the term \u2018generated\u2019 signifies a\ncertain time, and that the world, formerly not existing, was afterwards\ngenerated, this signification, when applied to the world, must by no\nmeans be granted. Plato himself, indeed, indicates how what he asserts\nis to be understood, when he says, \u2018It must be investigated, whether\nthe universe always was, having no principle whatever of generation,\nor whether it was generated, commencing its generation from a certain\ncause.\u2019 For the words, \u2018no principle whatever,\u2019 and \u2018from a certain\ncause,\u2019 manifest he does not intend that a temporal principle should\nbe assumed; but that what he says, is to be understood in the same\nway, as when we say that the history of the Ephori commenced in the\ndescendants of Hercules. Others say, that the world had a beginning from\nthe Demiurgus. For the Demiurgus is a principle, and so likewise is the\nparadigm of the universe, and matter. But matter cannot be properly said\nto be a principle. Again, Plato does not say that the world is a body,\nbut that it has a body; indicating by this, that so far as it possesses a\ncorporeal nature, the very being of which consists in _becoming to be_,\nit may be said to be generated.\u201d\n\nAgain, Taurus, in the same Commentaries on the Tim\u00e6us, having cited the\nfollowing passage from that dialogue, viz. \u201cWe who are about to speak\nconcerning the universe, whether it is generated, or without generation,\u201d\nobserves: \u201cPlato says this, though the world is unbegotten. And the poet,\n\n    \u2018Though in their race posterior found,\u2019\n\nPlato, however, for the sake of discipline, speaks of the world which\nis unbegotten, as if it was generated.\u201d Shortly after this, Taurus\nsays, \u201cWhat, therefore, are the causes through which the world being\nunbegotten, is supposed to be generated?\u201d Both these inquiries[33],\nindeed, deserve to be philosophically investigated. For one of them\nexcites to piety, but the other is assumed for the sake of elucidation.\nFor Plato, knowing that the multitude apprehend that alone to be a cause\nwhich has a precedency in time, and not conceiving it to be possible for\nanything otherwise to be a cause, and also inferring, that, from this\nopinion, they might be led to disbelieve in the existence of Providence;\nwishing likewise to inculcate this dogma, that the world is governed by\nProvidence, he tacitly manifests it to those who are abundantly able to\nunderstand that the world is unbegotten according to time; but to those\nwho are not able to understand this, he indicates that it is generated.\nHe is also anxious that they may believe this, in order that at the\nsame time they may be persuaded in the existence of Providence. But the\nsecond cause which induced Plato thus to write, is this,\u2014that assertions\nare then more clear, when we meet with them as with things which\nactually take place. Thus geometricians compose diagrams as if they were\ngenerated, though they are not composites. And Euclid defines a circle,\nas being more simple, to be a plane figure, comprehended under one line,\nto which all lines falling from one point within the figure are equal\nto each other. But wishing to explain a sphere, he defines it, as if it\nwas among the number of things generated, to be formed by the revolution\nof a semicircle about the diameter, until it returns to the same point\nfrom which it began to be moved. If, however, he had intended to explain\nthe sphere which already existed, he would have defined it to be a solid\nfigure, comprehended under one superficies, to which all right lines\nfalling from one point within the figure, are equal to each other. But\nit was usual with Plato, for the sake of discipline, to unfold things\nwhich are without generation[34], as if they were generated. Thus, in\nthe Republic, he introduces the city as being made, in order that in the\nformation of it, the generation of justice might become more manifest.\nWhen, however, Theophrastus says, that perhaps Plato speaks of the world\nas generated for the sake of elucidation, just as we consider geometrical\ndiagrams to be generated, perhaps generation does not subsist similarly\nin diagrams. Aristotle also asserts the same thing; for he says, that\nin diagrams it is not proper in the beginning to suppose contraries,\nbut this is to be admitted in the generation of the world; just as if\nsome one should suppose motion and rest, order and disorder. Neither,\ntherefore, do all things require invariable paradigms; but the examples\nshow that it is not more obvious to assert that the world is generated,\nthan that it is unbegotten. But how is it possible to suppose contraries\nin diagrams? For can it be supposed that a triangle is at one and the\nsame time stationary and moved? Hence, the world is, according to itself,\nunbegotten. Nor should any one fatigue himself in endeavouring to prove\nfrom the Atlanticus and Politicus of Plato, that the world is generated.\nFor we have shown after what manner the world is unbegotten, and how it\nis said by Plato to be generated. So far, therefore, as it is supposed\nto be generated, it will be incorruptible through the will of God;\nbut so far as it is unbegotten, it will be incorruptible from its own\nnature. And this Plato knew. For everything else that is unbegotten, is\nincorruptible.\u201d\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[31] Tim\u00e6us, in the Dialogue which bears his name, is represented by\nPlato as saying this; for, speaking of the world, he says \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, _it\nwas generated_.\n\n[32] See my Translation of the Commentaries of Proclus on the Tim\u00e6us,\nvol. i. from p. 237 to p. 251. And also the Commentary of the same\nincomparable man on the words of Plato, in the same Dialogue, \u201cBut we\nsay that whatever is generated, is necessarily generated by a certain\ncause.\u201d\u2014Vol. i. of my Translation, p. 249, &c.\n\n[33] viz. Whether the world is unbegotten, or generated.\n\n[34] The sentence in the original is: \u03b5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03a0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2\n\u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. But immediately after \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd, it is\nobviously necessary to add \u03b1\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1. Mahotius also, who published a Latin\ntranslation of this work of Philoponus, has, \u201cMos est autem Platoni,\ndoctrin\u00e6 gratia, _qu\u00e6 ortu carent_, perinde atque ea, qu\u00e6 oriuntur,\nexplicare.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nMUNDI THEMA, OR THE GENITURE OF THE WORLD.\n\nTRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD BOOK OF THE MATHESIS OF JULIUS FIRMICUS\nMATERNUS.\n\n\n\u201cO Lollianus, the glory and ornament of our country, it is requisite to\nknow, in the first place, that the God, who is the fabricator of man,\nproduced his form, his condition, and his whole essence, in the image\nand similitude of the world, nature pointing out the way[35]. For he\ncomposed the body of man, as well as of the world, from the mixture of\nthe four elements, viz. of fire, water, air, and earth, in order that\nthe conjunction of all these, when they were mingled in due proportion,\nmight adorn an animal in the form of a divine imitation. And thus the\nDemiurgus exhibited man by the artifice of a divine fabrication, in such\na way, that in a small body he might bestow the power and essence of\nall the elements, nature, for this purpose, bringing them together; and\nalso, so that from the divine spirit, which descended from a celestial\nintellect, to the support of the mortal body, he might prepare an abode\nfor man, which, though fragile, might be similar to the world. On this\naccount, the five stars[36], and also the sun and moon, sustain man by\na fiery and eternal agitation, as if he were a minor world[37]; so that\nthe animal which was made in imitation of the world might be governed\nby an essence similarly divine. Hence those divine men Petosiris and\nNecepso[b], who deserve all possible admiration, and whose wisdom\napproached to the very penetralia of Deity, scientifically delivered to\nus the geniture of the world, that they might demonstrate and show that\nman was fashioned conformably to the nature and similitude of the world,\nand that he is under the dominion of the same principles by which the\nworld itself is governed and contained, and is perennially supported by\nthe companions of perpetuity[38].\n\n\u201cAccording to \u00c6sculapius, therefore, and Anubius[39], to whom especially\nthe divinity Mercury committed the secrets of the astrological science,\nthe geniture of the world is as follows: They constituted the Sun in the\n15th part of Leo, the Moon in the 15th part of Cancer, Saturn in the\n15th part of Capricorn, Jupiter in the 15th part of Sagittary, Mars in\nthe 15th part of Scorpio, Venus in the 15th part of Libra, Mercury in\nthe 15th part of Virgo, and the Horoscope in the 15th part of Cancer.\nConformably to this geniture, therefore, to these conditions of the\nstars, and the testimonies which they adduce in confirmation of this\ngeniture, they are of opinion that the destinies of men, also, are\ndisposed in accordance with the above arrangement, as may be learnt\nfrom that book of \u00c6sculapius which is called \u039c\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, (i. e. Ten\nThousand, or an innumerable multitude of Genitures,) in order that\nnothing in the several genitures of men may be found to be discordant\nwith the above-mentioned geniture of the world.\n\n\u201cWe may see, therefore, how far or after what manner a star accommodates\nthe testimony of its radiation to the luminaries. For the luminaries are\nthe Sun and Moon. But Saturn first conjoins himself with the Moon: for he\nfollows the condition of the Moon. He does this, however, because, being\nconstituted in a feminine[40] sign, he diametrically receives the rays\nof the Moon, which is also constituted in a feminine sign. But when the\nsame Saturn, in that geniture, makes a transition to the sign Aquarius,\nhe again conjoins himself to the Sun by a similar radiation, and is again\ndisposed in the same condition as that of the Sun. For being constituted\nin a masculine sign, he associates himself by an equal testimony of\nradiation, since he diametrically looks towards the Sun, with a radiation\nsimilar to that with which he regards the Moon. After this manner also\nJupiter is constituted in Sagittary, and through a trigon affording a\ntestimony to the Sun, first conjoins himself to his condition, and on\nthis account being constituted in a masculine sign, and associating with\nthe Sun, who is constituted in a sign of the same kind, first follows\nthe power of it; but when he has made a transition to Pisces, he again\nconjoins himself in a like condition to the Moon. For he, in a similar\nmanner, being posited through a trigon in a feminine sign, looks towards\nthe Moon, who is constituted in a sign of the same kind, with an equal\nradiation of condition.\n\n\u201cIn like manner also the planet Mars, being constituted in Scorpio,\nbecause he is in a feminine sign, through a trigon, affords a testimony\nto the Moon; but when he comes to Aries, he affords a testimony to\nthe Sun, and making a transition, being placed in a masculine sign,\nhe conjoins himself by a trigonic radiation with the Sun. This mode,\nhowever, is changeable; for Mars being constituted in Libra, which is a\nmasculine sign, yet he affords a testimony to the Moon through a square\naspect; but when he has made a transition to Taurus, being constituted\nin a feminine sign, and looking towards the Sun by a square radiation,\nhe again affords a testimony to it. These [divine] men, however, were\nof opinion that the planet Mercury is common in the above-mentioned\ngeniture, this star affording no testimony either to the Sun or Moon\nby a square, or a trigon, or a diameter; nor does it conjoin itself by\nradiation either with the Sun or Moon. But if Mercury is a morning star,\nhe is delighted by day with the Sun, but if an evening star, by night\nwith the Moon. All that we have here said, these men were of opinion\nought to be observed in the genitures of men[41], and thought that they\ncould not discover the destiny of man, except those radiations were\ncollected by a sagacious investigation. Lest, however, the fabulous\ndevice[42] of these men should deceive you, and lest some one should\nthink that this geniture of the world was contrived by these most wise\nmen, without a cause, it is requisite that we should explain all things\nparticularly, in order that the great sagacity displayed in this device,\nmay, by the most diligent expositions, be intimated to all men.\n\n\u201cThe world had not a certain day of its origin, nor was there any time\nin which the world was formed by the counsel of a divine intellect,\nand providential Deity; nor has the eager desire of human fragility\nbeen able to extend itself so far as to conceive or explain the origin\nof the world, especially since the greater apocatastasis of it, which\nis effected by a conflagration or a deluge[43], consists of 300,000\nyears[c]. For the mundane apocatastasis is accustomed to be accomplished\nby these two events; since a deluge follows a conflagration, because\nsubstances which are burnt can no otherwise be renovated and restored\nto their pristine appearance and form, than by the admixtions and the\nconcrete dust of the ashes, which are a collection of generative seeds\nbecoming prolific. Divine men, therefore, following the example of\nmathematicians in the genitures of men, have prudently devised this,\nas if it were the geniture of the world. Hence I deem it expedient to\nexplain the contrivance of that divine composition, in order that the\nadmirable reason of the conjectural scheme may be unfolded according to\nthe rules of art.\n\n\u201cThese divine men, therefore, wished so to constitute the Moon [in the\ngeniture of the world], that it might conjoin itself with Saturn, and\nmight deliver the dominion of periodical revolutions. Nor was this\nimproperly devised. For because the first origin of the world[d] [i. e.\nthe beginning of the first mundane period] was uncultivated and rude,\nand savage through rustic association, and also because barbarous men,\nhaving entered on the first vestiges of light, and which were unknown\nto them, were destitute of reason, in consequence of having abandoned\nhumanity[44], these divine men were of opinion, that this rustic and\nbarbarous time was Saturnian, that, in imitation of this star, the\nbeginning of life might be characterized by barbaric and inhuman\nferocity. After Saturn, Jupiter received periodical power. For to\nthis planet the Moon was conjoined in the second place, in order that\npristine and squalid rusticity being deserted, and the ferocity of rude\nassociation being laid aside, human life might be cultivated through the\npurification of the manners. In the third place, the Moon conjoining\nherself with Mars, delivered to him the power of periodical revolution;\nso that mortality having entered into the right path of life, and\ninhumanity being subdued by a certain moderation, all the ornaments of\narts and fabrications might originate from this conjunction. After Mars,\nVenus received predominating power, in order that, human disciplines\ngradually increasing, prudence and wisdom might adorn mankind. Hence\nthey were of opinion that this time, in which the manners of men were\ncultivated by learning, and naturally formed to rectitude by the several\ndisciplines, was under the dominion of Venus; so that being protected\nby the majesty of this joyful and salutary divinity, they might govern\ntheir erroneous actions by the ruling power of Providence. But [these\ndivine men] conceived the last period to be under the dominion of\nMercury, to whom the Moon in the last place conjoins herself. What can\nbe found more subtle than this arrangement? For mankind being purified\nfrom rude and savage pursuits, arts also having been invented, and\ndisciplines disposed in an orderly manner, the human race sharpened its\ninventive power. And because the noble genius in man could not preserve\n[uniformly] one course of life, the improbity of evil increased from\nvarious institutes, and confused manners and the crimes of a life of\nwickedness prevailed: hence the human race in this period both invented\nand delivered to others more enormous machinations. On this account these\nwise men thought that this last period should be assigned to Mercury[e],\nso that, in imitation of that star, the human race might give birth to\ninventions replete with evil[45].\n\n\u201cThat nothing, however, may be omitted by us requisite to the elucidation\nof this subject, all things are to be explained, which prove that man\nwas formed in the imitation and similitude of the world[46]. And that\nthe mundane apocatastasis is effected through a conflagration and a\ndeluge, we also have asserted, and is confirmed by all men. The substance\nlikewise of the human body, the course of life having received its\ncompletion, is, after a similar manner, dissolved. For as often as,\nthrough the natural ardour of heat, the human body is too much relaxed,\nit evaporates in consequence of the inundations of humours; and thus\nit always suffers a decoction from a fiery ardour, or is dissolved by\nexcessive desudation. Nor do the wisest interpreters of the medical art\nassert, that the substance of the human race is dissolved by a natural\ntermination in any other way, than by either moisture dissolving fire, or\nagain heat predominating, fire being inwardly and deeply extinguished, is\nleft without moisture. Thus the artificer, Nature, constituted man in an\nall-various imitation of the world, so that whatever dissolves, or forms\nthe essence of the world, this also should be the cause of the formation\nand dissolution of man.\u201d\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[35] Nature may be said to point out the way, because its forerunning\nenergy is employed by Divinity in the formation of bodies. By _the\nfabricator_, in the above sentence, Firmicus means Jupiter, who is called\nthe _Demiurgus_ by Plato, in the Tim\u00e6us.\n\n[36] i. e. Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Mercury.\n\n[37]\n\n                \u2014\u2014 Quid mirum noscere mundum\n    Si possent homines, quibus est et mundus in ipsis;\n    Exemplumque Dei quisque est in imagine parva?\n\n                                             MANILIUS.\n\n[38] By _the companions of perpetuity_, Firmicus means the stars, whose\nnature, and motions, and influences are perpetual. Hence, in the Orphic\nHymn to the Stars, they are invoked as\n\n                \u2014\u2014 \u03b1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd,\n    \u201cTh\u2019 _eternal_ fathers of whate\u2019er exists.\u201d\n\n[39] Of the astrological \u00c6sculapius, I have not been able to obtain any\ninformation; and of Anubius nothing more is to be learnt than that he was\na most ancient poet, and wrote an elegy de Horoscopo. Vid. Salmas. de\nAnnis Climactericis, pp. 87, 602, &c.\n\n[40] The feminine signs are, Taurus, Cancer, Virgo, Scorpio, Capricornus,\nand Pisces; but the masculine signs are, Aries, Gemini, Leo, Libra,\nSagittarius, and Aquarius.\n\n[41] It may not be altogether foreign to the purpose to adduce in this\nplace, what is said by Hermes in his Treatise de Revolut. Nativit.\nlib. i. p. 215. A Latin translation only is extant of this work, and\nit is uncertain whether the author of it was the celebrated Hermes\nTrismegistus, or a Hermes of more modern times. This author says, that\n\u201cthe dominion of the planets over the ages of man is as follows: The Moon\ngoverns the first age, which consists of four years. Mercury governs the\nsecond, which consists of ten years. Venus the third, and this extends to\neight years. The Sun the fourth, and this age consists of nineteen years.\nMars the fifth, and this consists of fifteen years. Jupiter, the sixth,\nconsists of twelve years: and Saturn governs the seventh age, and this\nextends to the remaining years of human life.\u201d\n\nProclus, also, in his admirable Commentary on the First Alcibiades of\nPlato, observes, that the different ages of our life on the earth,\ncorrespond to the order of the universe. \u201cFor our first age (says\nhe) partakes in an eminent degree of the Lunar energies, as we then\nlive according to a nutritive and physical power. But our second age\nparticipates of Mercurial prerogatives, because we then apply ourselves\nto letters, music, and wrestling. The third age is governed by Venus,\nbecause then we begin to produce seed, and the generative powers of\nnature are put in motion. The fourth age is Solar, for then our youth\nis in its vigour and full perfection, subsisting as a medium between\ngeneration and decay; for such is the order which vigour is allotted. But\nthe fifth age is governed by Mars, in which we principally aspire after\npower and superiority over others. The sixth age is governed by Jupiter,\nfor in this we give ourselves up to prudence, and pursue an active and\npolitical life. And the seventh age is Saturnian, in which it is natural\nto separate ourselves from generation, and transfer ourselves to an\nincorporeal life. And thus much we have discussed, in order to procure\nbelief that letters, and the whole education of youth, are suspended from\nthe Mercurial series.\u201d\n\n[42] Firmicus calls the geniture of the world a _fabulous_ device,\nbecause it supposes the mundane periods to have had a temporal beginning,\nthough they are in reality eternal. For in a fable, the _inward_ is\ndifferent from the _outward_ meaning.\n\n[43] In the greater apocatastasis of the world, which is effected by\na deluge or a conflagration, the continent becomes sea, and the sea\ncontinent: \u201cThis, however,\u201d says Olympiodorus, (in his Scholia on the\nfirst book of Aristotle\u2019s Treatise on Meteors,) \u201chappens in consequence\nof what is called _the great winter_, and _the great summer_. But _the\ngreat winter_ is when all the planets become situated in a wintry sign,\nviz. either in Aquarius or in Pisces. And _the great summer_ is when all\nof them are situated in a summer sign, viz. either in Leo or in Cancer.\nFor as the Sun alone, when he is in Leo, causes summer, but when he is in\nCapricorn winter, and thus the year is formed, which is so denominated,\nbecause the Sun tends to one and the same point (\u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2), for his\nrestitution is from the same to the same,\u2014in like manner there is an\narrangement of all the planets effected in long periods of time, which\nproduces the great year. For if all the planets becoming vertical, heat\nin the same manner as the sun, but departing from this vertical position\nrefrigerate, it is not unreasonable to suppose, that when they become\nvertical, they produce _a great summer_, but when they have departed from\nthis position, _a great winter_. In _the great winter_, therefore, the\ncontinent becomes sea, but in _the great summer_ the contrary happens,\nin consequence of the burning heat, and there being great dryness where\nthere was moisture.\u201d At the end too of this first book of Aristotle on\nMeteors, Olympiodorus observes, \u201cthat when _the great winter_ happens,\na part of the earth being deluged, a change then takes place to a more\ndry condition, till _the great summer_ succeeds, which however does not\ncause the corruption of all the earth. For neither was the deluge of\nDeucalion mundane, since this happened principally in Greece.\u201d See the\nvolume of my Aristotle containing this Treatise on Meteors, p. 478, &c.\nFirmicus, therefore, is mistaken in asserting that a deluge follows a\nconflagration; since the contrary is true. For it is obviously necessary\nthat places which have been inundated should afterwards become dry, or\nthey would no longer be habitable.\n\n[44] In the original, \u201cposit\u00e6 humanitatis ratio deserebat;\u201d but for\n_posit\u00e6 humanitatis_, it appears to me to be requisite to read,\nconformably to the above translation, _posit\u00e2 humanitate_.\n\n[45] Is not what is here said about the last period verified in the\npresent age?\n\n[46] Man, says Proclus, is a microcosm, and all such things subsist in\nhim partially, as the world contains divinely and totally. For there is\nan intellect in us which is in energy, and a rational soul proceeding\nfrom the same father, and the same vivific goddess, as the soul of the\nuniverse; also an ethereal vehicle analogous to the heavens, and a\nterrestrial body derived from the four elements, and with which likewise\nit is co-ordinate. See my Translation of Proclus on the Tim\u00e6us, vol. i,\np. 4.\n\n\nADDITIONAL NOTES.\n\n[b] _Page 50._\u2014Petosiris and Necepso were two of the most ancient\nwriters of Egyptian astrology, which, in many respects, differs from\nthat of the Chaldeans. The former of these celebrated men is greatly\napplauded by Manetho, who, in his Apotelesmatica, professes to be his\nfollower, and calls him \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1. Petosiris, however, was\nmuch prior to Manetho, as is evident from Athen\u00e6us, iii. p. 114, who\nsays he is mentioned by Aristophanes. He is also noticed by Ptolemy (in\nTetrabiblo) under the appellation \u2018of an ancient writer\u2019 (\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 or\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5). According to Suidas, he wrote, among other things which\nare unfortunately lost, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u2019 \u0391\u03b9\u03b3\u03c5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd, _Concerning\nthe Mysteries of the Egyptians_, the loss of which work must be deeply\nregretted by every lover of ancient lore. He is also mentioned by\nJuvenal, vi. 580.\n\n    \u201cAptior hora cibo nisi quam dederit Petosiris.\u201d\n\nAnd in a Greek epigram (in Anthol. lib. ii. cap. 6.) on a certain person\nwho had predicted his death from the stars, and, in order that the\nprediction might not be falsified, hung himself, it is said: \u03b1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c7\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03a0\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c3\u03b9\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03b7\u03b3\u03be\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9, &c. i. e.\n\n    \u201cLest Petosiris should incur disgrace,\n    Himself he strangled from a lofty place.\u201d\n\nThus, too, it is related of Cardan, the celebrated physician and\nastrologer, that having predicted the year and day of his death, when the\ntime drew near, he suffered himself to perish through hunger, to preserve\nhis reputation. My worthy and most intelligent friend Mr. J. J. Welsh\nhas furnished me with the following additional information concerning\nthe death of Cardan, and other astrologers: \u201cRespecting Cardan\u2019s\nabstaining from food, in order to verify his prediction, Thuanus says:\n\u2018Cum tribus diebus minus septuagesimum quintum annum implevisset, eodem\nquo pr\u00e6dixerat anno et die, videlicet XI. Kalend. Octobris defecit, ob\nid, ne falleret, mortem su\u00e2 inedi\u00e2 accelerasse creditus.\u2019 lib. lxii. p.\n155. The same historian also relates, that Cardan brought astrology into\nrepute by the success he had in calculating nativities. \u2018Judiciaria quam\nvocant fidem apud multos adstruxit, dum certiora per eam quam ex arte\npossint plerumque promere.\u2019 _Id. ib._ Cardan was not the only astrologer\nwho foretold the time of his own death; for Martin Hortensius, Professor\nof Mathematics in Amsterdam, not only predicted the time of his own\ndeath, but that of two young men who were with him, and the result proved\nthe truth of his prophecy. The fact is admitted by Descartes, while he\nridicules the science and underrates the abilities of Hortensius. See\nthe 35th of his Letters to Father Mersenne, in the second volume of that\ncollection.\n\n\u201cWhen Ann of Austria, the wife of Louis XIII., was delivered of the\nDauphin, afterwards Louis XIV., a famous German astrologer was in\nattendance to draw his nativity, but refused to say more than these three\nwords, which give a true character of Louis the Fourteenth\u2019s reign; _Diu,\ndur\u00e8, feliciter_. See Limier\u2019s Hist. du R\u00e8gne de Louis XIV.\n\n\u201cI omitted to mention above, a curious circumstance related of Cardan\nin Lavrey\u2019s Hist. of England, vol. i. p. 711, viz. that having cured\nthe Archbishop of St. Andrew\u2019s of a disorder which had baffled the most\nskilful physicians, he took his leave of the Primate in these words:\n\u2018I have been able to cure you of your sickness, but cannot change your\ndestiny, nor prevent you from being hanged.\u2019 Eighteen years after, this\nPrelate was hung by order of the Commissioners appointed by Mary Queen\nRegent of Scotland.\n\n\u201cBy the way, I am much surprised that Cardan\u2019s autobiography has never\nbeen translated; for it is, without a single exception, the most\nextraordinary book of the kind ever published.\u201d\n\nWe are informed by Fabricius, that Marsham, in Canone Chron. p. 477,\nhas eruditely collected many things pertaining to Petosiris, and Necepso\nking of Egypt, from the most ancient writers on judicial astrology. We\nlikewise learn from Fabricius, that Necepso, to whom Petosiris wrote,\nas being coeval with him, is believed to have flourished about the\nyear 800 of the Attic \u00e6ra, i. e. about the beginning of the Olympiads.\nHe is praised by Pliny, by Galen, ix. p. 2. De Facultat. Simplicium\nMedicament., and from him by Aetius.\n\n[c] _Page 56._\u2014Proclus in Tim. lib. iv. p. 277, informs us, that the\nChaldeans had observations of the stars, which embraced whole mundane\nperiods. What Proclus likewise asserts of the Chaldeans is confirmed by\nCicero in his first book on Divination, who says that they had records of\nthe stars for the space of 370,000 years; and by Diodorus Siculus, Bibl.\nlib. xi. p. 113, who says, that their observations comprehended the space\nof 473,000 years.\n\nPlato, in the Tim\u00e6us, speaking of this greater apocatastasis, says: \u201cAt\nthe same time, however, it is no less possible to conceive, that the\nperfect number of time will then accomplish a perfect year, when the\ncelerities of all the eight periods being terminated with reference to\neach other, shall have a summit, as they are measured by the circle,\nof that which subsists according to the same and the similar [i. e.\naccording to the sphere of the fixed stars].\u201d\n\nOn this passage, Proclus, in his Commentary, observes as follows: \u201cThe\nwhole mundane time measures the one life of the universe, according to\nwhich all the celerities are terminated of the celestial and sublunary\ncircles. For in these also there are periods, which have for the summit\nof their apocatastasis the lation of the circle of _the same_ [i. e. of\nthe sphere of the fixed stars]. For they are referred to this as to their\nprinciple, because it is the most simple of all, since the apocatastases\nare surveyed with reference to the points of it. Thus, for instance, all\nof them make their apocatastasis about the equinoctial point[47], or\nabout the summer tropic; or though the joint apocatastasis should not be\nconsidered to be according to the same point, but with reference to the\nsame, when, for instance, rising or culminating, yet all of them will\nhave with reference to it a figure of such a kind. For now the present\norder is entirely a certain apocatastasis of all the heavenly bodies, yet\nthe configuration is not seen about the same, but with reference to the\nsame point. Once, however, it was about the same, and according to one\ncertain point, at which if it should again take place, the whole of time\nwill have an end. One certain apocatastasis likewise seems to have been\nmentioned; hence it is said that Cancer is the horoscope of the world,\nand this year is called Cynic, or pertaining to the Dog, because, among\nthe constellations, the splendid star of the Dog rises together with\nCancer. If therefore the planets should again meet in the same point of\nCancer, this concurrence will be one period of the universe. If, however,\nthe apocatastasis takes places in Cancer about the equinoctial point,\nthat also which is from the summer tropic will be directed towards the\nsummer tropic, and the number of the one will be equal to the number\nof the other, and the time of the one to the time of the other. For\neach of them is one period, and is defined by quantity, on account of\nthe order of the bodies that are moved. In addition, however, to what\nhas been said, it must be observed, that this perfect number differs\nfrom that mentioned in the Republic, which comprehends the period of\nevery divinely generated nature[48], since it is more partial, and is\napocatastatic of the eight periods alone. For the other perfect number\ncomprehends the peculiar motions of the fixed stars, and, in short, of\nall the divine genera that are moved in the heavens, whether visibly or\ninvisibly, and also of the celestial genera posterior to the Gods, and\nof the longer or shorter periods of sublunary natures, together with the\nperiods of fertility and sterility. Hence, likewise, it is the lord of\nthe period of the human race.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe year (says Macrobius) which is called mundane, is _truly_ revolving,\nbecause it is effected by a full convolution of the universe, and is\nevolved in the most extended periods of time, the reason of which is\nas follows: All the planets and the stars which are seen fixed in the\nheavens, the peculiar motion of the latter of which though the human\nsight has never been able to perceive or apprehend, are yet moved, and,\nbesides the revolution of the heavens by which they are always drawn\nalong, have an advancing motion of their own. This motion, however,\nis completed in such a length of time, that the life of man is not\nsufficiently extended to discover, by continual observation, their\nmutation to the place in which they were first seen. The end, therefore,\nof the mundane year is, when all the planets and all the fixed stars have\nreturned from a certain place to the same place, so that no star in the\nheavens may be situated in a place different from that in which it was\nbefore, since all the other stars, when moved from that place to which\nthey return, give a termination to their year; so that the luminaries\n[i. e. the sun and moon] also, together with the five wandering stars,\nmay be in the same places and parts in which they were situated when\nthe mundane year began. This, however, according to the decision of\nphysiologists, will take place at the expiration of 15,000 years; hence,\nas the lunar year is a month, and the solar year consists of twelve\nmonths, and the years of the other planets are those which we have before\nmentioned, so the mundane year consists of 15,000 of such years as we\nnow compute. This year, therefore, is called the _truly revolving year_,\nwhich is not measured by the retrogression of the sun, i. e. of one\nplanet, but is terminated by the return of all the planets to the same\nplace, under the same description of the whole heavens; from whence also\nit is called mundane, because the world is properly called heaven. Hence,\nas we not only denominate the progression of the sun from the kalends of\nJanuary to the same kalends, the solar year, but also its progression\nfrom the day after the kalends to the same day, and its return from any\nday of any month to the same day, a year; thus, also, the beginning of\nthis mundane year may be fixed by any one at any time he pleases. Thus,\nfor instance, Cicero now, from an eclipse of the sun, which happened at\nthe time of the death of Romulus, supposes the beginning of the mundane\nyear to commence. And though frequently afterwards an eclipse of the sun\nmay have happened, yet a repeated eclipse of this luminary is not said to\ngive completion to the mundane year; but then this completion takes place\nwhen the sun, during its eclipse, will be in the same places and parts,\nand likewise all the planets and fixed stars, in which they were at the\ntime of the death of Romulus. Hence, as physiologists assert, 15,000\nyears after the death of Romulus the sun will again be so eclipsed,\nthat it will be in the same sign, and in the same part of the heavens,\nas it was at that time; all the stars likewise returning to the same\nplace.\u201d\u2014_Macrob. in Somn. Scip._ lib. ii.\n\nHence, as the greater mundane apocatastasis consists of 300,000 years,\nand 15,000 years make a mundane year, the greater apocatastasis will\nconsist of 20,000 mundane years.\n\nThis greater apocatastasis is also alluded to by Synesius in his treatise\nOn Providence, and likewise in the Asclepian Dialogue ascribed to Hermes\nTrismegistus. The extract from Synesius, who informs us that his treatise\nis an Egyptian narration relative to Osiris and Typhos, is as follows:\n\n\u201cSome time after this, Typhos obtained the kingdom by fraud and force,\nand Osiris was banished: but during the evils arising from the tyrannical\ngovernment of Typhos, some God manifestly appeared to a certain\nphilosopher who was a stranger in Egypt, and who had received great\nbenefits from Osiris, and ordered him to endure the present calamities,\nbecause they were months only, and not years, in which the Fates had\ndestined that the Egyptian sceptres should raise the nails of the wild\nbeasts[49], and depress the heads of the sacred birds[50]. But this is\nan arcane symbol. And the philosophic stranger above mentioned knew that\na representation of this was engraved in obelisks and in the sacred\nrecesses of the temples. The divinity also unfolded to him the meaning\nof the sacred sculpture, and gave him a sign of the time in which it\nwould be verified. _For when those_, said he, _who are now in power,\nshall endeavour to make an innovation in our religion, then in a short\ntime after expect that the GIANTS_ (meaning by these, men of another\nnation) _shall be entirely expelled, being agitated by their own avenging\nfuries_. If, however, some remains of the sedition should still exist,\nand the whole should not be at once extinguished, but Typhos should still\nremain in the seat of government, nevertheless do not despair of the\nGods. The following also is another symbol for you. _When we shall purify\nthe air which surrounds the earth, and which is defiled with the breath\nof the impious, with fire and water, then the punishment of the rest will\nalso follow, and then immediately expect a better order of things, Typhos\nbeing removed. For we expel such-like prodigies by the devastation of\nfire and thunder._ In consequence of this, the stranger considered that\nto be a felicitous circumstance, which had before appeared to him to be\ndreadful, and no longer bore with molestation a necessary continuance\nin life, through which he would be an eye-witness of the advent of the\nGods; for it exceeded the power of human sagacity to conjecture, that\nso powerful a multitude as were then collected together in arms, and\nwho even in time of peace were by law obliged to be armed, should be\nvanquished without any opposition. He considered with himself, therefore,\nhow these things could be accomplished, for they appeared to surpass the\npower of reason. _But after no great length of time, a certain depraved\nfragment of religion, and an adulteration of divine worship, like that\nof money, as it were, prevailed, which the ancient law exterminated from\ncities, shutting the doors against impiety, and expelling it to a great\ndistance from the walls._ Typhos, however, did not himself introduce\nthis impiety, for he feared the Egyptian multitude, but for this purpose\ncalled in the assistance of the Barbarians, and erected a temple in the\ncity, having previously subverted the laws of his country. When these\nthings, therefore, came to pass, the stranger began to think that this\nwas the event which divinity had predicted. \u2018And perhaps,\u2019 said he,\n\u2018I shall be a spectator of what will follow.\u2019 He likewise then learnt\nsome particulars about Osiris, which would shortly happen, and others\nwhich would take place at some greater distance of time, viz. when the\nboy Horus would choose, as his associate in battle, a wolf instead of a\nlion. But who the wolf is, is a sacred narration, which it is not holy to\ndivulge, even in the form of a fable.\u201d\n\nTyphos, however, through his tyranny, was at length dethroned, and Osiris\nrecalled from exile; and Synesius, towards the end of this treatise,\nobserves, \u201cthat the blessed body which revolves in a circle is the\ncause of the events in the sublunary world. For both are parts of the\nuniverse, and they have a certain relation to each other. If, therefore,\nthe cause of generation[51] in the things which surround us originates\nin the natures which are above us, it follows that the seeds of things\nwhich happen here descend from thence. And if some one should add, since\nastronomy imparts credibility to this, that there are _apocatastatic_[52]\nperiods of the stars and spheres, some of which are simple, but others\ncompounded; such a one will partly accord with the Egyptians, and partly\nwith the Grecians, and will be perfectly wise from both, conjoining\nintellect to science. A man of this kind therefore will not deny, that,\nin consequence of the same motions returning, effects also will return,\ntogether with their causes; and that lives on the earth, generations,\neducations, dispositions, and fortunes, will be the same with those that\nformerly existed. We must not wonder, therefore, if we behold a very\nancient history verified in life, and should see things which flourished\nbefore our times accord with what is unfolded in this narration; and,\nbesides this, perceive that the forms which are inserted in matter are\nconsentaneous to the arcana of a fable.\u201d\n\nThe following is the extract from the Asclepian Dialogue, a Latin\ntranslation only of which is extant, and is generally believed by the\nlearned to have been made by Apuleius:\u2014\n\n\u201cAn ignoras, O Asclepi, quod \u00c6gyptus imago sit c\u0153li, aut, quod est\nverius, translatio et descensio omnium qu\u00e6 gubernantur atque exercentur\nin c\u0153lo? Et, si dicendum est, verius terra nostra totius mundi est\ntemplum: et tamen quoniam pr\u00e6scire cuncta prudentes decet, istud vos\nignorare fas non est, futurum tempus est, quum appareat \u00c6gyptios incassum\npia mente divinitatem et sedula religione servasse, et omnis eorum sancta\nveneratio in irritum casura frustrabitur. E terris enim ad c\u0153lum est\nrecursura divinitas. _Linquatur \u00c6gyptus, terraque, qu\u00e6 fuit divinitatis\nsedes, religione viduata, Numinum pr\u00e6sentia destituetur. Alienigenis\nenim regionem istam terramque complentibus, non solum neglectus\nreligionum, sed (quod est durius) quasi de legibus, a religione,\npietate, cultuque divino statuetur pr\u00e6scripta p\u0153na, prohibitio. Tunc\nterra ista sanctissima, sedes delubrorum et templorum, sepulchrorum erit\nmortuorumque plenissima. O \u00c6gypte, \u00c6gypte, religionum sol\u00e6 supererunt\nfabul\u00e6, e\u00e6que incredibiles posteris suis; solaque supererunt verba\nlapidibus incisa, tua pia facta narrantibus; et inhabitabit \u00c6gyptum\nScythos aut Indus aut aliquis talis._ Divinitas enim repetet c\u0153lum,\ndeserti homines toti morientur, atque ita \u00c6gyptus Deo et homine viduata\ndeseretur. Te ver\u00f2 appello sanctissimum flumen, tibique futura pr\u00e6dico:\ntorrenti sanguine plenus ad ripas usque erumpes, und\u00e6que divin\u00e6 non solum\npolluentur sanguine, sed tot\u00e6 rumpentur, et vivis multo major erit\nnumerus sepultorum; superstes ver\u00f2 qui erit, lingua sola cognoscetur\n\u00c6gyptius, actibus ver\u00f2 videbitur alienus. Quid fles, O Asclepi? Et his\namplius, multoque deterius ipsa \u00c6gyptus suadebitur, imbueturque pejoribus\nmalis, qu\u00e6 sancta quondam et divinitatis amantissima deorum in terras\nreligionis su\u00e6 merito, sola seductio [_lege_ reductio] sanctitatis et\npietatis magistra, erit maxim\u00e6 crudelitatis exemplum. _Et tunc t\u00e6dio\nhominum non admirandus videbitur mundus, neque adorandus. Hoc totum\nbonum, quo melius nec est, nec fuit, nec erit, quod videri possit,\npericlitabitur. Eritque grave hominibus, ac per hoc contemnetur, nec\ndiligetur totus hic mundus, Dei opus immutabile, gloriosa constructio,\nbonum multiformi imaginum varietate compositum, machina voluntatis\nDei in suo opere sine invidia suffragantis omnium in unum, qu\u00e6\nvenerari, laudari, amari denique \u00e0 videntibus possunt, multiformis\nadunata congestio._ Nam et tenebr\u00e6 pr\u00e6ponentur lumini, et mors vita\nutiloir judicabitur. Nemo suspiciet c\u0153lum. _Religiosus pro insano,\nirreligiosus putabitur prudens, furiosus fortis, pro bono habebitur\npessimus._ Anima enim et omnia circum eam quibus aut immortalis nata\nest, aut immortalitatem se consecuturam esse pr\u00e6sumit, secundum quod\nvobis exposui, non solum risus, sed etiam putabitur vanitas. _Sed mihi\ncredite etiam periculum capitate constituetur in eum, qui se mentis\nreligioni dederit. Nova constituentur jura, lex nova; nihil sanctum,\nnihil religiosum, nec c\u0153lo, nec c\u0153lestibus dignum audietur, aut mente\ncredetur. Fiet Deorum ab hominibus dolenda secessio; soli nocentes angeli\nremanebant, qui humanitati commixti ad omnia audaci\u00e6 mala miseros manu\ninjecta compellent in bella, in rapinas, in fraudes, et in omnia qu\u00e6 sunt\nanimarum natur\u00e6 contraria._ Tunc non terra constabit, nec navigabitur\nmare, nec c\u0153lum astrorum cursibus, nec siderum cursus constabit in\nc\u0153lo. Omnis vox divina necessaria taciturnitate mutescet, fructus terr\u00e6\ncorrumpentur, nec f\u0153cunda erit tellus, et a\u00ebr ipse m\u0153sto torpore\nlanguescet. H\u00e6c et talis senectus veniet mundi, irreligio, inordinatio,\nirrationabilitas bonorum omnium. C\u00f9m h\u00e6c cuncta contigerint, O Asclepi,\ntunc ille dominus et pater, Deus primipotens, et unus gubernator\nmundi, intuens in mores factaque voluntaria voluntate sua, qu\u00e6 est Dei\nbenignitas, vitiis resistens, et corruptel\u00e6 omnium errorem revocans,\nmalignitatem omnem vel alluvione diluens, vel igne consumens, vel morbis\npestilentiisque per diversa loca dispersis finiens, ad antiquam faciem\nmundum revocabit, ut et mundus ipse adorandus videatur et mirandus,\net tanti operis effector et restitutor Deus ab omnibus qui tunc erunt\nfrequentibus laudum pr\u00e6coniis benedictionibusque celebretur. H\u00e6c enim\nmundi genitura cunctarum reformatio rerum bonarum, et natur\u00e6 ipsius\nsanctissima et religiosissima restitutio, peracto temporis cursu, qu\u00e6 est\net fuit sine initio sempiterna. Voluntas enim Dei caret initio, qu\u00e6 eadem\nest, et ubique est sempiterna.\u201d i. e.\n\n\u201cAre you ignorant, O Asclepius, that Egypt is the image of heaven, or,\nwhich is more true, a translation and descent of everything which is\ngoverned and exercised in heaven? And, if it may be said, our land is\ntruly the temple of the whole world. Nevertheless, because it becomes\nwise men to foreknow all things, it is not lawful that you should be\nignorant that the time will come when it may seem that the Egyptians\nhave in vain, with a pious mind and sedulous religion, paid attention\nto divinity, and all their holy veneration shall become void and of no\neffect. For divinity shall return back from earth to heaven. _Egypt\nshall be forsaken, and the land which was the seat of divinity shall\nbe destitute of religion, and deprived of the presence of the Gods.\nFor when strangers shall possess and fill this region and land, there\nshall not only be a neglect of religion, but (which is more miserable)\nthere shall be laws enacted against religion, piety, and divine worship;\nthey shall be prohibited, and punishments shall be inflicted on their\nvotaries. Then this most holy land, the seat of places consecrated to\ndivinity, and of temples, shall be full of sepulchres and dead bodies.\nO Egypt, Egypt, fables alone shall remain of thy religion, and these\nsuch as will be incredible to posterity; and words alone shall be left\nengraved in stones, narrating thy pious deeds. The Scythian also, or\nIndian, or some other similar nation, shall inhabit Egypt._ For divinity\nshall return to heaven, all its inhabitants shall die, and thus Egypt,\nbereft both of God and man, shall be deserted. I call on thee, O most\nholy river, and predict to thee future events. Thou shalt burst forth\nwith a torrent of blood, full even to thy banks, and thy divine waters\nshall not only be polluted with blood, but the land shall be inundated\nwith it, and the number of the dead shall exceed that of the living. He,\nlikewise, who survives, shall only, by his language, be known to be an\nEgyptian, but by his deeds he will appear to be a stranger. Why do you\nweep, O Asclepius? Egypt shall experience more ample and much worse evils\nthan these, though she was once holy, and the greatest lover of the Gods\non the earth, by the desert of her religion. And she who was alone the\nreductor of sanctity and the mistress of piety will be an example of the\ngreatest cruelty. Then also, through the weariness of men, the world\nwill not appear to be an admirable and adorable thing. This whole good,\na better than which, as an object of perception, there neither is, nor\nwas, nor will be, will be in danger, and will be grievous to men. Hence\nthis whole world will be despised, and will not be beloved, though it is\nthe immutable work of God, a glorious fabric, a good compounded with a\nmultiform variety of images, a machine of the will of God, who, in his\nwork, gave his suffrage without envy, that all things should be one. It\nis also a multiform collected heap, capable of being venerated, praised\nand loved by those that behold it. For darkness shall be preferred to\nlight, and death shall be judged to be more useful than life. No one\nshall look up to heaven. _The religious man shall be accounted insane,\nthe irreligious shall be thought wise, the furious brave, and the worst\nof men shall be considered a good man._ For the soul, and all things\nabout it, by which it is either naturally immortal, or conceives that\nit shall attain to immortality, conformably to what I have explained to\nyou, shall not only be the subject of laughter, but shall be considered\nas vanity. _Believe me, likewise, that a capital punishment shall be\nappointed for him who applies himself to the religion of intellect.\nNew statutes and new laws shall be established, and nothing religious,\nor which is worthy of heaven or celestial concerns, shall be heard, or\nbelieved by the mind. There will be a lamentable departure of the Gods\nfrom men[53]; noxious angels[54] will alone remain, who, being mingled\nwith human nature, will violently impel the miserable men [of that time]\nto war, to rapine, to fraud, and to every thing contrary to the nature\nof the soul._ Then the earth shall be in a preternatural state; the sea\nshall not be sailed in, nor shall the heavens accord with the course\nof the stars, nor the course of the stars continue in the heavens.\n_Every divine voice shall be dumb by a necessary silence_, the fruits\nof the earth shall be corrupted, nor shall the earth be prolific, and\nthe air itself shall languish with a sorrowful torpor. These events and\nsuch an old age of the world as this shall take place, such irreligion,\ninordination, and unreasonableness of all good. When all these things\nshall happen, O Asclepius, then that lord and father, the God who is\nfirst in power, and the one governor of the world, looking into the\nmanners and voluntary deeds [of men], and by his will, which is the\nbenignity of God, resisting vices, and recalling the error arising from\nthe corruption of all things; washing away likewise all malignity by a\ndeluge, or consuming it by fire, or bringing it to an end by disease\nand pestilence dispersed in different places, will recall the world to\nits ancient form, in order that the world itself may appear to be an\nadorable and admirable production, and God, the fabricator and restorer\nof so great a work, may be celebrated, by all that shall then exist,\nwith frequent solemn praises and benedictions. For this _geniture_[55]\nof the world is the reformation of all good things, and the most holy\nand religious restitution of the nature of it, the course of time being\naccomplished[56]; since time is perpetual, and always was without a\nbeginning. For the will of God is without beginning, is always the same,\nand is everywhere eternal.\u201d\n\nOf this very remarkable extract, it is necessary to observe, in the\nfirst place, that it was principally made by me from the edition of the\nAsclepian Dialogue by Ficinus, as he appears to have had a more correct\nmanuscript in his possession than any that have been consulted by more\nmodern editors. Of this the learned and at the same time philosophic\nreader will be immediately convinced, by comparing this extract with the\nsame part of that dialogue in the most modern editions of it. In the\nsecond place, that this dialogue is of genuine antiquity and no forgery,\nis, I think, unquestionably evident from neither Lactantius nor Augustin\nhaving any doubt of its authenticity, though it was their interest\nto have proved it to be spurious if they could, because it predicts,\n(which is the third thing especially deserving of remark,) that the\nmemorials of the martyrs should succeed in the place of the temples of\nthe Gods. Hence Augustin concludes this to be a prophecy or prediction\nmade _instinctu fallacis spirit\u00fbs_,\u2014_by the instinct or suggestion of\na deceitful spirit_. But that this prediction was accomplished, is\nevident, as Dr. Cudworth observes in his True Intellectual System of\nthe Universe, p. 329, from the following passages of Theodoret, which I\nshall quote as translated by the Doctor. \u201cNow the martyrs have utterly\nabolished and blotted out of the minds of men the memory of those who\nwere formerly called Gods.\u201d And again, \u201cOur Lord hath now brought his\ndead (i. e. his martyrs) into the room and place (i. e. into the temples)\nof the Gods; whom he hath sent away empty, and bestowed their honour\nupon these his martyrs. For now, instead of the festivals of Jupiter and\nBacchus, are celebrated those of Peter and Paul, Thomas and Sergius,\nand other holy martyrs.\u201d Antoninus the philosopher also, according to\nEunapius, predicted the very same thing, viz. that after his decease the\nmagnificent temple of Serapis in Egypt, together with the rest, should\nbe demolished, and the temples of the Gods be turned into sepulchres,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1\u03c6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9. And in the fourth and last place, the\nintelligent reader who compares this prediction with what is said about\nthe philosophic stranger by Synesius, in the foregoing extract, will\nimmediately see that the former wonderfully accords with the latter.\n\n[d] _Page 57._\u2014This first period of the world, which was uncultivated\nand rude, and, according to Firmicus, was under the dominion of Saturn,\nis mentioned by Plato at the beginning of his third book On Laws. For\nthere having observed that time is infinite, he says, \u201cthat myriads upon\nmyriads of cities have existed in this time, and that, in consequence of\nthe same temporal infinity, as many have been destroyed.\u201d He also says,\n\u201cthat they will everywhere have been governed according to every kind of\npolity; and at one time pass from the less to the greater, and at another\nfrom the greater to the less, and have become worse from the better, and\nbetter from the worse.\u201d He adds, \u201cthat the cause of this mutation, viz.\nthe many destructions of the human race, is through deluges, diseases,\nand numerous other things, in which a very small part of mankind was\nleft....\u201d After this he observes, \u201cthat those who escaped the destruction\nwhich was caused by a deluge, were nearly mountain shepherds, a few\ndormant sparks of the human race, preserved on the summits of mountains.\nThat such as these must necessarily have been ignorant of other arts, and\nof those artifices, in cities, of men towards each other, with a view\nto prerogative and contention, and other base ends.\u201d He also supposes\n\u201cthat the cities which were situated in plains, and those bordering on\nthe sea, entirely perished at that time. That hence, all instruments were\ndestroyed, together with every invention pertaining to art, political\ndiscipline, or anything else characterized by wisdom.\u201d He adds, \u201cWe must\ntherefore assert, that when that devastation by a deluge took place,\nhuman affairs were in a state of infinite and dreadful solitude; that a\nprodigious part of the earth was unprolific; and other animals having\nperished, some herds of oxen, and a few goats, which were rarely found,\nsupplied those men with food that escaped the devastation.\u201d See what the\ndivine philosopher further observes on this interesting subject, in my\nTranslation of this book of his Laws.\n\nThe reader, however, must be careful not to confound this Saturnian\nperiod with the _golden age_, which also was under Saturn. For the\nlatter, says Damascius (apud Phot.), consisted of a race of men proximate\nto the gods, and is most magnificently celebrated by poets who were\nseated on the tripos of the Muse. But by the _golden age_, as Proclus on\nHesiod beautifully observes, \u201can intellectual life is implied. For such\na life is pure, impassive, and free from sorrow; and of this impassivity\nand purity gold is an image, because it is never subject to rust or\nputrefaction. Such a life, too, is very properly said to be under Saturn,\nbecause Saturn is an intellectual god.\u201d\u2014See more concerning this Divinity\nin the Additional Notes at the end of the 5th vol. of my Plato, p. 675,\n&c.\n\n[e] _Page 59._\u2014Plato, in the eighth book of his Republic, speaking of the\ndissolution of the city which he has constituted, observes as follows:\n\u201cNot only with respect to terrestrial plants, but likewise in terrestrial\nanimals, a fertility and sterility of soul as well as of body takes\nplace, when the revolutions of the heavenly bodies complete the periphery\nof their respective orbits; which are shorter to the shorter lived, and\ncontrarywise to such as are the contrary.\u201d The necessity for such a\nmutation taking place is this (as I have observed in the Introduction to\nmy Translation of Aristotle\u2019s History of Animals),\u2014that all the parts of\nthe universe are unable to participate the providence of divinity in a\nsimilar manner, but some of its parts enjoy this perpetually, and others\nonly for a time; some in a primary, and others in a secondary degree. For\nthe universe, being a perfect whole, must have a first, a middle, and a\nlast part. But its first part, as having the most excellent subsistence,\nmust always exist according to nature; and its last part must sometimes\nsubsist according to, and sometimes contrary to, nature. Hence the\ncelestial bodies, which are the first parts of the universe, perpetually\nsubsist according to nature, both the whole spheres and the multitude\nco-ordinate to these wholes[57]; and the only alteration which they\nexperience is a mutation of figure, and variation of light at different\nperiods; but in the sublunary region, while the spheres of the elements\nremain, on account of their subsistence as wholes, always according to\nnature, the parts of these wholes have sometimes a natural, and sometimes\nan unnatural subsistence; for thus alone can the circle of generation\nunfold all the variety which it contains.\n\nThe different periods in which these mutations happen are called by\nPlato, with great propriety, periods of _fertility_ and _sterility_; for\nin these periods a fertility or sterility of men, irrational animals, and\nplants takes place; so that in fertile periods mankind will be both more\nnumerous, and upon the whole superior in mental and bodily endowments,\nto the men of a barren period. And a similar reasoning must be extended\nto animals and plants. The so much celebrated heroic age was the result\nof one of these fertile periods, in which men transcending the herd of\nmankind both in practical and intellectual virtue abounded on the earth.\nAnd a barren period may be considered as having commenced somewhat prior\nto the Augustan age, the destruction of all the great ancient cities,\nwith all their rites, philosophy, &c. being the natural consequence of\nsuch a period. It appears to me that this period commenced in the time of\nSylla, and I found this opinion on the following passage in Plutarch\u2019s\nLife of that great commander:\u2014\u03a4\u03bf \u03b4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u03be \u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c6\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b5\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b7\u03c7\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03c0\u03b9\u03b3\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u03be\u03c5\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03b8\u03c1\u03b7\u03bd\u03c9\u03b4\u03b7 \u03c6\u03b8\u03bf\u03b3\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03ba\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2. \u03a4\u03c5\u03c1\u1fe5\u03b7\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f31 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7\u03bd \u1f11\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf \u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2. \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03bf\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\n\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u2019 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b7\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, \u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff3 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n\u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03b8\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03b4\u1ff3\u00b7\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f41\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7 \u03c3\u03c7\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f11\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03ba \u03b3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f22\n\u03bf\u03c5\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b1\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd. i. e. \u201cBut the greatest of all [the signs prior to the\ncivil wars] was the following: On a cloudless and clear day, the sound of\na trumpet was heard, so acute and _mournful_ as to astonish and terrify\nby its loudness all that heard it. The Tuscan wise men and soothsayers,\ntherefore, declared that this prodigy signified the mutation into and\ncommencement of another age. For according to them there are eight ages,\ndiffering from each other in lives and manners, each of which is limited\nby divinity to a certain time of duration, and the number of years of\nwhich this time consists is bounded by the period of the great year.\nHence, when one age is finished, and another is about to commence, a\ncertain wonderful sign will present itself, either from the earth or the\nheavens.\u201d The _mournfulness_ of this sound of the trumpet was evidently\nan indication that a barren period was about to commence.\u2014For an account\nof the _great year_, see the note to page 478 of the treatise on Meteors.\n\nThe following extracts from a work entitled \u201cSketches chiefly relating\nto the History, Religion, &c. of the Hindoos, concerning the Mundane\nPeriods,\u201d appear to me to be highly interesting, and to form a most\nimportant addition to what has been before said about the revolutions\nwhich take place in the universe.\n\n\u201cThey reckon the duration of the world by four Yougs, corresponding\nin their nature with the Golden, Silver, Brazen, and Iron ages of the\nancients.\n\n                                                             _Years._\n    The first, or the Sutty Youg, is said to have lasted    3,200,000\n    The Tirtah Youg, or second age                          2,400,000\n    The Dwapaar Youg, or third age                          1,600,000\n    And they say the Kaly Youg, or present age, will last     400,000.\u201d\n\n                                                               p. 222.\n\n\u201cThe beginning of the Kaly Youg, or present age, is reckoned from 2\nhours, 27 minutes, and 30 seconds of the morning of the 16th of February\n3102 years before the Christian era; but the time for which their\nastronomical tables are constructed, is 2 days, 3 hours, 32 minutes, and\n30 seconds after that on the 18th of February, about six in the morning.\nThey say there was then a conjunction of the planets, and their tables\nshow that conjunction. Monsieur Bailly observes[58], that by calculation\nit appears, that Jupiter and Mercury were then in the same degree of the\necliptic; that Mars was distant about 8 degrees, and Saturn 17; and it\nresults from thence, that at the time of the date given by the Brahmans\nto the commencement of the Kaly Youg, they saw those four planets\nsuccessively disengage themselves from the rays of the sun; first Saturn,\nthen Mars, then Jupiter, and then Mercury. These four planets, therefore,\nshowed themselves in conjunction; and though Venus could not have\nappeared, yet, as they only speak in general terms, it was natural enough\nto say there was then a conjunction of the planets. The account given by\nthe Brahmans is confirmed by the testimony of our European tables, which\nprove it to be the result of a true observation. Monsieur Bailly is of\nopinion, that their astronomical time is dated from an eclipse of the\nmoon, which appears then to have happened, and that the conjunction of\nthe planets is only mentioned by the way.\u201d\u2014pp. 224, 225.\n\nThe conjunction of the planets mentioned in the above extract, is\nadmirably elucidated by Olympiodorus in his MS. Scholia on the Gorgias of\nPlato, as follows: \u201cThere are seven spheres, that of the moon, that of\nthe sun, and those of the other planets; but the inerratic is the eighth\nsphere. The lunar sphere, therefore, makes a complete revolution more\nswiftly, for it is accomplished in thirty days. That of the sun is more\nslow, for it is accomplished in a year. That of Jupiter is still slower,\nfor it is effected in twelve years. And much more that of Saturn, for it\nis completed in thirty years. The stars, therefore, are not conjoined\nwith each other in their revolutions, except rarely. Thus, for instance,\nthe sphere of Saturn and the sphere of Jupiter are conjoined with each\nother in their revolutions in sixty years. For if the sphere of Jupiter\ncomes from the same to the same in twelve years, but that of Saturn in\nthirty years, it is evident that when Jupiter has made five, Saturn will\nhave made two revolutions; for twice thirty is sixty, and so likewise is\ntwelve times five; so that their revolutions will be conjoined in sixty\nyears. Souls, therefore, are punished for such-like periods. _But the\nseven planetary spheres conjoin their revolutions with the inerratic\nsphere, through many myriads of years_; and this is the period which\nPlato calls \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, _for ever_.\u201d\u2014See the Introduction to the\nvolume of my Aristotle, which contains a translation of Aristotle\u2019s\ntreatise on the Soul, &c. &c.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[47] For \u03b9\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd here, it is obviously necessary to read \u03b9\u03c3\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd.\nIt must also be observed that there are two equinoctial points or signs,\nand these are Aries and Libra.\n\n[48] See my explanation of this perfect, which is also called the\ngeometric number, in p. 150 of my Theoretic Arithmetic.\n\n[49] i. e. material d\u00e6mons, or \u03b8\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, _the wild beasts of the\nearth_, as they are called in the Chaldean oracles.\n\n[50] i. e. the whole choir of beneficent natures superior to man. But\nby _the depression of the heads of the sacred birds_, the inaptitude of\npersons and places to receive divine influence is denoted.\n\n[51] Instead of \u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u1f51\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2, it is necessary to read, conformably to the above translation,\n\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b7 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b1\u03c2, \u03b1\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba. \u03c4. \u03bb.\n\n[52] i. e. restitutions to a pristine form or condition.\n\n[53] Proclus, finding that this was partially the case in his time, says\nprophetically, in the Introduction to his Commentary on the Parmenides\nof Plato, \u03a4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03b3\u03c9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03b7\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u2019\n\u03b5\u03c5\u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2\n\u1f41\u03bb\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2,\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03c5\u03b8\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2. i. e. \u201cWith respect to this form of\nphilosophy [viz. of the philosophy of Plato], I should say that it came\nto men for the benefit of terrestrial souls; _that it might be instead of\nstatues, instead of temples, instead of the whole of sacred institutions,\nand the leader of salvation both to the men that now are, and to those\nthat shall exist hereafter_.\u201d\n\n[54] i. e. evil d\u00e6mons.\n\n[55] By the _geniture of the world_, the greater _apocatastasis_ is\nsignified, as is evident from the preceding extract from Julius Firmicus.\n\n[56] i. e. a mundane period being finished.\n\n[57] See the Introduction to my Translation of the Tim\u00e6us of Plato.\n\n[58] Trait\u00e9 de l\u2019Astronomie Indienne et Orientale, par Monsieur Bailly,\npublished in 1787.\n\n\n\n\nSELECT THEOREMS IN PROOF OF THE PERPETUITY OF TIME, AND OF THAT WHICH IS\nNATURALLY MOVED WITH A CIRCULAR MOTION.\n\nEXTRACTED FROM THE SECOND BOOK OF PROCLUS ON MOTION.\n\n\nHYPOTHESES.\n\nEvery natural body is moveable according to place.\n\nEvery local motion is either in a circle, or in a right line, or mixed\nfrom these.\n\nEvery natural body is moved according to one of these motions.\n\nEvery natural body is either simple or compounded.\n\nEvery simple motion is the motion of a simple[59] body.\n\nEvery simple body is moved with one motion according to nature.\n\n\nDEFINITIONS.\n\nThat is heavy which is moved towards the middle.\n\nThat is light which is moved from the middle.\n\nThat is said to be moved in a circle which is continually borne from the\nsame to the same.\n\nContrary motions are from contraries to contraries.\n\nOne motion is contrary to one.\n\nTime is the number of the motion of the celestial bodies.\n\nThe motion is one which is without difference according to species, and\nbelongs to one subject, and is produced in a continued time.\n\n\nTHEOREM 1.\n\nThings which are naturally moved in a circle are simple.\n\n_Demonstration._\u2014Let AB be that which is naturally moved in a circle.\nI say that AB is simple: for, since the motion in a circle is a simple\nmotion; but every simple motion is the motion of a simple body; hence\nAB is a simple body. Things, therefore, which are naturally moved in a\ncircle are simple.\n\n\nTHEOREM 2.\n\nThings naturally moved in a circle, are neither the same with those moved\nin a right line, nor with those which are composed from things moved in a\nright line.\n\n_Demonstration._\u2014Let AB be that which is naturally moved in a circle. I\nsay that it is not the same with those things which are moved in a right\nline. For, if it is the same with any one of these, it must either be\nnaturally moved upwards or downwards. But every simple body is moved with\none simple motion according to nature. Hence, that which is naturally\nmoved in a circle, is not the same with anything moved in a right line.\nBut neither is it the same with anything compounded. For it has been\nshown that everything which naturally moves in a circle is simple; but\nthat which consists from things moved in a right line is a composite. AB\ntherefore, which is naturally moved in a circle, is neither the same with\nthings moved in a right line, nor with those composed from these.\n\n\nTHEOREM 3.\n\nThings which are naturally moved in a circle, neither participate of\ngravity nor levity.\n\n_Demonstration._\u2014For if AB is either heavy or light, it is either\nnaturally moved to the middle, or from the middle: for, from the\ndefinitions, that is heavy which is moved to the middle, and that is\nlight which is moved from the middle. But that which is moved either\nfrom or to the middle, is the same with some one of the things moved in\na right line. AB, therefore, is the same with something moved in a right\nline, though naturally moved in a circle, which is impossible.\n\n\nTHEOREM 4.\n\nNothing is contrary to a circular motion.\n\n_Demonstration._\u2014For if this be possible, let the motion from A to B be\na circular motion, and let the motion contrary to this be either some\none of the motions in a right line, or some one of those in a circle.\nIf, then, the motion upwards is contrary to that in a circle, the motion\ndownwards and that in a circle will be one. But if the motion downwards\nis contrary to that in a circle, the motion upwards and that in a circle\nwill be the same with each other; for one motion is contrary to one into\nopposite places. But if the motion from A is contrary to the motion from\nB, there will be infinite spaces between two contraries; for between the\npoints A, B infinite circumferences may be described. But let AB be a\nsemicircle, and let the motion from A to B be contrary to the motion from\nB to A. If, therefore, that which moves in the semicircle from A to B\nstops at B, it is by no means a motion in a circle: for a circular motion\nis continually from the same to the same point. But, if it does not stop\nat B, but continually moves in the other semicircle, A is not contrary to\nB. And if this be the case, neither is the motion from A to B contrary\nto the motion from B to A: for contrary motions are from contraries to\ncontraries. But let ABCD be a circle, and let the motion from A to C be\ncontrary to the motion from C to A. If therefore that which is moved from\nA passes through all the places similarly, and there is one motion from A\nto D, C is not contrary to A. But if these are not contrary, neither are\nthe motions from them contrary. And in a similar manner with respect to\nthat which is moved from C, if it is moved with one motion to B, A is not\ncontrary to C, so that neither will the motions from these be contrary.\n\n\nTHEOREM 5.\n\nThings which are naturally moved in a circle, neither receive generation\nnor corruption.\n\n_Demonstration._\u2014For let AB be that which is naturally moved in a\ncircle, I say that AB is without generation and corruption: for if it\nis generable and corruptible, it is generated from a contrary, and is\ncorrupted into a contrary. But that which is moved in a circle has not\nany contrary. It is therefore without generation and corruption. But\nthat there is nothing contrary to things naturally moving in a circle,\nis evident from what has been previously demonstrated: for the motions\nof things contrary according to nature are contrary. But, as we have\ndemonstrated, there is nothing contrary to the motion in a circle.\nNeither, therefore, has that which is moved in a circle any contrary.\n\n\nTHEOREM 6.\n\nThe powers of bodies terminated according to magnitude are not infinite.\n\n_Demonstration._\u2014For, if possible, let B be the infinite power of the\nfinite body A; and let the half of A be taken, which let be C, and let\nthe power of this be D. But it is necessary that the power D should be\nless than the power B: for a part has a power less than that of the\nwhole. Let the ratio, therefore, of C to A be taken, and D will measure\nB. The power B therefore is finite, and it is as C to A, so D to B; and\nalternately as C to D, so A to B. But the power D is the power of the\nmagnitude C, and therefore B will be the power of the magnitude A. The\nmagnitude A, therefore, has a finite power B; but it was infinite, which\nis impossible: for, that a power of the same species should be both\nfinite and infinite in the same thing, is impossible.\n\n\nTHEOREM 7.\n\nSimple bodies are terminated according to species.\n\n_Demonstration._\u2014For let the magnitude A be a simple body. Since,\ntherefore, a simple body is moved with a simple motion, A will be moved\nwith a simple motion. And if it is moved in a circle, it will have one\nnature and one form. But if it is moved according to any one of the\nmotions in a right line, if it is moved from the middle only, it will\nbe fire, but if only to the middle, earth. But, if it is light with\nrespect to one thing, and heavy with respect to another, it will be some\none of the middle elements. The species therefore of simple bodies are\nterminated.\n\n\nTHEOREM 8.\n\nTime is continued and perpetual.\n\n_Demonstration._\u2014For, if it is neither continued nor eternal, it will\nhave a certain beginning. Let, therefore, A B be time, and let its\nbeginning be A. But if A is time, it is divisible, and we shall not yet\nhave the beginning of time, but there will be another beginning of the\nbeginning. But, if A is a moment or _the now_, it will be indivisible,\nand the boundary of another time: for _the now_ is not only a beginning,\nbut an end. There will therefore be time before A. Again: if B is the\nboundary of time, if B is time, it may be divided to infinity, and into\nthe many boundaries which it contains. But if B is _the now_, the same\nwill also be a beginning: for _the now_ is not only a boundary, but a\nbeginning[60].\n\n\nTHEOREM 9.\n\nA motion which is naturally circular is perpetual.\n\n_Demonstration._\u2014Let the circular motion be that of the circle A B, I say\nthat it is perpetual: for, since time is perpetual, it is also necessary\nthat motion should be perpetual. And since time is continued, (for\nthere is the same _now_ in the past and present time,) it is necessary\nthat there should be some one continued motion: for time is the number\nof motion. However, all other motions are not perpetual: for they are\ngenerated from contraries into contraries. A circular motion, therefore,\nis alone perpetual: for to this, as we have demonstrated, nothing is\ncontrary. But that all the motions which subsist between contraries,\nare bounded, and are not perpetual, we thus demonstrate. Let A B be a\nmotion between the two contraries A and B. The motion, therefore, of A B\nis bounded by A and B, and is not infinite. But the motion from A is not\ncontinued with that from B. But, when that which is moved returns, it\nwill stand still in B: for, if the motion from A is one continued motion,\nand also that from B, that which is moved from B will be moved into the\nsame. It will therefore be moved in vain, being now in A. But nature\ndoes nothing in vain: and hence, there is not one motion. The motions,\ntherefore, between contraries are not perpetual. Nor is it possible for\na thing to be moved to infinity in a right line: for contraries are the\nboundaries. Nor when it returns will it make one motion.\n\n\nTHEOREM 10.\n\nThat which moves a perpetual motion is perpetual.\n\n_Demonstration._\u2014For let A be that which moves a perpetual motion. I say\nthat A also is perpetual: for, if it is not, it will not then move when\nit is not. But this not moving, neither does the motion subsist, which\nit moved before. It is however supposed to be perpetual. But, nothing\nelse moving, that will be immoveable which is perpetually moved. And\nif anything else moves when A is no more, the motion is not continual;\nwhich is impossible. Hence, that which moves a perpetual motion is itself\nperpetual.\n\n\nTHEOREM 11.\n\nThat which is immoveable is the leader of things moving and moved.\n\n_Demonstration._\u2014For let A be moved by B, and B by C, I say that this\nwill some time or other stop, and that not everything which moves will be\nitself moved: for, if possible, let this take place. Motions, therefore,\nare either in a circle, or _ad infinitum_. But, if things moving and\nmoved are infinite, there will be infinite multitude and magnitude: for\neverything which is moved is divisible, and moves from contact. Hence,\nthat which consists from things moving and moved infinite in multitude,\nwill be infinite in magnitude. But it is impossible that any body,\nwhether composite or simple, can be infinite. But if motions are in a\ncircle, some one of things moved at a certain time, will be the cause of\nperpetual motion, if all things move and are moved by each other in a\ncircle. This, however, is impossible: for that which moves a perpetual\nmotion is perpetual. Neither, therefore, is the motion of things moved,\nin a circle, nor _ad infinitum_. There is, therefore, that which moves\nimmoveably, and which is perpetual.\n\nBut from hence it is evident, that all things are not moved; for there is\nalso something which is immoveable. Nor are all things at rest; for there\nare also things which are moved. Nor are some things always at rest,\nbut others always moved; for there are also things which are sometimes\nat rest, and sometimes moved, such as are things which are moved from\ncontraries into contraries. Nor are all things sometimes at rest, and\nsometimes moved; for there is that which is perpetually moved, and also\nthat which is perpetually immoveable.\n\n\nTHEOREM 12.\n\nEverything which is moved, is moved by something.\n\n_Demonstration._\u2014Let A be that which is moved, I say that A is moved by\nsomething: for it is either moved according or contrary to nature. If,\ntherefore, it is moved according to nature, that which moves is nature;\nbut, if contrary to nature, that which employs violence moves; for every\nmotion contrary to nature is violent.\n\n\nTHEOREM 13.\n\nThat which first moves a circular motion is impartible, or without parts.\n\n_Demonstration._\u2014For let A be that which moves the first motion: for\nit is necessary that there should be something of this kind, because\neverything which is moved is moved by something. But A, if it is that\nwhich first moves, will be immoveable: for that which is immoveable is\nthe leader of all things which are moved. And, since it moves a perpetual\nmotion, it will possess an infinite power of moving; for finite powers\nhave also finite energies: for energy proceeds from power. So that if\nits energy is infinite, its power also will be infinite. Hence, that\nwhich first moves a circular motion, must necessarily either be body,\nor incorporeal. But if body, it is either finite or infinite. There is\nnot however an infinite body. And if it is a finite body, it will not\npossess an infinite power. But the powers of things bounded according to\nmagnitude are finite, as has been demonstrated. Hence, that which first\nmoves a circular motion, is not a body. It is therefore incorporeal, and\npossesses infinite power.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[59] Simple bodies, according to Aristotle, are those which _naturally_\npossess an inherent principle of motion. For animals and plants possess\na principle of motion; but in these it proceeds from soul and not from\nnature.\n\n[60] Hence the world is perpetual; for it is consubsistent with time.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\nPRINTED BY RICHARD TAYLOR, RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET.","title":"Ocellus Lucanus on the nature of the universe : $b Taurus, the Platonic philosopher, on the eternity of the world. Julius Firmicus Maternus of the thema mundi. Select theorems on the perpetuity of time, by Proclus.","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":25745}