FOOTNOTES:
[1] Diog. Laërt. III. 1-4 (Tennemann, Vol. I. p. 416; II. p. 190).
[2] Diog. Laërt. III. 5, 29.
[3] Plat. Epist. VII, p. 324-326 (p. 428-431); Diog. Laërt. III., 5, 6, 8.
[4] Diog. Laërt. III, 6, 7, 9, 18-21; Plat. Epist. VII., p. 326, 327 (p. 431-433).
[5] Plat. Epist. VII. p. 327-330 (p. 433-439); III. p. 316, 317 (p. 410, 411).
[6] This circumstance is assigned by Diogenes Laërtius, in the passage quoted (III. 21, 22), not to the time of Plato’s second journey to Dionysius the younger, i.e. of his third visit to Sicily, where it is placed by the writers of Plato’s Letters, but to the second journey of Plato to Sicily, which corresponds with his first visit to Dionysius the younger.—[Editor’s note.]
[7] Plat. Epist. VII. p. 337-342 (p. 453-461), p. 344-350 (p. 466-477); III. p. 317, 318 (p. 411-415).
[8] Plat. Epist. VII. p. 326 (p. 431).
[9] From the lectures of 1825.
[10] Diog. Laërt. III. 23 (Menag. ad h.l.); Ælian Var. Histor. II. 42; Plutarch, ad principem ineruditum, init. p. 779, ed. Xyl.
[11] Diog. Laërt. III. 2; Bruckeri Hist. Crit. Philos. Vol. I, p. 653.
[12] Compare Vol. I. p. 47-53.
[13] Brandis: De perditis Aristotelis libris de ideis et de bono, sive philosophia, p. 1-13. (Compare Michelet: Examen critique de l’ouvrage d’Aristote intitulé Métaphysique, 1835, p. 28-78.)—[Editor’s note.]
[14] Scholia in Timæum, p. 423, 424 (ed. Bekk: Commentar crit. in Plat. Vol. II.).
[15] Plat. De Republica, V. p. 471-474 (p. 257-261).
[16] Plat. De Republica VII. pp. 514-516 (pp. 326-328).
[17] Plato De Republica, V. p. 475, 476 (p. 265, 266).
[18] Diog. Laërt. VI. 53; cf. Plato De Rep. VI. p. 508 (p. 319).
[19] Plat. De Republ. V. p. 476-479 (p. 266-273).
[20] Plat. Meno, p. 81 (p. 348, 349).
[21] Plat. Phædrus, p. 246 (p. 39, 40).
[22] Plat. Phædrus, p. 246 (p. 40).
[23] Plat. Phædrus, pp. 246-251 (pp. 40-50).
[24] Plat. Phædo, pp. 65-67 (pp. 18-23).
[25] Ibid. p. 72 (p. 35), p. 75 (p. 41).
[26] Ibid. pp. 78-80 (pp. 46-51).
[27] Plat. Phædo, pp. 85, 86 (pp. 62, 63), pp. 92-94 (pp. 74-80).
[28] Ibid. pp. 110-114 (pp. 111-120).
[29] Plat. Timæus, p. 20 et seq. (p. 10 seq.); Critias, p. 108 seq. (p. 149 seq.).
[30] Cf. Vol. I. pp. 318, 319, and the remarks there made. [Editor’s Note.]
[31] Hegel’s Werke, Vol. VI., Pt. I, p. 8.
[32] Plat. Parmenides, pp. 135, 136 (pp. 21-23).
[33] Ibid. p. 129 (pp. 9, 10).
[34] Plat. Parmenides, p. 142 (pp. 35, 36); cf. Arist. Eth. Nicom. ed. Michelet, T. I. Præf. p. VII. sqq.
[35] Plat. Parmenides, p. 166 (p. 84); cf. Zeller; Platonische Studien, p. 165.
[36] Plat. Sophist, pp. 246-249 (pp. 190-196).
[37] Ibid. p. 258 (p. 219).
[38] Plat. Sophist. p. 259 (pp. 220, 221).
[39] Plat. Sophist. pp. 260, 261 (pp. 222-224).
[40] Plat. Sophist. pp. 258, 259 (pp. 218-220).
[41] Cf. also Plat. Phileb. p. 14 (p. 138).
[42] Plat. Phileb. pp. 11-23 (pp. 131-156); pp. 27, 28 (pp. 166, 167).
[43] Plat. Phileb. pp. 23-30 (pp. 156-172).
[44] Plat. Phileb. p. 33 (p. 178).
[45] Cf. Plat. Tim. p. 34 (p. 31); p. 48 (pp. 56, 57); p. 69 (p. 96).
[46] Ibid. p. 29 (p. 25).
[47] Plat. Timæus, p. 30, 31 (pp. 25-27).
[48] Plat. Timæus, pp. 31, 32 (pp. 27, 28).
[49] Plat. Timæus p. 32 (p. 28).
[50] Plat. Timæus, pp. 32-34 (pp. 28-31).
[51] Plat. Timæus, p. 35 (p. 32).
[52] Ibid.
[53] Plat. Timæus, pp. 35, 36 (pp. 32-34).
[54] Plat. Timæus, p. 37 (p. 35).
[55] Plat. Timæus, p. 48 (p. 57); pp. 37, 38 (pp. 36, 37).
[56] Plat, Timæus, pp. 47-53 (pp. 55-66).
[57] Plat. Timæus, pp. 53-56 (pp. 66-72).
[58] Plat. Timæus, pp. 67-70 (pp. 93-99).
[59] Plat. Timæus pp. 70-72 (pp. 99-102).
[60] Plat. De Republica, II., pp. 368, 369 (p. 78.)
[61] Following the outline here given by Plato, Hegel, in an earlier attempt to treat the philosophy of Justice (Werke, Vol. I. pp. 380, 381), included in one these two classes, and later named them the general class (Werke, Vol. VIII. p. 267); the “other” class (as Hegel expresses it, in the first of the passages referred to above), which by Plato is not included in this, Hegel divided, however, in both his narratives, into the second class (that of city handicraftsmen), and the third (that of tillers of the soil).—[Editor’s note.]
[62] Plat. de Republica, II. pp. 369-376 (pp. 79-93); III. p. 414 (pp. 158, 159).
[63] Plat. De Republica, V. p. 463, (p. 241,); p. 460 (p. 236).
[64] Plat. De Republica, IX. pp. 427, 428 (pp. 179-181).
[65] Ibid. IV. pp. 428, 429 (pp. 181, 182).
[66] Ibid. pp. 429, 430 (pp. 182-185).
[67] Plat. De Republica, IV. pp. 430-432 (pp. 185-188).
[68] Plat. De Republica, IV. pp. 432, 433 (pp. 188-191).
[69] Plat. De Republica, IV. pp. 437-443 (pp. 198-210).
[70] Plat. De Republica, IV. p. 421 (pp. 167, 168).
[71] Ibid. II. p.376-III. p. 412 (pp. 93-155); V. p. 472-VII. fin. (pp. 258-375).
[72] Plat. De Legibus, IV. pp. 722, 723 (pp. 367-369).
[73] Plat. De Republica, III. pp. 412-415 (pp. 155-161.)
[74] Plat. De Republica, V. pp. 457-461 (pp. 230-239).
[75] Ibid. pp. 451-457 (pp. 219-230); p. 471 (p. 257).
[76] Cf. Hegel: On the Scientific Modes of treating Natural Law (Werke, Vol. I.), pp. 383-386.
[77] Plat. Hippias Major, p. 292 (p. 433); p. 295 sqq. (p. 439 sqq.) p. 302 (pp. 455, 456).
[78] In quoting the chapters of Aristotle both hitherto and in future, Becker’s edition is adopted; where a second number is placed in brackets after the first, different editions are indicated, e.g., for the Organon, Buhle’s edition, for the Nicomachiean Ethics those of Zell and the editor, &c.—[Editor’s note.]
[79] Diog. Laërt. V. 1, 9, 12, 15; Buhle: Aristotelis vita (ante Arist. Opera, T. I.) pp. 81, 82; Ammonius Saccas: Aristotelis vita (ed. Buhle in. Arist. Op. T. I.), pp. 43, 44.
[80] Diog. Laërt. V. 3, 4; 7, 8; Buhle: Aristotel. vita, pp. 90-92.
[81] Aristotelis Opera (ed. Pac. Aurel. Allobrog, 1607), T. I., in fine: Aristotelis Fragmenta. (Cf. Stahr. Aristotelia, Pt. I. pp. 85-91.)
[82] Aulus Gellius: Noctis Atticæ, XX. 5
[83] Diog. Laërt. V. 5, 6; Suidas, s. v. Aristoteles; Buhle: Aristot. vit. p. 100; Ammon. Saccas: Arist. vit. pp. 47, 48; Menag. ad. Diog. Laërt. V. 2; Stahr. Aristotelia, Pt. I. pp. 108, 109; Bruckeri Hist. crit. phil. T. I. pp. 788, 789.
[84] Strabo, XIII. p. 419 (ed. Casaub. 1587); Plutarch in Sulla, c. 26; Brucker. Hist. crit. phil. T. I. pp. 798-800 (cf. Michelet: Examen critique de l’ouvrage d’Aristote, intitulé Métaphysique, pp. 5-16.)
[85] Cf. Michelet: Examen critique, &c., pp. 17-23; 28-114; 199-241.
[86] Gellius: Noct. Atticæ, XX. 5; Stahr: Aristotelia, Pt. I. pp 110-112.
[87] Arist. Metaphys. VI. 1; Physic. II. 2; I. 9. (Cf. Michelet: Examen critique, etc., pp. 23-27.)
[88] Michelet: Examen critique, pp. 115-198.
[89] Not only the form which is to be abrogated, but also matter is spoken of by Aristotle as τι, because in truth the form which is to be abrogated serves only as material for the form which is to be posited; so that he in the first passage names the three moments ἔκ τινος, τι, ὑπό τινος, and in the last passage names them τι, εἴς τι, ὑπό τινος.—[Editor’s Note.]
[90] As this explanation by Hegel of Aristotle’s celebrated passage has so many authorities to support it, the editor cannot here, as frequently elsewhere in these lectures, remain faithful to the directions of his colleagues, quietly to set right anything that is incorrect. It is, nevertheless, clear that Aristotle is speaking of three substances: a sublunar world, which the heavens move; the heavens as the centre which is both mover and moved; and God, the unmoved Mover. The passage must therefore, on the authority of Alexander of Aphrodisias (Schol. in Arist. ed. Brandis, p. 804 b), of Cardinal Bessarion (Aristoteles lat. ed. Bekk. p. 525 b) and others, be thus read: ἔστι τοίνυν τι καὶ ὃ κινεῖ (sc. ὁ οὐρανός)· ἐπεὶ δε τὸ κινούμενον καὶ κινοῦν καὶ μέσον τοίνυν, ἔυτι τι ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ. The translation, if this reading be adopted, would be as follows: Besides the heavens in perpetual motion “there is something which the heavens move. But since that which at the same time is moved and causes movement cannot be other than a centre, there is also a mover that is unmoved.” (Cf. Michelet: Examen critique, etc., p. 192; Jahrbücher für wisseuschaftliche Kritik, November, 1841, No. 84, pp. 668, 669). [Editor’s note]
[91] συστοιχία is a good word, and might also mean an element which is itself its own element, and determines itself only through itself.
[92] The word τὸ εἶναι, when it governs the dative (τὸ εἶναι νοήσεί καὶ νοουμένῳ) invariably expresses the Notion, while, when it governs the accusative, it denotes concrete existence. (Trendelenburg: Comment, in Arist. De anima, III. 4, p. 473.) [Editor’s Note.]
[93] Aristotle here distinguishes four determinations: what is moved in capacity, or the movable [das Bewegbare] (κινητόν); what is moved in actuality (κινούμενον); the moving in capacity (κινητικόν), or what Hegel calls the motive [das Bewegliche]; the moving in actuality (κινοῦν). It might have been better to translate κινητόν by motive [Beweglich] and κινητικόν by mobile [Bewegerisch].—[Editor’s note.]
[94] While above (p. 164) we must take the expression τὸ εἶναι as immediate existence because it is opposed to the Notion, here it has the meaning of Notion, because it stands in opposition to immediate existence (καὶ οὺ χωριστὴ μὲν ὕλη, δ̓ εἶναι, καὶ μία τῷ ἀριθμῷ). Cf. Michelet: Comment. in Arist. Eth. Nicom. V. I., pp. 209-214.—[Editor’s note.]
[95] Here τὸ εἶναι has again the signification of Notion, as above (p. 169), because in the preceding words (ἔστι δὲ ταὐτὸ καὶ κατὰ ταὐτὸ ἡ διαίρεσις καὶ ἥ ἕνωσις) immediate existence is expressed.—[Editor’s note.]
[96] The editor has considered himself justified in adopting this rendering, which was commonly used by the Scholastics, and revived by Leibnitz. (Cf. Michelet, Examen Critique, &c., pp. 165, 261, 265.)
[97] Here and once again on this page τὸ εἶναι is the immediate existence of the separate sides of sense-perception, therefore their mere potentiality; while, on the other hand, the active unity of the perceived and the percipient may be expressed as the true Notion of sense-perception.—[Editor’s Note.]
[98] Cf. supra, p. 169, and note there given. The two significations of τῷ εἶναι here come into immediate contact with one another, being likewise intermingled; for immediate existence (ἀριθμῷ ἀδιαίρετον καὶ ἀχωριστον), which is opposed to the Notion (τῷ εἶναι) becomes in what directly follows mere possibility, to which the true reality (δυνάμει μὲν γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ἀδιαίρετον εἶναι) is opposed (δυνάμει μὲν γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ἀδιαίρετον τἀναντία, δ̓ εἶναι ου, ἀλλα τῷ ἐνεργεῖσθαι διαίρετον).—[Editor’s Note.]
[99] Cf. Tenneman, Vol. III. p. 198.
[100] While Aristotle’s reply is short, and given in the manner usually adopted by him, that of following up by a second question the first question proposed (ἢ οὐδὲ τἆλλα φαντάσματα, ἀλλʹ οὐκ ἄνευ φαντασμάτον;), this answer seems quite sufficient. For Aristotle’s words certainly bear the meaning that the original thoughts of the active understanding (the reason), in contradistinction to those of the passive understanding, have quite obliterated in themselves the element of pictorial conception; while in the latter this has not been thoroughly carried out, though even in them pictorial conception is not the essential moment.—[Editor’s Note.]
[101] Against this we have only to remember that in Aristotle’s way of speaking ὕστερον and πρότερον always refer to the work they occur in, while he marks quotations from his other writings by the words: ἐν ἄλλοις, ἐν ἑτέροις, ἄλλοτε, or εἰς ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν ἀποκείσθω (De Ausc. phys. I. 9). And if it be said, as it may be with truth, that all the physical and psychological works, including the Metaphysics, form one great scientific system, so that ὕστερον and πρότερον may very well be used in relating these works to one another, I have yet proved that the treatise περὶ ψυχῆς must be placed much later than the Metaphysics (Michelet: Examen Critique, &c., pp. 209-222). Might not then the expression ὕστερον refer to the following chapter? In truth, the difficulty raised at the end of the seventh chapter seems completely solved by the words of the eighth chapter quoted above (pp. 198, 199).—[Editor’s Note.]
[102] See Michelet, De doli et culpæ in jure criminali notionibus; System der philosophischen Moral. Book II. Part I; Afzelius, Aristotelis De imputatione actionum doctrina.—[Editor’s Note.]
[103] Ethic, Nicom. I. 2-12 (4-12); X. 6-8; Eth. Eudem. II. 1.
[104] Magn. Moral. I. 5, 35; Eth. Nic. I. 13; Eth. Eud. II. 1.
[105] Ethic. Nicomach. II. 5-7 (6, 7); Maga. Moral. I. 5-9; Eth. Eud. II. 3.
[106] Cf. Arist. Ethic. Nicom. I. 1 (3).
[107] Arist. Eth. Nic. I. 1 (2).
[108] Arist. Polit. III. 1; IV. 14-16.
[109] Ibid. III. 7 (5)-IV. 13.
[110] Arist. Polit. III. 13 (8-9).
[111] Categor. c. 3 (c. 2, § 3-5.)
[112] Categor. c. 4 (c. 2, § 6-8).
[113] Categor. c. 10-14 (8-11); cf. Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, p. 79 (6th Ed.).
[114] Categor. c. 5 (3).
[115] Arist. Categor. c. 4 (2); De Interpretat. c. 4-6.
[116] Arist. Analytic. prior. I. 1; Topic I. 1.
[117] Arist. Topic I. 13 (11) et 1.
[118] Ibid. I. 16-18 (14-16); II. 7, 8, 10.
[119] Ibid. III. 1; Buhle, Argum. p. 18.
[120] Analyt. prior. II. 23 (25).
[121] Diog. Laërt. VII. I, 12, 31, 32, 5, 2 (IV. 6, 7), 13, 6-11, 28, 29. Tennemann, Vol. IV. p. 4; Vol. II. pp. 532, 534; Bruck. Hist. Crit. Phil. T. I. pp. 895, 897-899. (Cf. Fabric. Biblioth. Græc. T. II. p. 413), 901.
[122] Diog. Laërt, VII. 168, 169, 176.
[123] Diog. Laërt. VII. 179-181, 184, 189-202; Tennemann, Vol. IV. p. 443.
[124] Diog. Laërt. VI. 81; Cicer. Acad. Quæst. IV. 30; De Oratore II. 37, 38; De Senectute, c. 7; Tennemann, Vol. IV. p. 444.
[125] Cic. De Officiis III. 2; De Nat. Deor. I. 3; Suidas: s. v. Posidonius, T. III. p. 159.
[126] Aul. Gell. Noct. Att. I. 2 (Gronovius ad h. 1.); II. 18; XV. 11; XIX. 1.
[127] Stob. Eclog. phys. I. p. 32.
[128] Diog. Laërt. VII. 136, 142, 156, 157; Plutarch, de plac. philos. IV. 21.
[129] Diog. Laërt. VII. 135; Stob. Eclog. phys. I. p. 178.
[130] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. IX. 101-103.
[131] Diog. Laërt. VII. 137.
[132] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 234; Diog. Laërt. VII. 138-140, 147, 148.
[133] Diog. Laërt. VII. 54, 46; Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 227-230.
[134] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VIII. 403, sqq.; cf. Senec. Epist. 107.
[135] Diog. Laërt. VII. 63; Sext. Emp. adv. Math. VIII. 70.
[136] Diog. Laërt. VII. 79, 80, 83.
[137] Cicer. De Officiis I. 3, III.; Diog. Laërt. VII. 98, 99.
[138] Diog. Laërt. VII. 94.
[139] Diog. Laërt. VII. 127, 128; Cicer. Paradox, 2.
[140] Cicer. De finibus III. 13; Tusculan. Quæst. II. 25.
[141] Diog. Laërt. VII. 107, 108.
[142] Plutarch. De Stoicorum repugnantia, p. 1031 (ed. Xyl.); Stob. Eclog. ethic. P. II. p. 110 Diog. Laërt. VII. 125.
[143] Diog. Laërt. VII. 121, 122, 116, 117, 129; Sext. Empir. adv. Math. XI. 190-194.
[144] Tacit. Annal. XIV. 53; XIII. 42, 3.
[145] Diog. Laërt. X. 1-8, 10-15; Cic. De Nat. Deor. I. 26; De Finibus, II. 25; Bruck. Hist. Crit. Phil. T. I. pp. 1230, 1231, 1233, 1236; Sext. Emp. adv. Math. X. 18; I. 3.
[146] Diog. Laërt. X. 11, 24, 9; IV. 43; Cic. De Finib. V. 1; Euseb. Præp. evangel. XIV. 5.
[147] Diog. Laërt. X. 26.
[148] Diog. Laërt. X. 31.
[149] Diog. Laërt. X. 31, 32.
[150] Diog. Laërt. X. 33.
[151] Diog. Laërt. X. 33, 34.
[152] Diog. Laërt. X. 34.
[153] Diog. Laërt. X. 48, 49.
[154] Diog. Laërt. X. 50, 51.
[155] Diog. Laërt. X. 54, 55.
[156] Diog. Laërt. X. 55-58.
[157] Diog. Laërt. X. 43, 44, 60, 61; Cic. De fato, c. 10; De finibus, l. 6; Plutarch. De animæ procreat. e Timæo, p. 1015.
[158] Diog. Laërt. X. 78-80, 86, 87, 93-96, 101, 97.
[159] Diog. Laërt. X. 113, 114.
[160] Cicer. De natura Deorum, I. 20.
[161] Diog. Laërt. X. 66, 63, 64.
[162] Diog. Laërt. X. 141-143.
[163] Diog. Laërt. X. 122, 123, 139.
[164] Cicer. De nat. Deor. I. 17, 19, 20.
[165] Cicer. De divinat. II. 17; De nat. Deor. I. 8.
[166] Diog. Laërt. X. 124, 125, 127.
[167] Diog. Laërt. X. 127-132 (119, 135).
[168] Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 33, § 220.
[169] Diog. Laërt. IV. 28-33, 36-38, 42, 44; Bruck. Hist. crit. phil. T. I. p. 746; Tennemann, Vol. IV. p. 443; Cic. De finib. II. 1.
[170] Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 33, § 232; Diog. Laërt. IV. 32.
[171] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 154.
[172] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 154-156.
[173] Diog. Laërt. IV. 62, 65; Tennemann, Vol. IV. pp. 334, 443, 444; Cicer. Acad. Quæst. II. 6; Valer. Maxim. VIII. 7, ext. 5.
[174] Plutarch. Cato major, c. 22; Gell. Noct. Attic. VII. 14; Cic. De orat. II. 37, 38; Aelian. Var. hist. III. 17; Bruck. Hist. crit. phil. T. I. p. 763.
[175] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 159, 160.
[176] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 160, 161.
[177] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 161-164, 402.
[178] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 165.
[179] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 166-169.
[180] Ibid. 166, 167.
[181] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 173-175.
[182] Ibid. 176, 177; 187-189; 179.
[183] Ibid. 176, 177; 179; 187-189.
[184] Sext. Empir. adv. Math. VII. 181-184.
[185] As it is used here and shortly afterwards, “positive philosophy” has quite an opposite meaning from what we have just seen it to bear in two previous passages (p. 329), because speculation certainly stands in opposition to dogmatism; and at the same time we must in Hegel distinguish altogether this expression in its double significance from the positivism so prevalent in modern times, which, merely escaping from the necessity for thinking knowledge, finally throws itself into the arms of revelation and simple faith, whether it tries to call itself free thought or not.—[Editor’s note.]
[186] Lectures of 1825-1826.
[187] Diog. Laërt. IX. 71-73; cf. Vol. I. pp. 161, 246, 284.
[188] Diog. Laërt. IX. 61-65, 69, 70; Bruck. Hist. crit. phil. T. I. pp. 1320-1323.
[189] Diog. Laërt. IX. 109.
[190] Diog. Laërt. IX. 116; Bruck. Hist. crit. phil. T. I. p. 1328.
[191] Bruck. Hist. crit. phil. T. II. pp. 631-636.
[192] Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 39, §§ 221-225.
[193] Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 3, § 7; Diog. Laërt. IX. 69, 70.
[194] Cf. supra, p. 212.
[195] Diog. Laërt. IX. 68.
[196] Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hypot. I. c. 8, § 17.
[197] Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 14, §§ 40-44.
[198] Sext. Emp, Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 14, §§ 79-82, 85-89.
[199] Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 14, §§ 91, 92.
[200] Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 14, §§ 100, 112.
[201] Ibid, §§ 118-120.
[202] Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 14, §§ 124-126.
[203] Ibid. §§ 129-131, 133.
[204] Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 14, §§ 141-144.
[205] Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 14, §§ 145, 148, 149.
[206] Pyrrh. Hyp. I. c. 15, §§ 164-169. (Diog. Laërt. IX. 88, 89.)
[207] Bruck. Hist. crit. philos. T. II. pp. 797, 799, et notæ; Phil. De legatione ad Cajum, p. 992 (ed. Francf. 1691): Joseph. Antiq. Jud. XVIII. c. 10, p. 649; Euseb. Hist, eccles. II. c. 18; cf. Fabric Biblioth. Gr. Vol. III. p. 115 (Hamburg, 1708).
[208] Phil. De confusione linguarum, p. 358; De special. legib. II. pp. 806, 807; De mundi opificio, p. 15; De migratione Abrahami, pp. 393, 417, 418; Quis. rer. divin. hæres. p. 518; Quod Deus sit immutabilis, pp. 301, 302; De monarchia, I. p. 816; De nominum mutatione, p. 1045; De Cherub. p. 124; De somniis, p. 576.
[209] Phil. De somniis, pp. 574, 575; Liber legis allegoriarum, I. p. 48; Quod Deus sit immut. p. 298.
[210] Phil. De mundi opificio, pp. 4-6; De agricultura, p. 195; De somniis, pp. 597, 599.
[211] Phil. Leg. allegor. I. p. 46, et II. p. 93; Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat, p. 165; De temulentia, p. 244; De somniis, pp. 578, 586, 588; De confus. ling. pp. 341, 345; Euseb. Præp. ev. VII. c. 13; Phil. De vita Mosis, III. p. 672; De sacrif. Abel., p. 140.
[212] Buhle: Lehrbuch d. Gesch. d. Phil. Pt. IV. p. 124; Phil. De mundi opificio, p. 5.
[213] Phil. De mund. opific. p. 4; De victimas offerentibus, p. 857 (Buhle, ibid. p. 125).
[214] De mundi opificio, pp. 5, 6 (Brucker Hist. crit. phil. Tom. II. pp. 802, 803).
[215] Brucker Hist. crit. phil. T. II. pp. 834-840, 924-927.
[216] Irira: Porta c\nlorum, Dissertatio I. c. 4; c. 6, § 13 et c. 7, § 2; IV. c. 4, sqq.; II. c. 1; V. c. 7, 8; Tiedemann: Geist der speculat. Philosophie, Pt. III. pp. 149, 150, 155-157; Buhle: Lehrbuch der Gesch. der Phil. Pt. IV. pp. 156, 162, 160, 157.
[217] Neander: Genetische Entwickelung der vornehmsten gnostischen Systeme, pp. 10, 33, 34; Philo De nominum mutat. p. 1046.
[218] Neander: Genet. Entwickelung, &c., pp. 168, 170, 171.
[219] Neander: Genet. Entwickelung, &c., pp. 94-97.
[220] Ibid. pp. 160, 10-13; Phil. Quod Deus sit immut. p. 304.
[221] Cf. Buhle, Lehrb. d. Gesch. d. Phil. Pt. IV. pp. 195-200.
[222] Brucker, Hist. crit. phil. T. II. pp. 205, 213, 214.
[223] Porphyrius, Vita Plotini (præmissa Ennead. Plot. Basil. 1580), pp. 2, 3, 5-8; Brucker, Hist. crit. phil. T. II. pp. 218-221; Tiedemann, Geist d. spec. Phil. Vol. III. p. 272; Buhle, Lehrb. d. Gesch. d. Phil. Pt. IV. p. 306.
[224] Cf. Plotin. Ennead. I. l. 6, c. 7; IV. l. 4, c. 39-43; Procli Theol. Plat. I. pp. 69, 70 (ed. Aem. Portus, Hamburg, 1618).
[225] Plot. Ennead. IV. l. 8, c. 1; cf. ibidem, c. 4-7.
[226] Plot. Ennead. III. l. 6, c. 6; VI. l. 9, c. 1, 2; III. l. 8, c. 8.
[227] This Aristotelian word, and also ἐξέρτηται (Procl. Theol. Plat. III. p. 133), often occur in the Neo-Platonists.
[228] Plot. Ennead. I. l. 8: Περὶ τοῦ τίνα καὶ πόθεν τὰ κακά, c. 2 (VI. l. 9, c. 6); III. l. 8, c. 9, 10.
[229] Plot. Ennead. V. l. 3, c. 13, 14; l. 2, c. 1; VI. l. 2, c. 9, 10; l. 8, c. 8, 9; l. 9, c. 3, VI. l. 9, c. 6; l. 8, c. 7 (13, 21).
[230] Steinhart: Quæstiones de dialectica Plotini ratione, p. 21; Plotini Ennead. VI. l. 9, c. 1-9, passim.
[231] Plot. Ennead. III. l. 8, c. 10 fin.; IV. l. 3, c. 17; V. l. 1, c. 4, 5; c. 7; l. 4, c. 2; l. 5, c. 1.
[232] Plot. Ennead. V. l. 1, c. 6 (IV. l. 3, c. 17).
[233] Plot. Ennead. V. l. 2, c. 1; l. 1, c. 7; VI. l. 9, c. 2.
[234] Plot. Ennead. V. l. 3, c. 5; VI. l. 2, c. 8; II. l. 4, c. 4; VI. l. 4, c. 2; V. l. 9, c. 8, 9.
[235] Plot. Ennead. VI. l. 2, c. 2; V. l. 9, c. 8.
[236] Plot. Ennead. IV. l. 3, c. 17.
[237] Plot. Ennead. V. l. 1, c. 7; l. 2, c. 1, 2; l. 6, c. 4; VI. l. 2, c. 22.
[238] Plot. Ennead. V. l. 3, c. 5; ἕν ἅμα πάντα ἔσται, νοῦς, νόησις, τὸ νοητόν.
[239] Plot. Ennead. II. l. 9, c. 1-3, 6.
[240] If we were to translate this by “in the intelligible world,” the expression would be misleading; for “the world” is nowhere. Neither may we say, “intelligible things,” as if there were things of some other kind; such distinctions and definitions are nowhere found.
[241] Plot. Ennead. II. l. 4, c. 4, 12-15; l. 5, c. 2-5.
[242] Plot. Ennead. I. l. 8, c. 2, 3.
[243] Instead of δεῖ in the sentence οὐ γὰρ δεῖ τὸ εἰπεῖν we should certainly read δή, or something of the kind.
[244] Buhle, Lehrb. d. Gesch. d. Phil. Part IV. pp. 418, 419; Tiedemann, Geist. d. spec. Phil. Vol. III. pp. 421-423; cf. Plotini Ennead. IV. l. 3 et 8 passim.
[245] Buhle, Lehrb. d. Gesch. d. Phil. Part IV. pp. 419, 420.
[246] Brucker: Hist. crit. phil. T. II. pp. 248, 268.
[247] Cf. Procli. Theol. Plat. III. p. 140.
[248] Brucker: Hist. cr. phil. T. II. p. 320; Tennemann, Vol. VI. pp. 284-289; Marinus: Vita Procli, passim (præm. Theol. Plat.).
[249] Procli Institutionis theologicæ, c. 26.
[250] Procli Institut. theol. c. 27; Theol. Plat. III. p. 119; II. pp. 101, 102; III. p. 121; Institut. theol. c. 5.
[251] Procli Institut. theol. c. 1-2; c. 28; Theol. Plat. III. pp. 118, 122-125; II. pp. 108, 109.
[252] Procli Theol. Plat. III. pp. 123-124.
[253] Procli Theol. Plat. III. pp. 141, 127; Instit. theol. c. 192.
[254] It is doubtful whether the καὶ should not be omitted, so that ἡ ἁκρότης τῶν ὄντων would stand in apposition to νοῦς.
[255] Procli Theol. Plat. III. p. 144 (VI. p. 403); Instit. theol. c. 124, 170.
[256] Procli Theol. Plat. I. pp. 69, 70.
[257] Brucker: Hist. cr. phil. T. II. pp. 350, 347; Joan. Malala: Hist. chron. P. II. p. 187; Nic. Alemannus ad Procopii anecdot. c. 26. p. 377.
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.