οικείως υπερκοσμίως μεν εν τοις υπερκόσμιοις εγκοσμιως δε εν τοις υπερ του κόσμου μετεχομενοις. In which passage, for υπερ του κοστ μου, it is necessary to read υπο του κόσμου.

Ρ. 193. 1. 5.

εκαστον δε τα λοιπα ουκ εχει, αλλ' έχει μετα της κοινωνίας και την αμιξίαν. So likewise the Harleian MS.; but for ουκ εχει, I read ουκ εστιν.

Ρ. 194. 1. 1. το γαρ κοινού τινος μετειληχος, εν εστι κατ' αυτό τούτο το κοινον· ωστε ει κοινον αυτοις το ουχ εν εσται, ἓν τα πολλὰ κατα το ουχ εν. και παλιν το ουχ εν ωσαύτως εν τῷ ἓν πασιν είναι ταυτον. This is also the reading of the Harleian MS., but it is in more respects than one erroneous. For in the first place the punctuation is wrong in ωστε ει κοινον αύτοις το ουχ εν εσται, εν τα πολλα, κ. τ. λ., which should be ωστε ει κοινον αυτοις το ουχ ει, εσται ἓν τα πολλα κ. τ. λ. And in the next place, for εν τω πασιν είναι ταυτόν, it is necessary to read εν τῷ εν πασιν ουχ είναι ταυτον. For the design of Proclus in this part, is to illustrate the reasoning of Zeno, in confuting those who separate the many from the one. Hence, after having observed that things which thus subsist, are many, in consequence of not participating of unity for things in which unity is not predominant are many; and since it is common to them not to be one, again, they are on this account one, he then adds, "For that which participates of a certain something which is common, is one through this something common: so that if the not being one is common to the many, the many will be one, through the not-one [being common to them.] And again in a similar manner they will not be one, in consequence of there not being in all of them the same thing [because where there is the same thing in the many, there is a participation of unity.]" For sameness, as it is accurately defined by Aristotle in the 6th book of his Metaphysics, is a participation of unity.

P. 195. I. 15. και το αυτόξων προς το ζων. So likewise the Harleian MS. But for προς το ζων, it is necessary to read προς το αζων. This will be evident from what Proclus says prior to this. For a little before, he had observed, that each of us is both one and many, and that we are evidently so through a similitude to the universe. And he then adds, πολλω γαρ πρότερον ο κοσμος ούτος ο παμμεγας εις εστι και πολυς· πόλυς μεν, ου κατα το σωματι κου μονον· και κατα τουτο μεν γαρ τοσαυτην εχον εξαλλαγην, οσην το αίδιον προς το φθαρτον, και το αῦλον προς το ενυλον, και το αυτοζων προς το ζων [αζων], απο της οικείας συστάσεως. Ρ. 198. 1. 20. αλλ' ουκ αναπαλιν.

και γαρ το ενοποιον του πλήθους πέρας εστιν, This is also the reading of the Harleian

!

MS. But after πέρας εστιν, it is requisite to add, και το πληθος ποιον απειροποιον εστιν ; and after αναπαλιν to add, το απειροποιον πληθοποιον εστι. This will be obvious to the Platonic reader, from an inspection of the reasoning of Proclus in this place.

Ρ. 205. 1. 5., &c. επ' αυτην την τελεωτάτην ο Σωκρατης αναδεδ ραμηκεν υπόθεσιν περι της κοινωνίας των ειδων, και συγκρίνεσθαι παντα ειπων ταυτα γαρ υπαρχειν αμα, αμφω δε τοις θείοις εκείνοις πραγμα σιν, ενωσιν τε ασυγχυτον και διακρισιν αδιαίρετον, ινα και εν αλλήλοις ή και σωζη την καθαρότητα την εαυτων. So the Harleian MS.; but after των ειδων, it is necessary to add διακρινεσθαι; and after διακρισιν αδιαρετον, something is obviously wanting, and this 1 conjecture to be the word παρεχουσι. So that what Proclus says will be, in English, as follows: "Socrates recurs to the most perfect hypothesis concerning the communion of forms, asserting that all of them are separated from, and yet mingled with each other. For these properties are at one and the same time present with them. And both these impart to those divine things, unconfused union, and an indivisible separation or distinction, in order that they may subsist in each other, and yet preserve their own purity." But that it is necessary to add axpverba in the place above mentioned, is evident from the following text of Plato, the beginning of the Commentary on which, is the passage I have quoted: εαν δε τις ων δη εγω ελεγον, πρωτον μεν διαιρηται χωρις αυτα καθ' αυτα τα είδη, οιον ομοιότητα τε και ανομοιοτητα, και πληθος και το εν, και στασιν, και κινησιν, και παντα τα τοιαυτα ειτα εν αυτοις ταυτα δυνα μενα συγκεραννυσθαι τε και διακρινεσθαι αποφαίνη, αγαιμην αν έγωγε θαυμαστως, εφη, ω Ζήνων.

Ρ. 205. 1. 19. ταύτην ουν ζητει την συγκρασιν ο Σωκρατης μετα της διακρίσεως ιδειν επι των αμερων και νοητων υποστάσεων, και επί ταύτην προκαλείται τους ανδρας· και ταυτην αγαται την θεωρίαν την ενίζουσαν αμα και διακρινούσαν τας νοερας δυναμεις των αισθητών, ομοιότητα εκείνην και ανομοιοτητα, πληθος το εκει και το εν, στασιν την θειαν και κινησιν. In this passage for αισθητων, which is also the reading of the Harleian MS., it is necessary to substitute νοήτων. This is evident from the above words of Plato, in which, as Proclus justly observes, Socrates is represented as admiring the theory which unites and at the same time separates the intellectual powers of intelligibles; which powers are similitude and dissimilitude, the multitude and the one which are there, and divine permanency and notion.

P. 206. I. 12. παν το ισταμενον ἔν τινι εστιν ενι, και παν το κινουμενον εξίσταται του ενός, ώστε τα πολλα εί μη μετεχοι τινος ενός, αστατα εστι και παλιν ει αυτο τουτο εχοι κοινον το μη μετεχειν τινος, ἐν

τινι έσται. So the Harleian MS. But for παν το ισταμενον ἔν τιν κ. τ. λ. it is necessary to read παν το ισταμενον ἐν τινι κ. τ. λ. every thing which stands still is in a certain thing." And for το μη μετεχειν τινος, ἔν τινι εσται, it is requisite to read, το μη με τέχειν τινοι ενός, ἐν τινι εσται, “ if it is common to the many not to participate of a certain one, they will be in a certain thing." For that which is common comprehends the multitude to which it is common.

66

Ρ. 208. 1. 15. ει δε και εδράζει τον ολον κοσμον κ. τ. λ. In the Harleian MS., by an unaccountable mistake, these words, and all that follows, are omitted, as far as to the words ταυτα μεν ουν ειρησθω κ. τ. λ. in l. 19. p. 212.; and then all that is here omitted is to be found in what follows in p. 220., after the words οτι εξαπατατε ημας ως κ. τ. λ., in the last line of that page.1

Ρ. 209. 1. 1. ει δε και, ως φησιν εκείνος, οιον ζωη των ασωμάτων εστιν η κινησις. So the Harleian MS.; but for ασωματων it is necessary to read σωμάτων. For Proclus is here citing the wellknown saying of Aristotle, " that motion is as it were the life of bodies."

P. 209. 1. 14. αλλ' οτι μεν εστιν εκεί και στασις και κινησις, δηλον δια τουτων, και ως η μεν εστι το αιώνιον της δημιουργικής νοησε ως και το της προνοιας ενεργον. But for προνοιας in this passage the Harleian MS. has ενέργειας, which I have no doubt is the true reading for as permanency is the perpetuity of demiurgic intellection, so motion is that which gives efficacy to the energy of the Demiurgus.

Ρ. 216. 1. 15. τελευταιον τοινυν το, ω Ζήνων, δια της ανακλήσεως προσρησιν εμφαίνει της επιστημης αυτου κ. τ. λ. So the Harleian MS. But for προσρησιν I read πρόκλησιν.

P. 221. Proclus, speaking of Pythodorus, one of the persons of the dialogue, says of him ; ουδε αφιλοσοφος εστι κατα το ήθος, ουδε σοφιστικός, αυτός γουν την συνουσίαν απαγγέλων, ουδε το εαυτού παθος απέκρυψεν, ινα πασιν εξαγγελλη την ζωήν και εκφήνη των εις την πρωτην ουσίαν τετελεκότων. This is likewise the reading of the Harleian MS.; but instead of εις την πρωτην ουσίαν it is necessary

Thus too in the Commentaries of Proclus on the Timæus, as I have observed in my translation of that admirable work, after the words διο και το λογιον υδροβατηρας καλεί τους θεους τούτους (p. 270), the words το δε ούτως και δια ταυτα immediately follow, which belong to the Commentary in p. 266. And the part which should immediately follow υδροβατηρας, and begins with επι δε των επομένων τοις θεοις γένων, is to be found in p. 272. line 6. from the bottom.

to read εις την πρώτην συνουσίαν, as will be evident from a perusal of the commentary of Proclus on the Introductory part of the Parmenides.

P. 223. 1. 2. Proclus having observed, that Socrates could not endure to remain in visible objects, nor to be busily employed in the monads which are coarranged with them, adds, aλx' επ' αυτας τας αύλους και αμεριστους και νοερας μονάδας αναφέρον τος τον εαυτού νουν, και απο της προόδου της κατα το πλήθος, κατα δε τινα κύκλον, επ' αυτο παλιν το εν ποιουμενου τα θεία τα μετά την γονιμον δυναμιν των δευτέρων, της προόδου το πέρας, επι την οικείαν αρχήν ανελίσσοντα. So also the Harleian MS. But after the words επ' αυτο παλιν το εν ποιουμενου, I conceive the words την επιστροφην μιμουμένου are wanting. So that the whole passage in English, thus amended, will be: "But elevating his intellect to the immaterial, impartible, and intellectual monads, and from a progression according to multitude; and in a certain circle again making a regression to the one itself; [in so doing] imitating divine natures, who after the prolific power of secondary natures convolve the end of the progression to the proper principle of it." For in every divine order there are μov, poodos, xai exiσтgoon, permanency, progression, and regression.

Ρ. 223. 1. 12. οικεία γαρ τοις μεν πατρικοις και μοναδικοις δεύτεροις απο τούτων η γονιμος δυναμις, και η μέχρι του πλήθους. So likewise the Harleian MS. But after πατρικοις και μοναδικοις, it is requisite to add n porn, and also after devrepois to add de. So that this passage will be in English, conformably to what we have above observed of every divine order, as follows: "For permanency is adapted to paternal and monadic natures, but prolific power, and a progression as far as to multitude, to the natures which are secondary to these."

In the last line of the same page, I conceive with the Professor, that wolves is wanting after the word ouva@ny. And there is the same deficiency in the Harleian MS.

T.

348

REMARKS ON LIVY,

LIB. III. C. 5.

Two able correspondents having already discussed this passage in the two former numbers of the Journal, I almost despair of being able to throw any further light upon its obscurities; but, as neither the conjectures of the one, nor the explanations of the other, appear to me at all satisfactory, I will hazard a few observations. Scribimus indocti doctique. The passage in question

stands thus:

"Interim in castris Furius consul, quum primo quietus obsidionem passus esset, in incautum hostem decumana porta erupit, et, quum persequi posset, metu substitit ne qua, ex parte altera, in castra vis fieret. Furium legatum (frater idem consulis erat) longius extulit cursus: nec suos ille redeuntes, persequendi studio, neque hostium ab tergo incursum vidit: ita exclusus, multis sæpe frustra conatibus captis, acriter dimicans cecidit. Et consul, nuncio circumventi fratris conversus ad pugnam, dum se temere magis, quam satis caute, in mediam dimicationem infert, vulnere accepto, ægre ab circumstantibus ereptus, et suorum animos turbavit, et ferociores hostes fecit: qui, cæde legati et consulis vulnere accensi, nulla deinde vi sustineri potuere, quum compulsi in castra Romani rursus obsiderentur, nec spe, nec viribus pares: venissetque in periculum summa rerum, ni T. Quinctius peregrinis copiis cum Latino Hernicoque exercitu subvenisset."

Of the above quotation, J. W. in the last Number, p. 29., very considerately favored the public with a translation; the accuracy of which in some few respects, with due deference to its general merits, I must take the liberty of questioning. J. W. thus commences:

"In the mean time the Consul Furius, after having at first unmolested (by assault) suffered siege in his camp, sallied from the Decuman gate upon the incautious enemy:" and so convinced is he of the propriety of this interpretation of quietus, that he recurs to it in the conclusion of his article : "Now the writer plainly narrates, that Furius and his forces were really besieged at the arrival of Quinctius; and brings in view before his readers the falling fortune and sad dilemma of the Roman army, con