Part 7

The discourses of Socrates in Plato.

For so the Christians were called by the heathens, when the religion of the latter was rapidly declining, and that of the former had gained the ascendency. Thus Porphyry, in a passage preserved by Theodoret, (in lib. i. De Curat. Græc. Superst.) Χαλκοδετος γαρ η προς θεους οδος, αιπεινη τε και τραχεια, ης πολλας ατραπους Βαρβαροι μεν εξευρον, Ελληνες δε επλανηθησαν, οι δε κρατουντες ηδη και διεφθειραν. i.e. “For the way which leads to the Gods is bound with chains of brass, and is arduous and rough, many paths of which were indeed discovered by the Barbarians; but the Greeks have wandered from them, and they are entirely corrupted by those who now prevail.”

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

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

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

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

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

Odyss. lib. ix. v. 347.

Fragments of this work are to be found in Photius. But they are fragments of a treatise or treatises, On Providence, Fate, and Free Will.

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

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

In the original there is only πρωτος ὦν ο νομος, which is evidently defective; but by adding εμψυχος the sense will be complete. And in what immediately follows τουτω γαρ ο μεν βασιλευς νομιμος which also is defective, Gesner adds τηρησει after τουτω γαρ, but he should doubtless have added ει τηρησει.

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

The original is, I conceive, evidently defective in this place; for it is, ουτε γαρ γα τως αυτως καρπως, ουτε ψυχα ανθρωπων ταν αυταν αρεταν παραδεξασθαι δυναται. It appears, therefore, to me, that πανταχου should be added after καρπως, and that for ουτε ψυχα we should read ουτε πασα ψυχα.

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

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

I here read, with Victorius, κατ’ οικειοτατα εγγενη, for και οικειοτατον εν γενοιν.

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

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

For οι μιμευμενοι των αυτων in this place, I read οι μιμευμενοι τον αυτον.

Instead of ενιοτε here, I read παντοτε.

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

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

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

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

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

A kind of harp beaten with sticks.

In the original ουρανιον ζωον a celestial animal; but as Callicratidas is here speaking of the Demiurgus, or artificer of the universe, who is an intellectual god, for ουρανιον I read νοερον. For the Demiurgus is the maker, and not one of the celestial gods. But he is called an animal, as being the cause of life to all things. Thus, too, Aristotle, in the 12th book of his Metaphysics, says, “that God is an animal eternal and most excellent.”