336 NOTICE OF PROFESSOR COUSIN'S Edition of the two first books of PROCLUS on the Parmenides of Plato, 8vo. Paris, 1821. THE volume containing these commentaries, is the fourth which Professor Cousin has most laudably given to the public, of the works of Proclus; and I trust that the same zeal and the same ability which induced him to bring to light these inestimable works, from an oblivion no less long than disgraceful to countries which profess to be polished, will also enable him to publish all that remains of the writings of this Coryphæan Platonist, and incomparable man. These commentaries, indeed, are justly called by the Professor," an ancient, great, and venerable monument of Grecian and Egyptian wisdom;" and to the generality of readers, and in short, to every one who has not legitimately studied the philosophy of Plato, they will also be what he denominates them, obscure. But by the man who has happily penetrated the depths of that philosophy, at which, as Bishop Berkeley well observes, many an empty head is shook, they will be found to be as clear an explanation of dogmas and truths, which, though in their own nature most luminous, but to the multitude impene trably dark, as it is possible for the most enlightened genius to effect. And hence this work is very properly said by Damas cius 3 to be urepaipovoa enynois, a super-excellent exposition. 14 Among the Harleian manuscripts in the British Museump there is a copy of these commentaries, of which, by permission of the Trustees of that excellent Institution, I made a transcript, upwards of thirty years ago. And the following are the emendations, which from a frequent perusal of this work, I have been induced to consider as not only probable, but for the most part indispensably necessary.... :19 In the first place, in p. 4. 1. 12, which is towards the close of a most splendid exordium, in which Proclus magnificently invokes the several orders of those divine powers that are 3 Vid. Photii Biblioth. p. 1070. 4 I refer the English reader, who has a genius for such speculations, to the 3d volume of my translation of Plato, in the notes on which, I have given the substance of this admirable commentary. eternally rooted and centred in the great first cause of all, he also invokes his preceptor, Syrianus, as follows: aVYTλWσe de TAIS εαυτού καθαρωταταις επιβολαις ο τῳ Πλατωνι μεν συμβακχευσας, ως αληθως, καὶ ὁ μεστος καταστας της θειας αληθείας, της δε θεωρίας ημιν γενόμενος ταυτης ηγεμων, και των θείων τούτων λόγων οντως ιεροφάντης. In this passage, ὁ μEOTOS NATAσtas, is evidently erroneous. The Harleian Ms. has ομοστιος καταστας ; but this is not more sound than the other. Instead of these therefore, I read ouoorsyOS Kataσtaτηs. For as both Syrianus and Proclus labored in endeavouring to restore the philosophy of Plato, hence Proclus very properly calls Syrianus his associate in the restoration of divine truth. The words that immediately follow are, ov eye pain an φιλοσοφίας τυπὸν εις ανθρώπους ελθειν, επ' ευεργεσία των τηλε ψυχων, αντι των αγαλμάτων, αντι των ιερων, αντι της όλης αγισ τειας αυτής, και σωτηρίας αρχηγον τοις γε νυν ουσιν άνθρωποις, και τοις είσαυθις γενησομένοις. And they apply, according to Professor Cousin, to Syrianus. But though grammatically considered, they evidently admit of this construction; yet when they are attentively examined, it will be found to be impossible that they should be applicable to any individual of the human species, however exalted above the rest of mankind by superior genius and virtue. I conceive therefore, that as Proclus had just before implored divine assistance, in order that he might participate in perfection of the most mystic theory of Plato, which is unfolded in the Parmenides, he afterwards speaks of the philosophy of Plato in the above beautiful manner. Hence it appears to me that two or three lines are wanting, and that this passage is a part of a sentence containing a most magnificent encomium of the Platonic philosophy; viz. "that it came to men for the benefit of the souls that are here, instead of statues, instead of temples, instead of the whole of sacred institutions, and that it is the primary leader of salvation to the men that now are, and to those that shall exist hereafter." This conjecture is greatly confirmed by the following passage in Suidas, in which philosophy is said to proceed from the first cause, through all the middle divine genera, and the more excellent natures posterior to the Gods, as far as to the dregs of beings [i. e. as far as to matter itself, which is the last of things]; but that religion which is the worship of the Gods, originates from adorning causes. ιερατικη, και φιλοσοφια, ουκ απο των αυτών αρα αρχων. αλλ' η μεν φιλοσοφια απο της μιας της παντων αιτίας εις την υποσταθμην των οντων καθηκουσα, δια μέσων των όλων γενων 1 These more excellent natures are dæmons, and heroes. . θείων τε και των μετα θεους κρειττόνων, και εν τρίτῳ φασι βηματι φαινομένων την δε ιερατικήν η εστι θεων θεραπεία, εντευθεν πόθεν από των περικοσμούντων (forte περικοσμίων) αιτιον (φασι) αρχεσθαι, και περι αυτα πραγματεύεσθαι, κ. τ. λ. Conformably to this also, Plato says in the Timæus, that a greater good than philosophy was never imparted by divinity to man. Proclus therefore, living at a period in which the Grecian theology was in a most fallen condition, speaks thus magnificently of the philosophy of Plato, as of a thing designed by Divinity to be a substitute for temples and statues, and the worship of the Gods. In the next place, Proclus, speaking of the analogy of the persons in this dialogue to the things which are discussed in it, and to the order of beings in the universe, says, (p. 19. 1. 7.) ο δε δη Κεφαλος, και οι εκ Κλαζομενων φιλοσοφοι ταις μερικαῖς ψυχαῖς και τη φύσει συμπολιτευομενοι, ιέναι την ομοιαν εχοντες εν τουτοῖς χωράν, ατε δη και αυτοι φυσικοι τινες οντες. In this passage, for συμπολιτευομενοι, it appears to me to be necessary to read συμπολιτευομέναις. So that the meaning will be, that Cephalus and the philosophers from Clazomenia, are analogous to partial souls, [i. e. to such as human souls] and to such as are conversant with nature, because they have a rank similar to that of these philosophers, who were physiologists, as being of the Ionic school. Ρ. 35. 1. 19. και είναι αναλογον ως ο δημιουργος προς τα εγκόσμια, το εν προς παντα απλώς δε ουχ ενός τις γας θεος και ουτος, ο γαρ κατα το εν θεος, ου τις θεος, αλλ' απλως θεος, τις δε θεος ο δημιουργός; διοτι θεου τις [lege τινος] εστιν ιδιότης η δημιουργική, και άλλων ουσων ιδιοτήτων, θείων μεν, ου μεντοι δημιουργικών. Το this passage some words are wanting, and there is also in it an erroneous punctuation. The words which I conceive to be wanting are του δημιουργου ενός τινος οντος, which should be inserted immediately after το εν προς παντα. And the erroneous punctuation is in τις γαρ θεος και ουτος, and also in τις δε θεος ο δημιουργος, neither of which is interrogative. Hence the whole passage will be accurately as follows: και ειναι αναλογον ως ο δημιουργος προς τα εγκόσμια, το εν προς παντα του δημιουργου ενός τινος οντος, απλως δε ουχ ενος τις γαρ θεος και ουτος, ο γαρ κατα το εν θεος, ου τις θεος, αλλ' απλώς θεος, τις δε θεος ο δημιουργός, διοτι θεου τινος εστιν ιδιότης, κ. τ. λ. i. e. "As the Demiurgus is to mundane natures so is the one [or the ineffable principle of principles] to all things, the Demiurgus being a certain one, but not simply one. For the Demiurgus is a certain God. For the God which subsists according to [or is characterised by] the one is not a certain God, but simply God. But the Demiurgus is a certain God, because the demiurgic peculiarity is the peculiarity of a certain God, there being also other peculiarities, which are indeed divine, yet not demiurgic." What Proclus here says, necessarily follows from the Platonic theory, that as the first God is the one, all the other Gods are unities, proceeding from and at the same time rooted in the one itself. Page 38. 1. 1, for evuoppiav, the Harleian Ms. has apoppiar, which is the true reading. But the passage in which this word occurs is the following : τα μεν γαρ εστι θεια και εν τη απλότητι του ενος ιδρυμένα, την ακαλλωπιστον ευμορφίαν, [αμορφίαν] ως φησι τις των τα οσια σοφων, διαφερόντως αγαπώντα και προτείνοντα τοις εις αυτά βλέπειν δυναμένοις. i. e. For some things are divine, being established in the simplicity of the one, transcendently rejoicing in, and extending to those who are able to survey them, an unadorned privation of form, as some one of the piously wise says." That apoglav is the true reading, is evident from this, that according to the Platonic philosophy, divine natures are more properly celebrated by negations than by affirmations. P. 40. 1. 2. for ovoμara Tay bewv, the Harleian Ms. has rightly ονοματων των θεων. ↑ P. 41. 1.3. Eudiaorgopwv, which is also the reading of the Harleian Ms., should be adiaσrpopov. This will be evident from an inspection of the passage in which this word occurs, viz. ἔνι μεν τῷ την διαλεκτικήν μηδαμως προσηκειν παραδίδοσθαι νεοις, πως ο Σωκρατης εν Πολιτεία φησί, μη λαθωσιν εἰς παρανομίαν ελάσαντες, τη δυνάμει των λογων χρωμενοι προς την των ευδιαστροφων [αδιασ τροφών εννοιών εν ημιν ανατροφήν. Νo expression is more common in Platonic writers than adiaσтpopo evvoia, unperverted -conceptions. And that this is the true reading is evident from -the place in the Republic of Plato which forms a part of that to which Proclus alludes: for it is the following, to n δόγματα εκ παίδων περι δικαίων και καλων, εν οις εκτεθραμμεθα, ώσπερ υπο γονευσι, πειθαρχουντες τε και τιμωντες αυτά (lib. vii. p. 146. -Cantab. 1713). For these dogmas concerning things beautiful and just, in which we have been nourished from our childhood, are the unperverted conceptions, mentioned by Proclus... For according to Plato the Demiurgus is not the supreme God; since in the Timæus he says, "that it is difficult to discover the Demiurgus and father of the universe, and when found, impossible to reveal him by language to all men; but in the Parmenides, he celebrates the one, or the first principle of things, as perfectly ineffable. For he says, at the conclusion of the first hypothesis concerning it, "Neither therefore does any name belong to it, nor discourse, nor any science, nor sense, nor opinion." Ρ. 57. 1. 12. των ανόμων ; but the Harleian Ms. has rightly των ατωμων. For Proclus says, των μεν γαρ φυσικων ειδων το πληθος των ανομων [ατόμων] χειρον, μετεχει δε το πλήθος του συντεταγμένου ενός του εν τοις πολλοίς, προ δε τούτου εστι το εξηρημένον εν, το προ των πολλων, ο δη ιδέα εστι παρα Πλατωνι, i. e. "For in physical forms multitude [i. e. the multitude of them] is less excellent than the individuals [in which these forms are inherent]; but the multitude participates of that one which is co-arranged with the many. Prior, however, to this [i. e. to this co-arranged monad], is the exempt one, antecedent to the many, which with Plato is idea." For forms when materialised become inferior to their recipients, because they are wholly dependent on them for their subsistence, having departed from their own simplicity and indivisibility into foreign compositions and intervals, και Ρ. 80, 1, 12, For εξηρημένας, which also the Harleian Ms. has, it is necessary to read εξηρτημένας. The erroneous substi tution of one of these words for the other, frequently takes place, not only in the manuscripts, but also in the printed copies of the writings of Proclus. Ρ. 88. 1. 20. προς το ον, so the Harleian Ms., but it is, requisite to read προς το ev, as will be at once evident to the Platonic reader from an inspection of the following passage in which these words occur : εν αυτοις τοις θεοις, τα δεύτερα εν πρώτοις εστι, και παντα απλως συηνωνται προς το ον [εν] αφ' ου και η πρόοδος και η εκτασις τοις ουσιν. της - Ρ. 94. 1. 18. Proclus, here speaking of the arrangement of the persons of the dialogue, and what the arrangement indicates, says: τινος ουν ενδειξιν έχει το τοιουτον, και δια ποιαν αιτίαν ο Αριστο τέλης τῳ Παρμενίδη συντετακται και υπ' εκείνον ωφελειται: Πυθοδωρος δε τῳ Ζήνωνι προ Σωκρατους πρότερος γαρ διακηκος των λόγων, «Σωκράτης δε αμφοιν τον σοφοιν, προκαλούμενος μεν τον Παρμενίδειον - νουν, επαπόρων δε προς τους Ζήνωνος λόγους. In this passage, it appears to me, that between the words Σωκράτης δε, and αμφ οιν τοιν σοφοιν, it is necessary to insert το μέσον εστιν, κ Ρ. 111. 1. 15. Proclus in this place, speaking of the differ ence between the dialectic of Zeno, and that of Parmenides, and having observed that the former is more logical, but the latter more intellectual, adds: ο δε Παρμενίδης, αυτῷ μονῳ τῳ να χρωματ νος, αυτην την ενωσιν εθέατο του οντος, τη νοερα διαλεκτική χρωμε ένος, εν απλοις επιβολαις το κύρος εχουσι διο και ο μεν [i. e. Zeno] εις πληθος κατῄει λογων, ο δε [i. e. Parmenides] της νοεράς επιβολής αει της αυτής μονοειδως αντείχετο των οντων. In this passage, |