« السابقةمتابعة »
Hermeas is, that the lover looking to the object of bis love, and through this obtaining a recollection of true beauty, i.e. looking with his reasoning power, and referring this beauty to intelligible forms, and progeny which are genuinely divine, becomes prolific, ,
, , and generates virtues, and all such things as are afterwards mentioned by Plato, γονιμος γινεται, και γεννα αρετας και παντα, οσα εν τοις εξης λεγει. For nothing can be more absurd than to suppose Hermeas, after he had said that the lover refers beauty to intelligible forms, would add, " and to the divine progeny of earthly natures." In p. 167. 1. 20. Hermeas having observed that man is a nicrocosm, and that according to Plato the parts of him are analogous to the parts of the universe, and to the parts of which a city consists, adds, αναλογον ουν τω ουρανω εποιησε τον εγκεφαλον: επειτα επειδη ο θυμος ευγενεστερος εστι της επιθυμιας και αναλογει τους προπολεμoυσι και αναστελλουσι παν το πλημμελως και ατακτως κινουμενον εν τη πολει, ο λεγει επικουρικον και στρατιωτικον, και τιμης ορεγεται και επιπλήττει τη αναλογω κ. τ. λ. In this passage, for the last word, αναλογω, I read αλογα. In p. 168. 1. 4. from the bottom, Hermeas explaining what Plato says about the amatory eye, το ερωτικών ομμα, and having observed that a nian then becomes properly amatory when he is converted to himself, adds, τουτο δε εσται δια των ομματων, όταν, καθως ειπεν εν τω Αλκιβιαδη βουλομενος εαυτον ιδειν τις, εις ετεραν ψυχην απιδη. και γαρ επι των αισθητων εαυτους βουλομενοι ιδείν, ουδεν αλλο τουτου παραδειγμα ευρισκομεν, ως οφθαλμον, επειδη εις αυτον συντρέχει το δρων και το ορατικον. εν γαρ τοις κατοπτρoις αλλο εστιν το ορων, και αλλο εστι το ορατικον. In the latter part of this passage, for το ορων in two places, it is obviously necessary to ,
, read το ορωμενον. For, as Plato says in the First Alcibiades, . ,
, “ If the eye would see itself, it must look in an eye, and in that place of it, where the virtue of the eye is naturally seated; and the virtue of the eye is sight.” Hence, as Olympiodorus observes in this case, that which is seen and that which sees concur in one and the same; for it is eye perceiving itself in eye. But in mirrors that which is seev is one thing, and that which sees, another. The cause of this mistake originated, I have no doubt,
. from το oρωμενον being in both places written originally in the Ms. To opwv; just as it is common in Greek manuscripts to write for ανθρωπος, ανς; for σωτηρίας, σρς; and for ουρανος, ουνς. Ρ. 173. 1. 24. υπο των πολλων δε ειπεν, οτι η τοιαυτη φιλοσοφια ουκ εστι φιλοσοφων η γαρ οντως φιλια η του νου εστι κοινωνία.
Here, for. φιλοσοφια, I should conceive it is immediately obvious that we should read φιλια. Ρ. 174. 1. 15. from the bottonι: πως δε
νυν τέχνην λεγει την ερωτικην, ην παλαι ενθουσιαστικην σιπεν; και δηλον, οτι τουτο λεγει, οτι δει μεν τα παρ' ημων τεχνικα θεωρηματα κινειν, ειθ' ουτως υστερον την παρα των θεων ελλαμψιν δεχεσθαι, ως και επί της πολιτικης δει το εν ημιν ευρετικον και ποιητικον κινειν, ειθ' ουτως εκδεχεσθαι την παρα των θεων ελλαμψιν' ο γαρ κατοχος γινομενός ταις Μουσαις, θειος ποιητης γινεται. Here, for επι της πολιτικής it is necessary to read επι της ποιητικης, as is evident from the latter part of the passage. P. 175. 1. 4. βουλεται γαρ τιμασθαι παρα των νεων ου δι εαυτον» και γαρ και τους θεους ου δι αυτους
τιμαν, αλλα δι αυτους. In this passage, instead of δι αυτους at the end of it, it is requisite to read δι εαυτους. For the meaning of Hermeas is, “ that it is not proper to honor the gods for their sake, but for the sake of ourselves;" and this assertion is both Pythagoric and Platonic.1 P. 178. 1. 31. οταν ουν φησι, δυνηθωμεν τας Σειρηνας τας εν τω αισθητα κοσμω παραπλευσαι, ως αν ειποις δαιμονας τινάς κατεχοντας τας ψυχας περι την γενεσιν, τοτε οι τεττι. γες, τουτέστιν αι θειαι ψυχαν και οι θεοι ορώντες ημας κατασταντας της γενεσεως και θεοειδώς ζησαντας, το μεγιστον ανθρωποις γερας δουεν, τουτέστι, χρωνται ημιν οπαδοις. Here for κατασταντας I read καTAVIO TAUTUS; and then what Hermeas says will be, in English, " When, therefore, (says Plato,) we are able to sail beyond the Sirens in the sensible world, which may be considered as certain dæmons who detain souls in the realms of generation (or the region of sense,] then the grasshoppers [by which Plato occultly signifies divine souls,] and the Gods, perceiving us opposing generation, and living in a deiform manner, will confer on us the greatest reward which can be conferred on men, i. e. they will use us as their attendants and associates.” In order, however, to understand completely what is here said by Hermeas, and also in a former part of this paragraph about the τεττιγες or grasshoppers, it is requisite to observe that, as, according to Plato, there are three kinds of Sirens; the celestial, which is under Jupiter; the genesiurgic, or pertaining to the realms of genera- . tion; and the cathartic, which is under the dominion of Pluto; these TeTTiyes or divine souls have a similar division. Hence, when Hermeas at the beginning of this paragraph says, WOTES; φησιν, υπο Σειρηνων καθελκομένου και κατακηλουμενοι επελαθόντο της όικειας πατριδος, ουτω και ημεις εαν κηλωμεθα υπο τουτων των φαινομεν
· Hence the excellent Sallust, in his treatise De Diis et Mundo, ob serves in Cap. Χν, αυτο μεν γαρ το θειου ανενδεες αι δε τιμαι της ημετέρας ωφελείας ενεκα γινονται. “ For divinity itself indeed is unindigent; but the honors which we pay him are for the sake of our advantage.”
νων και των τεττιγων, και εις υπνον καταφερωμεθα, επιλανθανομεθα της οικειας πατριδος και της εις το νοητον αναγωγης, by the των τεττιγων, the middle kind, or genesiurgic τεττιγες are indicated; but in the former passage which we have cited, Hermeas alludes to the first, or celestial kind.
Ρ. 179. 1. 11 from the bottom : ειδεναι δε δει, οτι το μεν θειον αμεσως πασι παρεστι, ημεις δε αμεσως τη θεια συναφθηναι ου δυναμεθα, μη δια μέσου τινος, οιον του δαιμονιου, ωσπερ επι του φωτος δεομεθα του αερος του διακινούντος ημιν το φως. Here, for διακινούντος, it is necessary to read διακονούντος : and then the passage will be, in English : “ It is requisite to know that Divinity is present with all things without a medium, but it is impossible for us to be conjoined with him without the intervening agency of a certain nature, such as that of demons; just as with respect to the light (of the sun) we are in want of the intervention of air, to administer to us the light.” Ρ. 180. 1. 3 from the bottom: ωσπες δε το κανονι το διαστροφον κρινεται, και τη ορθη το παρα την ορθης, τον αυτον τροπον ωσπερ εικονα ανηλθεν ο φιλοσοφος την αληθειαν, ή και τα ομοια και τα παρηλλαγμενα κρινομεν. ουτως οφειλει ο ρήτωρ κανονα εχειν το αληθες. In this
appears to me to be obviously necessary to read xavova. Ρ. 199. 1. 20. πανταχου γαρ εν τω Τιμαιφ δε ενθειαζει τους Αιγυπτιους ως αρχαιους. Here for ενθειαζει it is requisite to read εγκωμιαζει, as will be manifest from a perusal of the beginning of the Timæus. Ρ. 202. 1. 29. οπερ ουν τους θεοις ο κοσμος, τουτο και το σπουδαιω και περι ταξεως ενεργεια. In this passage, for ταξεως, it is necessary
, to read πραξεως; for what Hermeas says is this, « that what the world is to the Gods, that the energy of action, or the practic energy, is to the worthy man.” For, as the energy of divinity about the world is directed to that which is external, so likewise is the energy of the worthy man when directed to practical affairs. P. 185. 1. 4 from the bottom : το γαρ υπερεχον αει δαιμονα δει καλειν, οιον του λογου δαιμονα το λογικoν, του νου τον θεον. Here for του λογου it is obviously requisite to read του ahoyou; for the meaning of Hermeas is, "that it is always necessary to call that which transcends (another thing) the demon (of that thing). Thus, for instance, the rational is the dæmcı of the irrational nature, and divinity is the dæmon of intellect," Ρ. 195. 1. 5. οθεν Ιπποκρατης βουλομενος δειξαι, οτι ουκ εστιν απλούν (το σωμα), ειπεν ει εν ην το σωμα, ουκ αν ηλγησεν, ει δε συνθετον, εκ ποσων και συγκειται και ποιων οτι εκ τεσσαρων στοιχειων, θερμου, ψυχρου, και υγρου. In this passage, after υγρου, the words και Enpou are manifestly wanting; for the four first qualities which Hippocrates attributed to the humors, are, the hot and the cold,
the moist and the dry. And in the last place, in p. 204. I. 9. Hermeas says, το γαρ σοφον καλειν υπερβαίνει τα ανθρωπινα μετρα παντων δε των Πυθαγορου και περι τι επιστημονων σοφων καλουμενων, ο Πυθαγορας ελθων, το θειον μονον σοφον εκάλεσεν, ως εξαιρετον το ονομα τω Θεω απονειμας, τους δε ορεγομενους σοφιας, φιλοσοφους εκαλεσεν. In this passage, for των Πυθαγορου, it appears to me to be necessary to read των προ Πυθαγορου; for then the meaning of Hermeas will be, “ that all those prior to Pythagoras, who had a scientific knowledge of any thing, were called wise ; but Pythagoras, when he came, gave the appellation of wise to divinity alone, as thus ascribing to God a transcendent name; and those who aspire after wisdom he denominated philosophers.”
BIBLICAL CRITICISM On the First and Second Chapters of St. Matthew; com
prising a view of the leading Arguments in favor of their Authenticity, and of the principal objections which have been urged on the subject. By LATHAM WAINEWRIGHT, M. A. F. S. A. of Emman. Coll. Cambridge, and Rector of Gt. Brickhill
, Bucks, &c.
No. I. Few circumstances perhaps have been ultimately more favorable to the interests of Christianity, than the nuinerous objections which have at different times been urged against the divinity of its origin. Other religions have been indebted for their propagation and support to the sword of conquest, and the countenance of the civil authority ; but when left to depend on the unassisted influence of their intrinsic merit, have either utterly ceased to exist, or have, at best, been confined to some insignificant and unlettered sect. What to them has proved the source of ruin or contempt, has to the religion of Christ been the uniform occasion of advancement and triumph. The more its evidence has been submitted to the test of examination and inquiry, the more its doctrines have been exposed to the scrutiny of dispassionate reason, in the same proportion have they obtained the approbation and belief of the wise, and have been
able to resist the secret machinations of interested malice, and the undisguised attacks of prejudice and power. If indeed our boly religion, amidst the formidable obstacles wbich opposed its progress, has ever had cause to be seriously apprehensive for its security and honors, it has arisen, not from the violence of its external enemies, not from the subtle efforts of men whom interest has led to conceal their animosity, but from the divisions and contests of those who have loudly asserted the truth of its claims, and who have been foremost in the ranks of its avowed partizans. To separate from each other solely on account of some frivolous differences of opinion, and to form themselves into distinct elasses and denominations, either from a desire of increasing individual importance, or from a mistaken pride in controverting the creed of the multitude, has been too frequent a practice among the followers of Christ, from the era of his death to the present hour. But this, like many other evils which at the time excited no slight degree of alarm, has been productive of unintentional good. Amidst the vehement contentions of the early sects respecting the foundation of their speculative tenets, or the external discipline of the church, they all professed to resort to one mode of determining their differences by making their final appeal to the same authority, and by acknowleging the writings of the apostles to be the only standard of their faith and practice. The same zeal by which they were actuated in disputing the orthodoxy of their immediate opponents, naturally created the utmost vigilance and jealousy in protecting the sacred writings, which all parties equally admitted to be inspired, from surreptitious interpolation and from every artifice which could affect the integrity of the original text. To this spirit of caution, so unremittingly exercised by the primitive adherents to the Christian faith, it was owing that a few of the books of the New Testament which are now considered to be of equal authority with the others, were not at first acknowleged to be canonical. These, it is well known, were the Second Epistle of St. Peter, the Second and Third Epistles of St. John, the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, and the Apocalypse. It is sufficiently obvious, however, that their subsequent admission into the Canon, at no very considerable interval, must have been the result of a strict inquiry into their pretensions, and of a full conviction that they were the genuine productions of the authors to whom they are ascribed; while, at the same time, it contributes to confirm our confidence in the remainder of the New Testament, by showing the high degree of improbability that any spurious composition