Part 7

It is requisite, likewise, to add a proper measure conformably to the general use of appellations, calling indeed cousins, uncles and aunts, by the name of brothers, fathers and mothers; but of other kindred, to denominate some uncles, others the children of brothers or sisters, and others cousins, according to the difference of age, for the sake of the abundant extension which there is in names. For this mode of appellation will be no obscure indication of our sedulous attention to each of these relatives; and at the same time will incite, and extend us in a greater degree, to the contraction as it were of the above mentioned circles. But as we have proceeded thus far in our discussion, it will not be unseasonable to recall to our memory the distinction with respect to parents, which we before made. For in that place in which we compared mother with father, we said that it was requisite to attribute more of love to a mother, and more of honour to a father; and conformably to this, we shall here add, that it is fit to have more love for those who are connected with us by a maternal alliance, but to pay more honour to those who are related to us by a paternal affinity.

ON ECONOMICS.

Prior to all things, it is requisite to speak of the works through which the union of a family is preserved. These, therefore, are to be divided after the accustomed manner; viz. rural, forensic, and political works are to be attributed to the husband; but to the wife, such works as pertain to spinning wool, making of bread, cooking, and, in short, every thing of a domestic nature. Nevertheless, it is not fit that the one should be entirely exempt from the works of the other. For sometimes it will be proper when the wife is in the country that she should superintend the labourers, and perform the office of the master of the house; and that the husband should sometimes convert his attention to domestic affairs; and partly inquire about, and partly inspect what is doing in the house. For thus, what pertains to the mutual association of both will be more firmly connected by their joint participation of necessary cares. Since, however, our discussion has extended thus far, it appears to me that I ought not to omit to mention manual operations; for it will not be incongruous to add this also to what has been said about works.

What occasion, therefore, is there to say, that it is fit the man should meddle with agricultural labours? For there are not many by whom this will not be admitted. But though so much luxury and idleness occupies the life of men of the present day, yet it is rare to find one who is not willing to engage in the labour of sowing and planting; and to be employed in other works which pertain to agriculture. Perhaps, however, the arguments will be much less persuasive, which call on the man to engage in those other works which belong to the woman. For such men as pay great attention to neatness and cleanliness will not conceive the spinning of wool to be their business: since, for the most part, vile diminutive men, and the tribe of such as are delicate and effeminate apply themselves to the elaboration of wool, through an emulation of feminine softness. But it does not become a man, who is truly so called, to apply himself to things of this kind; so that neither shall I, perhaps, advise those to engage in such employments, who have not given perfectly credible indications of their virility and modesty. What, therefore, should hinder the man from partaking of the works which pertain to a woman, whose past life has been such as to free him from all suspicion of absurd and effeminate conduct? For in other domestic works, is it not thought that more of them pertain to men than to women? For they are more laborious, and require corporeal strength, such as to grind, to knead meal, to cut wood, to draw water from a well, to transfer large vessels from one place to another; to shake coverlets and carpets, and every other work similar to these. And it will be sufficient, indeed, for these things to be performed by men. But it is also fit that some addition should be made to the legitimate work of a woman, so that she may not only engage with her maid servants in the spinning of wool, but may also apply herself to other more virile works. For it appears to me that the making of bread, the drawing of water [from a well], the lighting of fires, the making of beds, and every other work similar to these are the proper employments of a freeborn woman. But a wife will seem much more beautiful to her husband, and especially if she is young, and not yet worn out by the bearing of children, if she becomes his associate in gathering grapes, and collecting olives; and if he is verging to old age, she will render herself more pleasing to him, by partaking with him of the labour of sowing and ploughing, and extending to him, while he is digging or planting, the instruments proper for such works. For when a family is governed after this manner by the husband and wife, so far as pertains to necessary works, it appears to me that it will be conducted in this respect in the best manner.

THE END.

C. Whittingham, College House, Chiswick.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Dissertation on Phalaris, p. 273.

[2] In Lib. de Philosophorum Sectis.

[3] The following extract from Bentley’s Eighth Sermon at Boyle’s Lectures, sufficiently shows the doctor’s deficiency in intellect. “Nor do we count it any absurdity, that such a vast and immense universe should be made for the sole use of such mean and unworthy creatures as the children of men. For if we consider the dignity of an intelligent being, and put that in the scales against brute inanimate matter, we may affirm, without overvaluing human nature, that the soul of one virtuous and religious man is of greater worth and excellency than the sun and his planets, and all the stars in the world.” For this opinion is not only stupid and arrogant in the extreme, but is also contrary to the doctrine of the Scriptures, of which the doctor was a teacher. For as I have observed in p. 13 of the Introduction to my translation of Proclus On the Theology of Plato, “the stars are not called Gods by the Jewish legislator, as things inanimate like statues fashioned of wood or stone.” This is evident from what is said in the book of Job, and the Psalms. “Behold even the moon and it shineth not, yea the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man that is a worm, and the son of man which is a worm?” (Job, xxv. v. 5 and 6). And, “When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained; what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him.” (Psalm viii. v. 3 and 4.) It is evident, therefore, from these passages, that the heavens and the stars are more excellent than man; but nothing inanimate can be more excellent than that which is animated. To which may be added, that in the following verse David says, that God has made man a little lower than the angels. But the stars, as I have demonstrated in the above mentioned Introduction, were considered by Moses as angels and Gods; and consequently they are animated beings, and superior to man.

Farther still, it is said in Psalm xi. v. 4, that “the Lord’s throne is in heaven.” And again, in Isaiah, chap. lxvi. v. 1. “Thus saith the Lord, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.” If, therefore, the heavens are the throne of Deity, they must evidently be deified. For nothing can come into immediate contact with divinity, without being divine. Hence, says Simplicius, (in Comment in Lib. ii. de Cælo.) “That it is connascent with the human soul to think the celestial bodies are divine, is especially evident from those (the Jews), who look to these bodies through preconceptions about divine natures. For they also say that the heavens are the habitation of God, and the throne of God, and are alone sufficient to reveal the glory and excellence of God to those who are worthy; than which assertions what can be more venerable?”

Indeed, that the heavens are not the inanimate throne and residence of Deity, is also evident from the assertion in the nineteenth Psalm, that “the heavens declare the glory of God.” For R. Moses, a very learned Jew, (See Gaffarel’s Unheard-of Curiosities, p. 391.) says, “that the word _saphar_ to _declare_, or _set forth_, is never attributed to things inanimate.” Hence he concludes, “that the heavens are not without some soul; which, says he, is no other than that of those blessed intelligences who govern the stars, and dispose them into such letters as God has ordained; _declaring_ unto us men, by means of this writing, what events we are to expect. And hence this same writing is called by all the ancients, _chetab hamelachim_; that is to say, _the writing of the angels_.”

[4] In the Fragments of his Life of Isidorus the Platonist, preserved by Photius. The greater part of what Suidas has said about Hierocles is taken from these memoirs of Isidorus.

[5] The discourses of Socrates in Plato.

[6] For so the Christians were called by the heathens, when the religion of the latter was rapidly declining, and that of the former had gained the ascendency. Thus Porphyry, in a passage preserved by Theodoret, (in lib. i. De Curat. Græc. Superst.) Χαλκοδετος γαρ η προς θεους οδος, αιπεινη τε και τραχεια, ης πολλας ατραπους Βαρβαροι μεν εξευρον, Ελληνες δε επλανηθησαν, οι δε κρατουντες ηδη και διεφθειραν. i.e. “For the way which leads to the Gods is bound with chains of brass, and is arduous and rough, many paths of which were indeed discovered by the Barbarians; but the Greeks have wandered from them, and they are entirely corrupted by _those who now prevail_.”

This passage of Porphyry, derived its origin from the following oracle of Apollo, preserved by Eusebius:

Αιπεινη γαρ οδος μακαρων τρηχεια τε πολλον, Χαλκοδετοις τα πρωτα διοιγομενη πυλεωσιν. Ατραπετοι δε εασσιν αθεσφατοι εγγεγαυιαι, Ας πρωτοι μεροπων επ’ απειρονα πρηξιν εφηναν Οι το καλον πινοντες υδωρ Νειλωτιδος αιης· Πολλας και Φοινικες οδους μακαρων εδαησαν, Ασσυριοι Λυδοι τε, και Εβραιων γενος ανδρων.

But for Εβραιων, in the last line, I read Χαλδαιων, it not being at all reasonable to suppose that an oracle of Apollo would say that the Hebrews knew many paths which led to the knowledge of the Gods. It is probable, therefore, that either Aristobulus the Jew, well known for interpolating the writings of the heathens, or the wicked Eusebius, as he is called by the Emperor Julian, has fraudulently substituted the former word for the latter. The Oracle, with this emendation, will be in English as follows:

The path by which to deity we climb Is arduous, rough, ineffable, sublime; And the strong massy gates, through which we pass In our first course, are bound with chains of brass. Those men the first who of Egyptian birth Drank the fair water of Nilotic earth, Disclosed by actions infinite this road, And many paths to God Phœnicians show’d. This road the Assyrians pointed out to view, And this the Lydians and Chaldeans knew.

But when Porphyry says that the Greeks have wandered from the path which leads to divinity, he alludes to their worshipping men as Gods; which, as I have shown in the Introduction to my translation of Proclus On the Theology of Plato, is contrary to the genuine doctrine of the heathen religion; and was the cause of its corruption, and final extinction, among the Greeks and Romans.

[7] Odyss. lib. ix. v. 347.

[8] Fragments of this work are to be found in Photius. But they are fragments of a treatise or treatises, On _Providence, Fate, and Free Will_.

[9] An adept in the philosophy of Plato will at once be convinced of the truth of this assertion, by comparing what Hierocles has said about prayer in his Commentary On the Golden Verses of the Pythagoreans, with what is said respecting it by Iamblichus, in his Treatise on the Mysteries; and by Proclus, at the beginning of the second book of his Commentary On the Timæus of Plato. See the Introduction to the second Alcibiades, in Vol. 4. of my translation of Plato, and the Notes to my translation of Maximus Tyrius; in which the reader will find what Iamblichus, Proclus, and Hierocles have said on this subject. And that he was not consummately accurate in his knowledge, will be evident by comparing what he says in his above mentioned Commentary, about that middle order of beings denominated _the illustrious heroes_, with what Iamblichus and Proclus have most admirably unfolded concerning them. And this will still more plainly appear from what he says about the celebrated _tetrad_, or _tetractys_ of the Pythagoreans, in p. 166, and 170, of the same Commentary. For in both these places, he clearly asserts, that this tetrad is the same with the _Demiurgus_, or _maker_ of _the universe_. Thus, in the former of these places και την τετραδα πηγην της αιδιου διακοσμησεως, αποφαινεται την αυτην ουσαν τῳ δημιουργῳ θεῳ. i.e. “And the author of these verses shows that the tetrad, which is the fountain of the perpetual orderly distribution of things, is the same with the God who is the Demiurgus.” And in the latter passage, εστι γαρ ως εφαμεν, δημιουργος των ολων και αιτια η τετρας, θεος νοητος, αιτιος του ουρανιου και αισθητου θεου. i.e. “For as we have said, the tetrad is the Demiurgus and cause of the wholes of the universe, being an intelligible God, the source of the celestial and sensible God.” The tetrad, however, or the _animal itself_, (το αυτωζωον) of Plato; who, as Syrianus justly observes, was the best of the Pythagoreans; subsists at the extremity of the _intelligible_ triad, as is most satisfactorily shown by Proclus in the third book of his Treatise On the Theology, and in the fourth book of his Commentary On the Timæus of Plato. But the Demiurgus, as it is demonstrated by the same incomparable man, in the fifth book of the former of these works, subsists at the extremity of the _intellectual_ triad. And between these two triads another order of Gods exists, which is denominated _intelligible, and at the same time intellectual_, as partaking of both the extremes. The English reader who has a genius for such speculations, will be convinced of this by diligently perusing my translations of the above mentioned works. Notwithstanding, however, the knowledge of Hierocles was not so consummately accurate on certain most abstruse theological dogmas as that of Iamblichus, Proclus, and Damascius, yet where ethics are concerned, his notions are most correct, most admirable, and sublime.

[10] Thus, too, Plato in his Laws mingles his polity from a democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. He was, however, decidedly of opinion, as is evident from his Politicus, that the best form of government is that in which either one man, who is a most excellent character, is the supreme ruler, or a few excellent men rule conjointly.

[11] In the original there is only πρωτος ὦν ο νομος, which is evidently defective; but by adding εμψυχος the sense will be complete. And in what immediately follows τουτω γαρ ο μεν βασιλευς νομιμος which also is defective, Gesner adds τηρησει after τουτω γαρ, but he should doubtless have added ει τηρησει.

[12] _i.e._ To a perfect subjugation of the passions to reason, and not to a perfect insensibility, as is stupidly supposed by many who do not understand the proper meaning of the word _apathy_, as used by the Pythagoreans, Platonists, and Stoics.

[13] The original is, I conceive, evidently defective in this place; for it is, ουτε γαρ γα τως αυτως καρπως, ουτε ψυχα ανθρωπων ταν αυταν αρεταν παραδεξασθαι δυναται. It appears, therefore, to me, that πανταχου should be added after καρπως, and that for ουτε ψυχα we should read ουτε πασα ψυχα.

[14] Among the Lacedæmonians the three men were thus denominated, who were chosen by the Ephori to preside over the equestrian order. But the ephori were magistrates corresponding to the _tribunes_ of the people among the Romans.

[15] In the original, α μεν γαρ πλεονεκτια γινεται περι το αγουμενον μερος τας ψυχας· λογικα γαρ α επιθυμια. But for αγουμενον, I read αλογον; and for λογικα, it is necessary to read ου λογικα. For the vices, according to the Pythagoreans, subsist about the irrational part of the soul, which consists, according to them, as well as according to Plato, of _anger_ and _desire_. Hence Metopus, the Pythagorean, says: “Since there are two parts of the soul, the rational and the irrational, the latter is divided into the irascible and the appetitive. And the rational part, indeed, is that by which we judge and contemplate; but the irrational part is that by which we are impelled and desire.” See my translation of Pythagoric Ethical Fragments, at the end of my translation of Iamblichus’ Life of Pythagoras.

[16] I here read, with Victorius, κατ’ οικειοτατα εγγενη, for και οικειοτατον εν γενοιν.

[17] This sentence within the brackets is not to be found in Stobæus.

[18] i.e. God is not in want of ministers or servants to assist him in the government of the universe: for he produces and provides for all things at once by his own immediate energy. But the cooperation of subordinate divine powers with him is necessary to the proper participation of him by the different beings which the universe contains.

[19] For οι μιμευμενοι των αυτων in this place, I read οι μιμευμενοι τον αυτον.

[20] Instead of ενιοτε here, I read παντοτε.

[21] Conformably to this, Plato also in the Politicus says: “It is requisite to call him royal who possesses the royal science, whether he governs or not.”

[22] Plato says somewhere (I think in his Laws), that a greater evil than impudence cannot befall either cities or individuals.

[23] _i.e._ The seed which pertains to the propagation of his children.

[24] _i.e._ To his children while they live in his house under his protection and are unmarried; and who are in danger through having a stepmother of losing that property which ought to be theirs on the death of their father.

[25] Pæan is a song of rejoicing, which was sung at festivals and on other occasions, in honour of Apollo, for having slain the serpent Python.

[26] A kind of harp beaten with sticks.

[27] In the original ουρανιον ζωον a _celestial_ animal; but as Callicratidas is here speaking of the Demiurgus, or artificer of the universe, who is an _intellectual_ god, for ουρανιον I read νοερον. For the Demiurgus is the maker, and not one of the celestial gods. But he is called an _animal_, as being the cause of _life_ to all things. Thus, too, Aristotle, in the 12th book of his Metaphysics, says, “that God is an animal eternal and most excellent.”

[28] This Perictyone is different from her who was the mother of Plato.

[29] In this extract no mention whatever is made of the harmony of a woman; for it wholly consists of the duty of children to their parents.

[30] και νοσῳ is omitted in the original, but ought, as it appears to me, to be inserted.

[31] It is well observed by Olympiodorus, on the Phædo of Plato, “that the soul is not punished by divinity through anger but medicinally; and that by eternity of punishment we must understand punishment commensurate with the soul’s partial period; because souls that have committed the greatest offences cannot be sufficiently purified in one period.”

[32] For φρονεειν in this place, which is evidently erroneous, I read φθονεειν.

[33] The whole of this extract is to be found in the fourth book of Plato’s Laws. (See tom. viii. p. 187, and 188, of the Bipont edition.) But there is occasionally some little difference between the text of Plato and that of Aristoxenus, as the critical reader will easily discover. Neither Fabricius nor the editors of Stobæus have noticed the source of this extract.

[34] The whole of this extract is taken from the eleventh book of Plato’s Laws, but what is there said is here somewhat amplified.

[35] See p. 137, and 138, of my Translation of Iamblichus on the Mysteries.

[36] Iliad IX. v. 495. 6. 7.

[37] Iliad IX. v. 493. Hierocles is mistaken in saying that poetry _rashly asserts that the Gods are flexible_. For as I have observed in my Notes to Iamblichus on the Mysteries, divine flexibility indicates in Homer, and other theological poets of antiquity, that those who through depravity become unadapted to receive the illuminations of the Gods, when they afterwards obtain pardon of their guilt through prayers and sacrifices, again become partakers of the goodness of the Gods. So that divine flexibility is a resumption of the participation of divine light and goodness, by those who through inaptitude were before deprived of it.

[38] See on this most interesting subject, that divinity is not the cause of evil, my translation of the Fragments of Proclus on the Subsistence of Evil, at the end of my translation of his six books On the Theology of Plato.

[39] See Odyss. I. v. 32, 33, 34.

[40] See the first book of his Republic.

[41] i.e. Such things as are neither really good, nor really evil, but media between these.

[42] After this last sentence, the words ταυτα χρη, follow in the original; which evidently show that something is wanting: as they are only the beginning of another sentence. This defect, however, is supplied in my copy of Stobæus, (Eclog. Ethic. lib. II. p. 207), by some one in manuscript, as follows: ταυτα χρη προνοειν, μη δια νου τυφλοτητα και αγνωμοσυνην, τα (lege ταυτα) ημιν απαντασωσι; and he has also added the following Latin translation of these words: “Hæc oportet prospicere ne per mentis cæcitatem et ignorantiam hæc nobis occurrant.” But the addition, from whatever source it was obtained, does not appear to me to be at all apposite; and therefore I conceive it to be spurious.

[43] This is true of the whole which consists of parts, so as not to be able to subsist without them. For whole has a triple substance; viz. it is either prior to parts, or in other words, is a whole containing parts causally; or it consists of parts; or is in a part, so that a part, also, becomes a whole according to participation. A city, therefore, is a whole consisting of parts, any part of which being absent, diminishes the whole. See Prop. 67 of my translation of Proclus’ Elements of Theology; and the second book of my translation of Proclus on the Timæus.

[44] When the intelligent reader considers that Hierocles flourished about the middle of the fifth century after Christ, he will immediately understand what the _recent customs_ are to which Hierocles, in the above passage, alludes. Needham, in his translation of this passage, either did not understand the meaning of it, or wilfully omitted to translate it.