Part 1

SELECT WORKS OF PORPHYRY;

CONTAINING HIS FOUR BOOKS ON ABSTINENCE FROM ANIMAL FOOD; HIS TREATISE ON THE HOMERIC CAVE OF THE NYMPHS; AND HIS AUXILIARIES TO THE PERCEPTION OF INTELLIGIBLE NATURES.

_TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK_

BY THOMAS TAYLOR.

WITH AN APPENDIX, EXPLAINING THE ALLEGORY OF THE WANDERINGS OF ULYSSES. BY THE TRANSLATOR.

Και ουτω θεων και ανθρωπων θειων και ευδαιμονων βιος, απαλλαγη των αλλων των τῃδε, ανηδονος των τῃδε, φυγη μονου προς μονον.—PLOTINI Op. p. 771.

LONDON: PRINTED FOR THOMAS RODD, 17, GREAT NEWPORT STREET. 1823.

LONDON: PRINTED BY J. MOYES, GREVILLE STREET.

TO

THE REV. WILLIAM JOHN JOLLIFFE,

AS A TESTIMONY OF GREAT ESTEEM FOR HIS TALENTS AND WORTH,

AND A TRIBUTE OF THE WARMEST GRATITUDE FOR HIS PATRONAGE,

THIS WORK IS DEDICATED

_BY THE TRANSLATOR_,

THOMAS TAYLOR.

INTRODUCTION.

Porphyry, the celebrated author of the treatises translated in this volume, was dignified by his contemporaries, and by succeeding Platonists, with the appellation of _the philosopher_, on account of his very extraordinary philosophical attainments. He is likewise called by Simplicius, _the most learned of the philosophers_, and is praised by Proclus for his ιεροπρεπη νοηματα, or _conceptions adapted to sanctity_; the truth of all which appellations is by the following treatises most abundantly and manifestly confirmed.

A few biographical particulars only have been transmitted to us respecting this great man, and these are as follow. He was born at Tyre, in the twelfth year of the reign of the Emperor Alexander Severus, and in the two hundred and thirty-third of the Christian era; and he died at Rome, when he was more than seventy years old, in the latter part of the Emperor Dioclesian’s reign. He was also a disciple first of Longinus, and afterwards of the great Plotinus, with whom he became acquainted in the thirtieth year of his age; and it is to Porphyry we are indebted for the publication of the inestimable and uncommonly profound works of that most extraordinary man. For, as I have observed in my History of the Restoration of the Platonic Theology, it was a long time before Plotinus committed his thoughts to writing, and gave the world a copy of his inimitable mind. That light which was destined to illuminate the philosophical world, as yet shone with solitary splendour, or beamed only on a beloved few; and it was through Porphyry alone that it at length emerged from its sanctuary, and displayed its radiance in full perfection, and with unbounded diffusion. For Porphyry, in the language of Eunapius, “like a Mercurial chain let down for the benefit of mortals, unfolded every thing with accuracy and clearness, by the assistance of universal erudition.”

We are likewise informed, by the same Eunapius, that Porphyry, when he first associated with Plotinus, bade farewell to all his other preceptors, and totally applied himself to the friendship of that wonderful man. Here he filled his mind with science, as from a perennial and never-satiating fount. But afterwards, being conquered, as it were, by the magnitude of his doctrines, he conceived a hatred of body, and could no longer endure the fetters of mortality.—“Hence,” says he[1], “I formed an intention of destroying myself, which Plotinus wonderfully perceived; and as I was walking home, stood before me, and said, _Your present design, O Porphyry, is not the dictate of a sound intellect, but rather of a soul raging with an atrabilarious fury_. In consequence of this he ordered me to depart from Rome; and accordingly I went to Sicily, having heard that a certain worthy and elegant man dwelt at that time about Lilybæum. And thus, indeed, I was liberated from this perturbation of soul; but was, in the meantime, hindered from being with Plotinus till his death.”

Porphyry also maintains a very distinguished rank among those great geniuses who contributed to the development of the genuine dogmas of Plato, after they had been lost for upwards of five hundred years; as I have shown in my above-mentioned History of the Restoration of the Platonic Theology. Among these dogmas, that which is transcendently important is this,—that the ineffable principle of things, which is denominated by Plato _the good_ and _the one_, is something superior to intellect and being itself. This, as we are informed by Proclus, was demonstrated by Porphyry, by many powerful and beautiful arguments, in his treatise Concerning Principles, which is unfortunately lost. And this dogma, which was derived principally from the 6th book of the Republic, and the Parmenides, of Plato, and was adopted by all succeeding Platonists, is copiously unfolded, and the truth of it supported by reasoning replete with what Plato calls geometrical necessities, by those two great philosophical luminaries Proclus and Damascius[2]; the former of whom was the Coryphæus of the Platonists, and the latter possessed a profoundly investigating mind.

Of the disciples of Porphyry the most celebrated was Iamblichus, a man of an uncommonly penetrating genius, and who, like his master Plato, on account of the sublimity of his conceptions, and his admirable proficiency in theological learning, was surnamed _the divine_. This extraordinary man, though zealously attached to the Platonic philosophy, yet explored the wisdom of other sects, particularly of the Pythagoreans, Egyptians, and Chaldeans; and formed one beautiful system of recondite knowledge, from their harmonious conjunction[3].

With respect to the works of Porphyry which are translated in this volume, the first, which is _On Abstinence from Animal Food_, is a treatise not only replete with great erudition, but is remarkable for the purity of life which it inculcates, and the sanctity of conception with which it abounds. At the same time it must be remembered, that it was written solely, as Porphyry himself informs us, with a view to the man who wishes in the present life to liberate himself as much as possible from the fetters of the corporeal nature, in order that he may elevate his intellectual eye to the contemplation of _truly-existing being_ (το οντως ον,) and may establish himself in deity as in his paternal port[4]. But such a one, as he beautifully observes, must divest himself of every thing of a mortal nature which he has assumed, must withdraw himself from sense and imagination, and the irrationality with which they are attended, and from an adhering affection and passion towards them; and must enter the stadium naked and unclothed, striving for the most glorious of all prizes, the Olympia of the soul[5]. Hence, says he, “my discourse is not directed to those who are occupied in sordid mechanical arts, nor to those who are engaged in athletic exercises; neither to soldiers nor sailors, nor rhetoricians, _nor to those who lead an active life_[6]; but I write to the man who considers what he is, whence he came, and whither he ought to tend, and who, in what pertains to nutriment and other necessary concerns, is different from those who propose to themselves other kinds of life; _for to none but such as these do I direct my discourse_[7].” This treatise, also, is highly valuable for the historical information which it contains, independently of the philosophical beauties with which it abounds.

The _Explanation of the Homeric Cave of the Nymphs_, which follows next, is not only remarkable for the great erudition which it displays, but also for containing some profound arcana of the mythology and symbolical theology of the Greeks.

And the third treatise, which is denominated _Auxiliaries to the Perception of Intelligibles_, may be considered as an excellent introduction to the works of Plotinus in general, from which a great part of it is extracted, and in particular, to the following books of that most sublime genius, viz. On the Virtues[8]; On the Impassivity of Incorporeal Natures[9]; and On Truly-Existing Being, in which it is demonstrated that such being is every where one and the same whole[10]. This Porphyrian treatise, also, is admirably calculated to afford assistance to the student of the Theological Elements of Proclus, a work never to be sufficiently praised for the scientific accuracy, profundity of conception, and luminous development of the most important dogmas, which it displays.

In the fourth place, Porphyry, in his treatise On the Cave of the Nymphs, having informed us, that Numenius, the Pythagorean, considered the person of Ulysses, in the Odyssey, as the image of a man who passes in a regular manner over the stormy sea of generation, or a sensible life, and thus at length arrives at a region where tempest and seas are unknown, and finds a nation

“Who ne’er knew salt, or heard the billows roar:”

I have endeavoured, by the assistance of this intimation, to unfold, in the Appendix which concludes the work, the secret meaning of the allegory; and, I trust, in a way which will not be deemed by the intelligent reader either visionary or vain.

With respect to the translation of the treatises, I have endeavoured faithfully to preserve both the matter and manner of the author; and have availed myself of the best editions of them, and, likewise, of all the information which appeared to me to be most important, and most appropriate, from the remarks of critics and philologists, but especially from the elucidations of philosophers. This, I trust, will be evident from a perusal of the notes which accompany the translation.

Of all the other writings of Porphyry, besides those translated in this volume, few unfortunately have been preserved entire[11], the greater part of what remains of them being fragments. Among these fragments, however, there is one very important, lately found by Angelus Maius, and published by him, Mediol. 1816, 8vo. It is nearly the whole of the Epistle of Porphyry to his wife Marcella, in which I have discovered the original of many of the Sentences of the celebrated Sextus Pythagoricus[12], which have been hitherto supposed to be alone extant in the fraudulent Latin version of the Presbyter Ruffinus. And for an account of the other entire works and fragments that are extant, and also of the lost writings of Porphyry, I refer the reader to the Bibliotheca Græca of Fabricius, and to my before-mentioned History of the Restoration of the Platonic Theology; in which latter work, in speaking of Porphyry’s lost treatise on the Reascent of the Soul, I have given a long and most interesting extract relative to that treatise, from Synesius on Dreams.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] In Vit. Plotin.

[2] See the 2d book of my translation of Proclus on the Theology of Plato, and the Introduction to my translation of Plato, and notes on the 3d volume of that translation.

[3] See my translation of his Life of Pythagoras, and also of his treatise on the Mysteries. The Emperor Julian says of Iamblichus, “that he was posterior in time, but not in genius, to Plato himself.”

[4] Such a man as this, is arranged by Plotinus in the class of _divine men_, in the following extract from my translation of his treatise on Intellect, Ideas, and Real Being, Ennead V. 9. The extract, which is uncommonly beautiful in the original, forms the beginning of the treatise. “Since all men, from their birth, employ sense prior to intellect, and are necessarily first conversant with sensibles, some, proceeding no farther, pass through life, considering these as the first and last of things, and apprehending, that whatever is painful among these, is evil, and whatever is pleasant, is good; thus, thinking it sufficient to pursue the one and avoid the other. Those, too, among them, who pretend to a greater share of reason than others, esteem this to be wisdom; being affected in a manner similar to more heavy birds, who, collecting many things from the earth, and being oppressed with the weight, are unable to fly on high, though they have received wings for this purpose from nature. But others are in a small degree elevated from things subordinate, the more excellent part of the soul recalling them from pleasure to a more worthy pursuit. As they are, however, unable to look on high, and as not possessing any thing else which can afford them rest, they betake themselves, together with the name of virtue, to actions and the election of things inferior, from which they at first endeavoured to raise themselves, though in vain. _In the third class is the race of divine men_, who through a more excellent power, and with piercing eyes, acutely perceive supernal light, to the vision of which they raise themselves, above the clouds and darkness, as it were, of this lower world, and there abiding, despise every thing in these regions of sense; being no otherwise delighted with the place which is truly and properly their own, than he who, after many wanderings, is at length restored to his lawful country.”

[5] Page 23.

[6] The translator of this work, and of the other treatises contained in this volume, having been so circumstanced, that he has been obliged to mingle the active with the contemplative life (μετα θεωρητικου νου πολιτευομενος) in acquiring for himself a knowledge of the philosophy of Plato, and disseminating that philosophy for the good of others, has also found it expedient to make use of a fleshy diet. Nothing, however, but an imperious necessity, from causes which it would be superfluous to detail at present, could have induced him to adopt animal, instead of vegetable nutriment. But though he has been nurtured in Eleatic and Academic studies, yet it has not been in Academic bowers.

[7] Page 19.

[8] Ennead I. 2.

[9] Ennead III. 6.

[10] Ennead VI. lib. 4, 5.

[11] For even with respect to the treatise On Abstinence from Animal Food, there is every reason to believe that something is wanting at the end of it.

[12] See the Latin translation of these Sentences by Ruffinus, in the Opuscula Mythologica of Gale. The Sentences which are to be found in this Epistle of Porphyry, were published by me, with some animadversions, in the Classical Journal, about two years ago; but on account of the great importance of these Sentences, and for the sake of those who may not have this Journal in their possession, I shall here repeat what I have there said on this subject.

After having premised that great praise is due to the editor for the publication of this Epistle, but that, as he has taken no notice of the sources whence most of the beautiful moral sentences with which this Epistle abounds, are derived, it becomes necessary to unfold them to the reader, particularly as by this means several of the Sentences of Sextus Pythagoricus may be obtained in the original Greek;—I then observe:

Previous, however, to this development, I shall present the reader with the emendation of the following defective sentence in p. 19: Το δε πεπαιδευσθαι ουκ εν πολυμαθειας αναληψει ... παλαξει δε των ψυχικων παθων εθεωρειτο. The editor, not being an adept in the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato, conceived that παλαξει was a genuine word; for he remarks, “Nota vocabulum παλαξις,” whereas it is only a part of a word, _i.e._ it is a part of απαλλαξει. Hence, if after αναληψει, the words εν απαλλαξει are inserted, the sentence of Porphyry will be perfect both in its construction and meaning, and will be in English, “Erudition does not consist in the resumption of polymathy, but is to be surveyed in a liberation from the passions pertaining to the soul.” The editor, not perceiving the necessity of this emendation, has, by the following version, totally mistaken the meaning of the sentence: “Bonam autem institutionem nunquam æstimem, quæ cum eruditionis copia, animalium quoque passionum contaminatione sordescat.”

The first sentence of which I have discovered the source, is from Sextus, and is the following, in p. 23: θεος μεν γαρ δειται ουδενος· σοφος δε μονου θεου: _i.e._ “For God is not in want of any thing; but the wise man is alone in want of God.” This, in the version of Ruffinus, is: “Deus quidem nullius eget, fidelis autem Dei solius.” (Vid. Opusc. Mytholog. 8vo. 1688, p. 646.)

2. Πασης πραξεως και παντος εργου και λογου θεος εποπτης παρεστω και εφορος, (p. 24): _i.e._ “Of every action, and of every deed and word, God is present as the scrutator and inspector.” This is evidently derived from the following sentence of Demophilus, (Opusc. Mythol. p. 621): Εαν αει μνημονευης, οτι οπου αν ἦ η ψυχη σου, και το σωμα εργον αποτελει, θεος εφεστηκεν εφορος, εν πασαις σου ταις ευχαις και πραξεσιν, αιδεσθησῃ μεν του θεωρου το αληστον, εξεις δε τον θεον συνοικον, _i.e._ “If you always remember, that wherever your soul, or your body, performs any deed, God is present as an inspector, in all your prayers and actions, you will reverence the nature of an inspector, from whom nothing can be concealed, and will have God for a cohabitant.” What immediately follows in this paragraph is from Sextus, viz. και παντων ων πραττομεν αγαθων τον θεον αιτιον ηγωμεθα: _i.e._ “Of all the good that we do, we should consider God as the cause.” And Sextus says, p. 648. “Deus in bonis actibus hominibus dux est.” Porphyry adds: Των δε κακων αιτιοι ημεις εσμεν οι ελομενοι, θεος δε αναιτιος. And the latter part is evidently from Sextus, who says, p. 648, “Mali nullius autor est Deus.” Porphyry further adds: Οθεν και ευκταιον τα αξια θεου· και αιτωμεθα ἃ μη λαβοιμεν αν παρ’ ετερου· και ων ηγεμονες οι μετ’ αρετης πονοι, ταυτα ευχομεθα γενεσθαι μετα τους πονους: _i.e._ “Hence we should ask of God things which are worthy of him, and which we cannot receive from any other. The goods also, of which labours are the leaders, in conjunction with virtue, we should pray that we may obtain after the labours [are accomplished].” All this is from Sextus. For, in p. 648, he says: “Hæc posce à Deo, quæ dignum est præstare Deum. Ea pete à Deo, quæ accipere ab homine non potes. In quibus præcedere debet labor, hæc tibi opta evenire post laborem.” Only, in this last sentence, Ruffinus has omitted to add, after _labor_, the words _cum virtute_. What Porphyry says, almost immediately after this, is precisely the first of the Sentences of Demophilus, (Opusc. Mythol. p. 626), viz. Ἃ δε κτησαμενος ου καθεξεις, μη αιτου παρα θεου· δωρον γαρ θεου παν αναφαιρετον· ωστε ου δωσει ὃ μη καθεξεις: _i.e._ “Do not ask of God that which, when you have obtained, you cannot preserve. For every gift of God is incapable of being taken away; so that he will not give that which you cannot retain.” The sentence immediately following this is ascribed to Pythagoras, and is to be found in the Sentences of Stobæus, (edit. 1609, p. 65): viz. Ων δε του σωματος απαλλαγεισα ου δεηθησῃ, εκεινων καταφρονει· και ων αν απαλλαγεισα δεῃ, εις ταυτα συ ασκουμενη τον θεον παρεκαλει γενεσθαι συλληπτορα. In Stobæus, however, there is some difference, so as to render the sentence more complete. For immediately after καταφρονει, there is παντων; for δεηθησῃ there is δεησῃ; for δεῃ, δεησῃ; for τον θεον, τους θεους; for συ ασκουμενη, σοι ασκουμενῳ; and instead of γενεσθαι συλληπτορα, γενεσθαι σοι συλληπτορα. This, therefore, translated, will be: “Despise all those things which, when liberated from the body, you will not want; and exercising yourself in those things, of which, when liberated from the body, you will be in want, invoke the Gods to become your helpers.” In pp. 27 and 28, Porphyry says, αιρετωτερου σοι οντος [χρηματα] εικη βαλειν ἢ λογον· και το ηττασθαι τ’ αληθη λεγοντα, ἢ νικᾳν απατωντα: _i.e._ “It should be more eligible to you carelessly to throw away riches than reason; and to be vanquished when speaking the truth, than to vanquish by deception.” And the latter part of this sentence is to be found in Sextus: for in p. 649 he says, “Melius est vinci vera dicentem, quam vincere, mentientem.” Almost immediately after Porphyry adds, Αδυνατον τον αυτον φιλοθεον τε ειναι και φιληδονον και φιλοσωματον· ο γαρ φιληδονος και φιλοσωματος παντως και φιλοχρηματος· ο δὲ φιλοχρηματος, εξ αναγκης αδικος· ο δε αδικος, και εις θεον και εις πατερας ανοσιος, και εις τους αλλους παρανομος· ωστε κᾳν εκατομβας θυῃ, και μυριοις αναθημασι νεως αγαλλῃ, ασεβης εστι και αθεος και τῃ προαιρεσει ιεροσυλος· διο και παντα φιλοσωματον ως αθεον και μιαρον εκτρεπεσθαι χρη. This sentence is the last of the Sentences of Demophilus, (Opusc. Mythol. p. 625); but in Porphyry it is in one part defective, and in another is fuller than in Demophilus. For in the first colon, φιλοχρηματον is wanting: in the second colon, after ο γαρ φιληδονος και φιλοσωματος, the words ο δε φιλοσωματος are wanting. And in Demophilus, instead of ο δε αδικος και εις θεον και εις πατερας ανοσιος, και εις τους αλλους παρανομος, there is nothing more than ο δε αδικος, εις μεν θεον ανοσιος, εις δε ανθρωπους παρανομος. In Demophilus also, after ωστε κᾳν εκατομβας θυῃ the words και μυριοις αναθημασι τους νεως αγαλλῃ, are wanting. And in Porphyry, after νεως αγαλλῃ, the words πολυ μαλλον ανοσιωτερος εστι, και, are wanting. This sentence therefore, thus amended, will be in English, “It is impossible for the same person to be a lover of God, a lover of pleasure, a lover of body, and a lover of riches. For a lover of pleasure is also a lover of body; but a lover of body is entirely a lover of riches; and a lover of riches is necessarily unjust. But he who is unjust 1s impious towards God and his parents, and lawless towards others. So that, though he should sacrifice hecatombs, and adorn temples with ten thousand gifts, he will be much more unholy, impious, atheistical, and sacrilegious in his deliberate choice. Hence it is necessary to avoid every lover of body, as one who is without God, and is defiled.”

3. The following passages in the epistle of Porphyry, are from Sextus: Ο δε αξιος ανθρωπος θεου, θεος αν ειη, (p. 30) _i.e._ “The man who is worthy of God, will be himself a God.” And Sextus says, “Dignus Deo homo, deus est et in hominibus.” (p. 654.) Porphyry says, Και τιμησεις μεν αριστα τον θεον, οταν τῳ θεῳ την σαυτης διανοιαν ομοιωσεις, (p. 30,) _i.e._ “And you will honour God in the best manner, when you assimilate your reasoning power to God.” Thus also Sextus, “Optime honorat Deum ille, qui mentem suam, quantum fieri potest, similem Deo facit,” (p. 655.) Again, Porphyry says, Θεος δε ανθρωπον βεβαιοι πρασσοντα καλα· κακων δε πραξεων κακος δαιμων ηγεμων, (p. 31): _i.e._ “God corroborates man when he performs beautiful deeds; but an evil dæmon is the leader of bad actions.” And Sextus says, “Deus bonos actus hominum confirmat. Malorum actuum, malus dæmon dux est.” (p. 653). Porphyry adds, Ψυχη δε σοφου αρμοζεται προς θεον, αει θεον ορᾳ, συνεστιν αει θεῳ, (p. 31,) _i.e._ “The soul of the wise man is adapted to God; it always beholds God, and is always present with God.” Thus, too, Sextus, “Sapientis anima audit Deum, sapientis anima aptatur à Deo, sapientis anima semper est cum Deo,” (p. 655). There is, however, some difference between the original and the Latin version, which is most probably owing to the fraud of Ruffinus. And in the last place, Porphyry says, Αλλα κρηπις ευσεβειας σοι νομιζεσθω η φιλανθρωπια, (p. 58,) _i.e._ “Philanthropy should be considered by you as the foundation of piety.” And Sextus says, “Fundamentum et initium est cultûs Dei, amare Dei homines.” (p. 654). Ruffinus, however, in this version, fraudulently translates φιλανθρωπια, _amare Dei homines_, in order that this sentence, as well as the others, might appear to be written by Sixtus the bishop!