Part 18

P. 106. _The eternal essence of number is the most providential principle of the universe_, &c.

The following account of the manner in which the Pythagoreans philosophized about numbers, is extracted from my Theoretic Arithmetic, and the information contained in it is principally derived from the great Syrianus.

“The Pythagoreans, turning from the vulgar paths, and delivering their philosophy in secret to those alone who were worthy to receive it, exhibited it to others through mathematical names. Hence, they called forms, numbers, as things which are the first separated from impartible union; for the natures which are above forms, are also above separation.[103] The all-perfect multitude of forms, therefore, they obscurely signified through the duad; but they indicated the first formal principles by the monad and duad, as not being numbers; and also by the first triad and tetrad, as being the first numbers, the one being odd, and the other even, from which by addition the decad is generated; for the sum of 1, 2, 3, and 4, is ten. But after numbers, in secondary and multifarious lives, introducing geometrical prior to physical magnitudes; these also they referred to numbers, as to formal causes and the principles of these; referring the point indeed, as being impartible, to the monad; but a line, as the first interval, to the duad; and again, a superficies, as having a more abundant interval, to the triad; and a solid to the tetrad. They also called, as is evident from the testimony of Aristotle, the first length the duad; for it is not simply length, but the _first_ length, in order that by this they might signify _cause_. In a similar manner also, they denominated the _first_ breadth, the triad; and the _first_ depth the tetrad. They also referred to formal principles all psychical knowledge. And intellectual knowledge indeed, as being contracted according to impartible union, they referred to the monad; but scientific knowledge, as being evolved, and as proceeding from cause to the thing caused, yet through the inerratic, and always through the same things, they referred to the duad; and opinion to the triad, because the power of it is not always directed to the same thing, but at one time inclines to the true, and at another to the false. And they referred sense to the tetrad, because it has an apprehension of bodies; for in the duad, indeed, there is one interval from one monad to the other; but in the triad there are two intervals from any one monad to the rest; and in the tetrad there are three. They referred, therefore, to principles every thing knowable, viz. beings, and the gnostic powers of these. But they divided beings not according to breadth, but according to depth; into intelligibles, objects of science, objects of opinion, and sensibles. In a similar manner, also, they divided knowledge into intellect, science, opinion, and sense. The extremity, therefore, of the intelligible triad, or animal itself, as it is called by Plato in the Timæus, is assumed from the division of the objects of knowledge, manifesting the intelligible order, in which forms themselves, viz. the first forms and the principles of these, are contained, viz. the idea of the one itself, of the first length, which is the duad itself, and also the ideas of the first breadth and the first depth; (for in common the term _first_ is adapted to all of them), viz. to the triad itself, and the tetrad itself.

“Again, the Pythagoreans and Plato did not denominate idea from one thing, and ideal number from another. But since the assertion is eminently true, that all things are similar to number, it is evident that number, and especially every ideal number, was denominated on account of its paradigmatic peculiarity. If any one, however, wishes to apprehend this from the appellation itself, it is easy to infer that idea was so called, from rendering as it were its participants similar to itself, and imparting to them _form_, _order_, _beauty_, and _unity_; and this in consequence of always preserving the same form, expanding its own power to the infinity of particulars, and investing with the same species its eternal participants. _Number_ also, since it imparts proportion and elegant arrangement to all things, was allotted this appellation. For the ancients, says Syrianus,[104] call to _adapt_ or _compose_ αρσαι _arsai_, whence is derived αριθμος _arithmos number_. Hence αναρσιον anarsion among the Greeks signifies _incomposite_. Hence too, those Grecian sayings, _you will adapt the balance_, _they placed number together with them_, and also _number and friendship_. From all which number was called by the Greeks _arithmos_, as that which measures and orderly arranges all things, and unites them in amicable league.

“Farther still, some of the Pythagoreans discoursed about inseparable numbers alone, i. e. numbers which are inseparable from mundane natures, but others about such as have a subsistence separate from the universe, in which as paradigms they saw those numbers are contained, which are perfected by nature. But others, making a distinction between the two, unfolded their doctrine in a more clear and perfect manner. If it be requisite, however, to speak concerning the difference of these monads, and their privation of difference, we must say that the monads which subsist in quantity, are by no means to be extended to essential numbers; but when we call essential numbers monads, we must assert that all of them mutually differ from each other by _difference_ itself, and that they possess a privation of difference from _sameness_. It is evident also, that those which are in the same order, are contained through mutual comparison, in _sameness_ rather than in difference, but that those which are in different orders are conversant with much diversity, through the dominion of _difference_.

“Again, the Pythagoreans asserted that nature produces sensibles by numbers; but then these numbers were not mathematical but physical; and as they spoke symbolically, it is not improbable that they demonstrated every property of sensibles by mathematical names. However, says Syrianus, to ascribe to them a knowledge of sensible numbers alone, is not only ridiculous, but highly impious. For they received indeed, from the theology of Orpheus, the principles of intelligible and intellectual numbers, they assigned them an abundant progression, and extended their dominion as far as to sensibles themselves.”

Again, their conceptions about mathematical and physical number, were as follow:

“As in every thing, according to the doctrine of Aristotle, one thing corresponds to matter, and another to form, in any number, as for instance the pentad, its five monads, and in short its quantity, and the number which is the subject of participation, are derived from the duad itself; but its form, i. e. the pentad itself, is from the monad; for every form is a monad, and unites its subject quantity. The pentad itself, therefore, which is a monad, proceeds from the principal monad, forms its subject quantity, which is itself formless, and connects it to its own form. For there are two principles of mathematical numbers in our souls: the monad, which comprehends in itself all the forms of numbers, and corresponds to the monad in intellectual natures; and the duad, which is a certain generative principle of infinite power, and which on this account, as being the image of the never-failing and intelligible duad, is called indefinite. While this proceeds to all things, it is not deserted in its course by the monad, but that which proceeds from the monad continually distinguishes and forms boundless quantity, gives a specific distinction to all its orderly progressions, and incessantly adorns them with forms. And as in mundane natures, there is neither any thing formless, nor any vacuum among the species of things, so likewise in mathematical number, neither is any quantity left innumerable; for thus the forming power of the monad would be vanquished by the indefinite duad, nor does any medium intervene between the consequent numbers, and the well-disposed energy of the monad.

“Neither, therefore, does the pentad consist of substance and accident, as a white man; nor of genus and difference, as man of animal and biped; nor of five monads mutually touching each other, like a bundle of wood; nor of things mingled, like a drink made from wine and honey; nor of things sustaining position, as stones by their position complete the house; nor lastly, as things numerable, for these are nothing else than

## particulars. But it does not follow that numbers themselves, because

they consist of indivisible monads, have nothing else besides monads, (for the multitude of points in continued quantity is an indivisible multitude, yet it is not on this account that there is a completion of something else from the points themselves); but this takes place because there is something in them which corresponds to matter, and something which corresponds to form. Lastly, when we unite the triad with the tetrad, we say that we make seven. The assertion, however, is not true: for monads conjoined with monads, produce indeed the subject of the number 7, but nothing more. Who then imparts the heptadic form to these monads? Who is it also that gives the form of a bed to a certain number of pieces of wood? Shall we not say that the soul of the carpenter, from the art which he possesses, fashions the wood, so as to receive the form of a bed, and that the numerative soul, from possessing in herself a monad which has the relation of a principle, gives form and subsistence to all numbers? But in this only consists the difference, that the carpenter’s art is not naturally inherent in us, and requires manual operation, because it is conversant with sensible matter; but the numerative art is naturally present with us, and is therefore possessed by all men, and has an intellectual matter which it instantaneously invests with form. And this is that which deceives the multitude, who think that the heptad is nothing besides seven monads. For the imagination of the vulgar, unless it first sees a thing unadorned, afterwards the supervening energy of the adorner, and lastly, above all the thing itself, perfect and formed, cannot be persuaded that it has two natures, one formless, the other formal, and still further, that which beyond these imparts form; but asserts, that the subject is one, and without generation. Hence, perhaps, the ancient theologists and Plato ascribed temporal generations to things without generation, and to things which are perpetually adorned, and regularly disposed, privation of order and ornament, the erroneous and the boundless, that they might lead men to the knowledge of a formal and effective cause. It is, therefore, by no means wonderful, that though seven sensible monads are never without the heptad, these should be distinguished by science, and that the former should have the relation of a subject, and be analogous to matter, but the latter should correspond to species and form.

“Again, as when water is changed into air, the water does not become air, or the subject of air, but that which was the subject of water becomes the subject of air, so when one number unites itself with another, as for instance the triad with the duad, the species or forms of the two numbers are not mingled, except in their immaterial reasons (or productive principles), in which at the same time that they are separate, they are not impeded from being united, but the quantities of the two numbers which are placed together, become the subject of the pentad. The triad, therefore, is one, and also the tetrad, even in mathematical numbers: for though in the ennead or number nine, you may conceive a first, second, and third triad, yet you see one thing thrice assumed; and in short, in the ennead there is nothing but the form of the ennead in the quantity of nine monads. But if you mentally separate its subject, (for form is impartible) you will immediately invest it with forms corresponding to its division; for our soul cannot endure to see that which is formless, unadorned, especially as she possesses the power of investing it with ornament.

“Since also separate numbers possess a demiurgic or fabricative power, which mathematical numbers imitate, the sensible world likewise contains images of those numbers by which it is adorned; so that all things are in all, but in an appropriate manner in each. The sensible world, therefore, subsists from immaterial and energetic reasons, and from more ancient causes. But those who do not admit that nature herself is full of productive powers, lest they should be obliged to double things themselves, these wonder how from things void of magnitude and gravity, magnitude and gravity are composed; though they are never composed from things of this kind which are void of gravity and magnitude, as from parts. But magnitude is generated from essentially impartible elements; since form and matter are the elements of bodies; and still much more is it generated from those truer causes which are considered in demiurgic reasons and forms. Is it not therefore necessary that all dimensions, and all moving masses, must from these receive their generation? For either bodies are unbegotten, like incorporeal natures; or of things with interval, things without interval are the causes; of partibles impartibles; and of sensibles and contraries, things insensible and void of contact: and we must assent to those who assert that things possessing magnitude are thus generated from impartibles. Hence the Pythagorean Eurytus, and his followers, beholding the images of things themselves in numbers, rightly attributed certain numbers to certain things, according to their peculiarity. In consequence of this, he said that a particular number is the boundary of this plant, and again, another number of this animal; just as of a triangle 6 is the boundary, of a square 9, and of a cube 8. As the musician, too, harmonizes his lyre through mathematical numbers, so nature through her own natural numbers, orderly arranges, and modulates her productions.

“Indeed, that numbers are participated by the heavens, and that there is a solar number, and also a lunar number, is manifest according to the adage, even to the blind. For the restitutions of the heavenly bodies to their pristine state (αποκαταστασεις) would not always be effected through the same things, and in the same manner, unless one and the same number bad dominion in each. Yet all these contribute to the procession of the celestial spheres, and are contained by their perfect number. But there is also a certain natural number belonging to every animal. For things of the same species would not be distinguished by organs after the same manner, nor would they arrive at puberty and old age about the same time, or generate, nor would the fœtus be nourished or increase, according to regular periods, unless they were detained by the same measure of nature. According to the best of the Pythagoreans also, Plato himself, number is the cause of better and worse generations. Hence though the Pythagoreans sometimes speak of the squares and cubes of natural numbers, they do not make them to be monadic, such as the number 9, and the number 27; but they signify through these names, from similitude, the progression of natural numbers into, and dominion about, generations. In like manner, though they call them equal or double, they exhibit the dominion and symphony of ideas in these numbers. Hence different things do not use the same number, so far as they are different, nor do the same things use a different number, so far as they are the same.

“In short, physical numbers are material forms divided about the subject which receives them. But material powers are the sources of connexion and modification to bodies. For form is one thing, and the power proceeding from it another. For form itself is indeed impartible and essential; but being extended, and becoming bulky, it emits from itself, as if it were a blast, material powers which are certain qualities. Thus, for instance, in fire, the form and essence of it is impartible, and is truly the image of the cause of fire: for in partible natures, the impartible has a subsistence. But from form which is impartible in fire, and which subsists in it as number, an extension of it accompanied with interval takes place about matter, from which the powers of fire are emitted, such as heat, or refrigeration, or moisture, or something else of the like kind. And these qualities are indeed essential, but are by no means the essence of fire. For essences do not proceed from qualities, nor are essence and power the same thing. But the essential every where precedes power. And from this being one the multitude of powers proceeds, and the distributed from that which is undistributed; just as many energies are the progeny of one power.”

P. 107. _For Pythagoras always proclaimed, that nothing admirable pertaining to the Gods or divine dogmas, should be disbelieved._

This in the Protreptics forms the fourth symbol, and is thus explained by Iamblichus:—“This dogma sufficiently venerates and unfolds the transcendency of the Gods, affording us a viaticum, and recalling to our memory that we ought not to estimate divine power from our judgment. But it is likely that some things should appear difficult and impossible to us, in consequence of our corporeal subsistence, and from our being conversant with generation and corruption; from our having a momentary existence; from being subject to a variety of diseases; from the smallness of our habitation; from our gravitating tendency to the middle; from our somnolency, indigence and repletion; from our want of counsel and our imbecility; from the impediments of our soul, and a variety of other circumstances, although our nature possesses many illustrious prerogatives. At the same time however we perfectly fall short of the Gods, and neither possess the same power with them, nor equal virtue. This symbol therefore in a particular manner introduces the knowledge of the Gods, as beings who are able to effect all things. On this account it exhorts us to disbelieve nothing concerning the Gods. It also adds, nor about divine dogmas; viz. those belonging to the Pythagoric philosophy. For these being secured by disciplines and scientific theory, are alone true and free from falsehood, being corroborated by all-various demonstration, accompanied with necessity. The same symbol, also, is capable of exhorting us to the science concerning the Gods: for it urges us to acquire a science of that kind, through which we shall be in no respect deficient in things asserted about the Gods. It is also able to exhort the same things concerning divine dogmas, and a disciplinative progression. For disciplines alone give eyes to, and produce light about, all things, in him who intends to consider and survey them. For from the participation of disciplines, one thing before all others is effected, viz. a belief in the nature, essence, and power of the Gods, and also in those Pythagoric dogmas, which appear to be prodigious to such as have not been introduced to, and are uninitiated in, disciplines; So that the precept _disbelieve not_ is equivalent to _participate_ and _acquire_ those things through which you will not disbelieve; that is to say, acquire disciplines and scientific demonstrations.”

P. 88. _After this manner therefore it is said that music was discovered by Pythagoras._

The following particulars relative to music are added for the purpose of elucidating what is said about it in this chapter.

“Take two brazen chords, such as are used in harps; for those chords which are made from the intestines of sheep are for the most part either false or obnoxious to the change of the air,

[Illustration: A—————————B C—————————D | E]

“Let these chords be perfectly equal, and equally stretched, so as to be in unison, i. e. so that there may be only one sound, though there are two strings. But it is requisite that they should be placed upon some oblong and polished rule. The ancients called this rule an harmonic rule, or also a monochord, by which instrument all consonances and dissonances, and likewise musical intervals, were tried. Let now one of these chords be bisected in E. Afterwards under the point E place what is vulgarly called the _tactus_, but which was denominated by the ancients, from its figure, a hemisphere. The tactus, therefore, being placed under E, press there the chord, so that one half of it only, as for instance ED, may be wholly struck and resound. Having therefore struck each of the chords at the same time, viz. the whole of AB, and the half ED, so that they may resound at one and the same time, you will hear the sweetest of all consonances, composed from the sound of the whole chord AB, and the sound of the half ED. This consonance the ancients called diapason, i. e. _through all_ [the chords], because in the musical instruments of the ancients, the two extreme chords, i. e. the most grave, and the most acute of all the chords, contained this consonance; so that, from the gravest chord having made a transition through all the chords to the supreme and most acute of all, they would hear this sweetest consonance. It was, likewise, said to be in a duple ratio of the proportion of one sound to the other. For the sound of the chord AB is doubly greater or more grave than the sound of the half ED. For as sounding bodies are to each other, so are their sounds. But the chord AB is the double of ED. This, however, is now commonly called the octave, because from the first sound, and that the gravest, which is called _ut_, as far as to that sound which corresponds to it in the consonance diapason, there are these eight sounds, _ut_, _re_, _mi_, _fa_, _sol_, _re_, _mi_, _fa_. And of these the first ut, and the last _fa_, which is the eighth, produce the consonance diapason, or the double, or the octave.

“Again, let the same chord CD be divided into three equal parts in the points F, G.

[Illustration: A————————————B C————————————D | | F G]

“FD, therefore, will be two-thirds as well of the whole CD as of the whole AB. Let the tactus now be placed in F, and let AB and FD be struck at the same time, and a consonance very sweet and perfect will indeed be heard, yet not so sweet as the diapason. This the ancients called diapente (i. e. through five chords), because the first and the fifth chord produce this consonance. But according to proportion it is called sesquialter, because the chord AB is sesquialter to FD, and consequently the sounds of these chords also are in the same ratio. But sesquialter ratio is when the greater quantity AB contains the less FD once, and the half of it besides. It is, indeed, commonly called the fifth, because it is composed from the first sound _ut_, and the fifth, _sol_.

“Again, let the same chord be cut into four equal parts in the points H, E, I,

[Illustration: A——————————————————————————B C——————————————————————————D | | | | | | | | | K L H F M N E G I]