FOOTNOTES:
[1] Zur Philosophie und Geschichte. Pt. V. pp. 184—186. (Edition of 1828, in 12 vols.)
[2] S. Marheineke: “Lehrbuch des Christlichen Glaubens und Lebens.” Berlin, 1823. § 133, 134.
[3] “Meinung ist mein.”
[4] Cf. Hegels Werke, vol. VI. § 13, pp. 21, 22.
[5] Flatt: De Theismo Thaleti Milesio abjudicando. Tub. 1785. 4.
[6] Grundzüge des gegenwärtigen Zeitalters, pp. 211, 212; cf. Anweisung zum Seligen Leben, pp. 178, 348.
[7] Sanchuniathonis Fragm. ed. Rich. Cumberland, Lond. 1720, 8; German by J. P. Kassel, Magdeburg, 1755, 8, pp. 1-4.
[8] That is to say in the Lectures preceding these, delivered in the Winter Session 1825—1826.
[9] Confucius, Sinarum philosophus, s. scientia Sinensis, latine exposita studio et opera Prosperi Juonetta, Herdtrich, Rougemont, Couplet, PP. S. J., Paris, 1687, fol.
[10] Mémoires concernant les Chinois (Paris, 1776, sqq.), Vol. II., pp. 1-361. Antiquité des Chinois, par le Père Amiot, pp. 20, 54, &c.
[11] Die Philosophie im Fortgang der Weltgeschichte, Vol. I., p. 157.
[12] Cf. Windischmann, ibid., p. 125.
[13] Mémoire sur la vie et les opinions de Lao-Tseu, par Abel Rémusat (Paris, 1823), p. 18 sqq.; Extrait d’une lettre de Mr. Amiot, 16 Octobre, 1787, de Peking (Mémoires concernant les Chinois, T. xv.), p. 208, sqq.
[14] Dr. Legge states in “The Religions of China” that Tâo was not the name of a person, but of a concept or idea. Of the English terms most suitable for it, he suggests the Way in the sense of Method.—[Translator’s note.]
[15] Abel Rémusat, l.c. p. 31, seq.; Lettre sur les caractères des Chinois (Mémoires concernant les Chinois, Tome 1) p. 299, seq.
[16] Rémusat thought that he discovered in these three syllables the word Jehovah.—[Translator’s note.]
[17] Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. I., Part I. London, 1824, pp. 19-43. (II., on the Philosophy of the Hindus, Part I., by Henry Thomas Colebrooke, read June 21, 1823).
[18] Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. i., Part I., pp. 92—118. (VII. Essay on the Philosophy of the Hindus, Part II., by Henry Thomas Colebrooke.)
[19] Brucker, Hist. Phil. T. I. p. 460; Plutarch, De plac. phil. I. 3.
[20] Herod. II. 20; Senec. Quæst. natur. IV. 2; Diog. Laert. I. 37.
[21] Diog. Laert. 1. § 34, et Menag. ad. h. 1.
[22] Cf. Ritter: Geschichte der Ionischen Philosophie, p. 15.
[23] Plutarch, De plac. phil. I. 3; Cicero, De Natura Deorum, I. 10. Aristot. Phys. III. 4.
[24] Cf. Aristot. Phys. I. 4.
[25] Simplicius ad Arist. Phys. (I. 2), p. 5, 6.
[26] Stobæi Eclog. Physic. c. 11., p. 294, ed. Heeren.
[27] Simplicius ad Phys. Arist. p. 6, b.
[28] Cf. Plutarch Quæst. convival. VIII. 8.
[29] Diog. Laert. I. 119; Menagius ad h. 1.
[30] In irrisione gentilium, c. 12 (citante Fabricio ad Sext. Emp. Hyp. Pyrrh. III. 4, § 30).
[31] Cf. Porphyr. De vita Pythag., §§ 14, 15; et Ritterhus, ad. h. I.
[32] Cf. Porphyr. De vita Pyth. 6, Iamblich. De vita Pyth. XXIX. 158.
[33] Diog. Laert. I. 12; VIII. 8; Iamblich. VIII. 44; XII. 58.
[34] Porphyr. De vita Pyth. 25, 21, 22; Iamblich. De vita Pyth. 36; VII. 33, 34; XXXII. 220-222.
[35] Diog. Laert. VIII. 11, Porphyr., 18-20; Iamblich. II. 9, 10, XXIV. 108, 109; Menag. et Casaub. ad Diog. Laert. VIII. 19.
[36] Porphyr. 37; Iamblich. XVII. 71-74; XVIII. 80-82; XXVIII. 150; XX. 94, 95; Diog. Laert. VIII. 10.
[37] Iamblich. XXI. 100; XXIX. 165; Diog. Laert. VIII. 22; Porphyr. 40.
[38] Porphyr. 32-34; Iamblich. XXIX. 163, 164; XX. 96; XXI. 97; XXIV. 107; Diog. Laert. VIII. 19, 21, 39.
[39] Diog. Laert., VIII. 39, 40; Iamblich. XXXV. 248-264; Porphyrius, 54-59; Anonym. De vita Pyth. (apud Photium), 2.
[40] Cf. Platon. Timæum, p. 20, Steph. (p. 8, ed. Bekk.).
[41] Sext. Pyrrh. Hyp. III. 18, § 152; adv. Math. X. § 250, 251.
[42] Mathem. c. 5, p. 30, ed. Bullialdi: cf. Aristoxen. ap. Stob. Ecl. Phys. 2, p. 16.
[43] Gnomicorum poetarum opera: Vol. I. Pythagoreorum aureum carmen, ed. Glandorf Fragm. I. v. 45-48; Sext. Empir. adv. Math. IV. § 2, et Fabric. ad h. 1.
[44] Burney points out the fallacy of this statement in his History of Music. [Translator’s note.]
[45] Sext. Empiricus Pyrrh. Hyp. III. 18, § 155; adv. Math. IV. §§ 6, 7; VII. §§ 95-97; X. § 283.
[46] Diog. Laert. VIII. §§ 4, 5, 14; Porphyrius, §§ 26, 27; Iamblichus, c. XIV. § 63. (Homer’s Iliad XVI. v. 806-808; XVII. v. 45, seq.).
[47] Gnomicorum poëtarum opera, Vol. I. Pyth. aureum carmen, ed. Glandorf. Fragm. I. v. 1-4.
[48] Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. 33, § 225; Simpl. ad Phys. Arist. pp. 5, 6; Plut. de plac. philos. II. 4.
[49] That Xenophanes is here meant is shown from the titles of the collected Becker manuscripts, as also from comparing this passage with the verses remaining to us, which are by Xenophanes, though they were earlier ascribed to Zeno; this was done by Hegel when he did not, as in many lectures, take the Eleatic passages together. The editor found a justification in this for placing the passage in its proper place. [Note by editor.]
[50] Adv. Math. VII. 47-52; 110, 111; VIII. 326; Pyrrh. Hyp. II. 4, § 18.
[51] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. X. 313, 314; Simplic. in Phys. Arist., p. 41.
[52] Platon. Theaet. p. 183. Steph. (p. 263, ed. Bekk.); Sophist, p. 217 (p. 127).
[53] Diog. Laert. IX. 23; et Casaubonus ad. h. 1.
[54] Plutarch, De plac. phil. II. 7; Euseb. XV. 38; Stob. Ecl. Phys. c. 23, p. 482-484; Simplicius in Arist. Phys. p. 9 a, 7 b; Arist. Met. I. 4; Brandis Comment. Eleat. p. 162.
[55] De Sensu, p. 1, ed. Steph. 1557 (citante Fülleborn, p. 92).
[56] This obscure clause has been differently interpreted. Dr. Hutchison Stirling, in his annotations on Schwegler’s “History of Philosophy,” says: “Zeller accepts (and Hegel, by quoting and translating the whole passage, already countenanced him in advance) the equivalent of Theophrastus for τὸ πλέον, τὸ ὑπέρβαλλον namely, and interprets the clause itself thus:—‘The preponderating element of the two is thought occasions and determines the ideas;’ that is as is the preponderating element (the warm or the cold) so is the state of mind. In short, the more is the thought is the linguistic equivalent of the time for according to the more is the thought.” [Translator’s note.]
[57] As a matter of fact, since a comparison of this reasoning with the fragments of Melissus which Simplicius (in Arist. Physica and De Cœlo) has retained, places this conjecture beyond doubt, the editor is constrained to place it here, although Hegel, when he dealt with the Eleatics separately, put it under the heading of Xenophanes. [Note by Editor.]
[58] Cf. Plat. Parmenid. pp. 126, 127, Steph. (pp. 3—5 Bekk.).
[59] Diog. Laert. IX. 26, 27, et Menag. ad h. 1. Valer. Max. III. 3 ext. 2, 3.
[60] Diog. Laert. VI. 39, Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. Hyp. III. 8, § 66.
[61] Plat. Cratyl. p. 402, Steph. (p. 42, Bekk.); Aristot. Met. I. 6, XIII. 4.
[62] Johannes Philoponus ad Aristot. de Anima (I. 2) fol. 4 a.
[63] Clemens Alex.: Stromata V. 14, p. 712, ed. Pott. (cit. Steph. Poës. phil. p. 131).
[64] Cf. Stobaei Ecl. Phys. 22, p. 454.
[65] Diog. Laërt. IX. 7; Simplic. ad Arist. Phys. p. 6; Stob. Eclog. Phys. c. 3, p. 58-60.
[66] Plutarch. de plac. phil. I. 28.
[67] Heraclides; Allegoriæ Homericæ, pp. 442, 443, ed. Gale.
[68] In writing of them Hegel very seldom separates these two philosophers, though he does so in the Jena edition.
[69] See Hegel’s “Werke,” Vol. III. p 181, et seq.
[70] Ib. p. 112.
[71] Plutarch, de plac. phil. I., 26; Stobæi Ecl. Phys. 20, p. 394. (Tennemann, Vol. I. p. 278.)
[72] Empedocles Agrigentinus. De vita et philosophia ejus exposuit, carminum reliquias ex antiquis scriptoribus collegit, recensuit, illustravit, præfationem et indices adjecit Magister Frid. Guil. Sturz, Lipsiæ, 1805.
[73] Empedoclis et Parmenidis fragmenta, &c., restituta et illustrata ab Amadeo Peyron.
[74] Cf. Plat. Parmenid. p. 127 (p. 4).
[75] Metaph. I. 3 and 8; De gener. et corrupt. I. 1.
[76] Adv. Math. VII. 120; IX. 10; X. 317.
[77] Arist. De anim. I. 2; Fabricius ad Sext. adv. Math. VII. 92, p. 389, not. T; Sextus adv. Math. I. 303; VII. 121.
[78] Hegel certainly used in his lectures, to follow the usual order, and treat Empedocles before the Atomists. But since, in the course of his treatment of them, he always connected the Atomists with the Eleatics and Heraclitus, and took Empedocles, in so far as he anticipated design, as the forerunner of Anaxagoras, the present transposition is sufficiently justified. If we further consider that Empedocles swayed to and fro between the One of Heraclitus and the Many of Leucippus, without, like them, adhering to either of these one-sided determinations, it is clear that both moments are assumptions through whose variations he opened a way for the Anaxagorean conception of end, which, by comprehending them, is the essential unity from which proceeds the manifold of phenomena, as from their immanent source.—[Note by Editor.]
[79] Anaxagoræ Clazomenii fragmenta, quæ supersunt omnia, edita ab E. Schaubach, Lipsiæ, 1827.
[80] Plin. Hist. Nat. VII. 53; Brucker, T. I. pp. 493, 494, not.
[81] Diog. Laert. II. 16; Plutarch in Lysandro, 12.
[82] Diog. Laert. II., 12-14; Plutarch, in Pericle, c. 32.
[83] Cf. Aristot. Phys. VIII. 5; Met. XII. 10.
[84] Cf. Sext. Empiric. Hypotyp Pyrrh. III. 4, § 33.
[85] Diog. Laert. II. 6; Sext. Emp. adv. Math. IX. 6; Arist. Phys. VIII. 1.
[86] Platonis Protagoras, pp. 310-314, Steph. (pp. 151-159, Bekk.).
[87] Plat. Protag., pp. 314-317 (pp. 159-164).
[88] Plat. Protag. pp. 318-320 (pp. 166-170).
[89] Plat. Protag. pp. 320-323 (pp. 170-176).
[90] Ibid. pp. 323, 324 (pp. 176-178).
[91] Plat. Protag. pp. 324-328 (pp. 178-184.)
[92] Plat. Meno., p. 91 (p. 371).
[93] Plat. Gorg. pp. 452 et 457 (pp. 15 et 24).
[94] Plat. Euthydem. pp. 283, 284 (pp. 416-418).
[95] Ibid. p. 298 (p. 446).
[96] Xenoph. Memorab. II. c. 1, § 21 seq.
[97] Diog. Laert. IX. 50.
[98] Ibid. 54.
[99] Plat. Protag. p. 338 fin. (p. 204).
[100] Plutarch in Pericle, c. 36.
[101] Diog. Laërt. IX. 51, 52; 55, 56 (Sext. Empir. adv. Math. IX. 56).
[102] Plat. Theætet. p. 152 (p. 195); Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp. I, c. 32, § 216.
[103] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 388, 60; Plat. Theætet. p. 152. (p. 195-197).
[104] Plat. Theætet. p. 154 (p. 201).
[105] Plat. Theæt. pp. 153, 154 (pp. 199, 200); pp. 156, 157 (pp. 204-206); pp. 158-160 (pp. 208-213).
[106] Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 32, §§ 217-219.
[107] Diodorus Siculus: XII. p. 106 (ed. Wesseling).
[108] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 66.
[109] Ibid. 67.
[110] Aristotel. de Xenophane, Zenone et Gorgia, c. 5.
[111] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 68-70.
[112] Ibid. 71.
[113] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 73, 74.
[114] Ibid. 75, 76.
[115] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 77-80.
[116] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 83, 84.
[117] The distinction between these two words is a very important one. Schwegler, in explaining Hegel’s position in his “History of Philosophy,” states that Hegel asserts that Socrates set Moralität, the subjective morality of individual conscience, in the place of Sittlichkeit, “the spontaneous, natural, half-unconscious (almost instinctive) virtue that rests in obedience to established custom (use and wont, natural objective law, that is at bottom, according to Hegel, rational, though not yet subjectively cleared, perhaps, into its rational principles).” As Dr. Stirling says in his Annotations to the same work (p. 394), “There is a period in the history of the State when people live in tradition; that is a period of unreflected Sittlichkeit, or natural observance. Then there comes a time when the observances are questioned, and when the right or truth they involve is reflected into the subject. This is a period of Aufklärung, and for Sittlichkeit there is substituted Moralität, subjective morality: the subject will approve nought but what he finds inwardly true to himself, to his conscience.”—[Translator’s Note.]
[118] Diog. Laert. II, 44 (cf. Menag. ad h. 1); 18-20, 22.
[119] Diog. Laert. II. 22, 23; Plat. Apol. Socr. p. 28 (p. 113).
[120] Diog. Laert. II. 24; Xenoph. Memorab. I. c. 1, § 18; Plat. Apol. Socrat. p. 32 (pp. 120-122); Epist. VII. pp. 324, 325 (p. 429).
[121] Plat. Convivium, pp. 212, 176, 213, 214, 223 (pp. 447, 376-378, 449, 450, 468, 469).
[122] Xenoph. Memorab. I. c. 1, § 10.
[123] Xenoph. Memorab. I. c. 1, § 11-16; Aristot. Metaph. I. 6.
[124] Aristot. Metaph. XIII. 4
[125] From the Lectures of the winter 1825-1826.—(Note by Editor.)
[126] Platonis Theætetus, p. 210 (p. 322).
[127] Plat. Protag. p. 349 (pp. 224, 225); pp. 360, 361 (pp. 245-247).
[128] Xenoph. Memorab. IV. c. 2, §§ 11-17.
[129] Xenoph. Memorab. IV. c. 1, § 1; c. 2, § 40.
[130] Cf. Xenoph. Memorab. I. c. 2, §§ 12-16, sqq.
[131] Herodot. IX. 33, seq.
[132] Xenoph. Apologia Socrat. § 10; Memorab. I. c. 1, § 1 Plat. Apologia Socrat. p. 24 (p. 104).
[133] Apologia Socrat. §§ 11—13; Memorab. I. c. 1, §§ 2—6; 19.
[134] Plat. Apol. Socrat. p. 26 (108, 109).
[135] Apologia Socrat. § 14 (cf. Memorab. I. c. 1, § 17).
[136] Plato. Apol. Socrat. p. 21 (p. 97).
[137] Xenoph. Apol. Socrat. § 14.
[138] Xenoph. Apol. Socrat. §§ 16—19; Memorab. I. c. 2, §§ 1—8.
[139] Xenoph. Apol. Socrat. § 20; cf. Memorab. I. c. 2, § 49 seq.
[140] Xenoph. Apol. Socrat. §§ 20, 21; Memorab. I. c. 2, §§ 51—55; Plat. Apol. Socrat. pp. 24—26 (pp. 103—107).
[141] Meier und Schömann: Der Attische Process, pp. 173-177.
[142] Diog. Laërt. II. 106.
[143] Diog. Laërt. VI. 24.
[144] Cicer. Acad. Quæst. II. 42.
[145] Menag. ad Diog. Laërt. II. 106; Aul. Gellius: Noct. Atticæ, VI. 10.
[146] Plutarch. de fraterno amore, p. 489, D. (ed. Xyl.); Stobæi Sermones: LXXXIV. 15 (T. III. p. 160, ed. Gaisford); Brucker. Hist. Crit. Philos. T. I. p. 611.
[147] Diog. Laërt. II. 106.
[148] Diog. Laërt. II. 108.
[149] Diog. Laërt. II. 109.
[150] Diog. Laërt. II. 111, 112.
[151] Diog. Laërt. II. 108; Cicero, Acad. Quæst. IV. 29; De divinat. II. 4.
[152] Diog. Laërt. VII. 196.
[153] Athenæus IX. p. 401 (ed. Casaubon, 1597); Suidas, s. v. Φιλητᾶς, T. III. p. 600; Menag. ad Diog. Laërt. II. 108.
[154] Diog. Laërt. II. 135.
[155] Diog. Laërt. II. 108; Bruckeri Hist. Crit. Phil. T. I. p. 613.
[156] Diog. Laërt. II. 108; Cicer. Acad. Quæst. IV. 29; Bruck. Hist. Crit. Philos. T. I. p. 614, not. s.
[157] Aristoteles: De Soph. Elench. c. 14; Buhle ad h. 1. argumentum, p. 512.
[158] Diog. Laërt. II. 113, 115, 119.
[159] Plutarch, advers. Coloten. c. 22, 23, pp. 1119, 1120, ed. Xyl. pp. 174-176, Vol. XIV. ed. Hutten.
[160] Diog. Laërt. II. 65; Tennemann, Vol. II. p. 103: Bruck. Hist. Crit. Philos. T. I. p. 584, seq.
[161] Diog. Laërt. II. 66, 67, 72, 77 (Horat. Serm. II. 3, v. 101), 79-81.
[162] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 191, 199, 200.
[163] Diog. Laërt. II. 97, 98 (101, 102).
[164] Diog. Laërt. II. 93-95.
[165] Cic. Tusc. Quest. I. 34; Val. Max. VIII. 9.
[166] Diog. Laërt. II. 96, 97.
[167] Diog. Laërt. VI. 13, 1, 2, 15-18.
[168] Diog. Laërt. VI. 11, 12 (104).
[169] Diog. Laërt. VI. 13, 6, 22, 37; Tennemann, Vol. II. p. 89.
[170] Diog. Laërt. VI. 8; II. 36.
[171] Diog. Laërt. VI. 74, 61, 37, 105, 22.
[172] Diog. Laërt. VI. 29, 30 (74); II. 68; VI. 26, 41, 33, 45, 46, 50, 76, 77 (34).
[173] Diog. Laërt. VI. 85, 96, 97.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:
—Obvious print and punctuation errors were corrected.
—The transcriber of this project created the book cover image using the title page of the original book. The image is placed in the public domain.