ligence] homonymously with the genus." In this passage, as Creuzer well observes, something is wanting at the end; and a part at least, if not the whole, of what is deficient, I conceive to be the words το δε επι ταις ζωτικαις. For the great division of the powers of the soul is into the gnostic and vital. The singularity in this dogma of Olympiodorus respecting our allotted dæmon is this, that in making it to be the same with conscience; if conscience is admitted to be a part of the soul, the dogma of Plotinus must also be admitted, "that the whole of our soul does not enter into the body, but that something belonging to it always abides in the intelligible world." But this dogma appears to have been opposed by all the Platonists posterior to Plotinus. And Proclus has confuted it in the last proposition of his Elements of Theology: for he there demonstrates, that every partial soul in descending into generation, or the sublunary realms, descends wholly; nor does one part of it remain on high, and another part descend. Hence, if Olympiodorus was likewise hostile to this dogma of Plotinus, it must follow according to him, that conscience is not a part of the soul, but something superior to it, and dwelling in its summit. Perhaps, therefore, Olympiodorus on this account calls the allotted damon ακρον αωτον της ψυχης, the supreme flower of the soul. For the summit or the one of the soul, is frequently called by Platonic writers To avtos, the flower, but not axpov awTov, the supreme flower. So that the addition of supreme will distinguish the presiding dæmon from the summit of the soul. But though it is singular that this dogma is not to be found in any Platonic Greek writer except Olympiodorus, it is still more singular that an expression which perfectly accords with it, should be found in a Latin Platonist considerably prior to Olympiodorus. The author I allude to is Apuleius, who in his treatise De Deo Socratis says of this dæmon, "quin omnia curiose ille participet,'omnia visat, omnia intelligat; in ipsis penitissimis mentibus vice conscientia diversetur." In the following passage, p. 87, Olympiodorus having observed that it is Jupiter whom Socrates calls 40s, adds, Kas γαρ αμφοτέροις προσηκει κατα το αρχικον ο Ζευς Σωκρατει μεν δια την φιλοσοφιαν ηγεμων γαρ αυτη πασων των αλλων τεχνων This dogma is to be found at the end of his treatise on the Descent of the Soul. 2 The celebrated poet Menander appears to have been the source of this dogma: for one of the excerpta from his fragments is, Boorois ATATLY n ovveidnois Deus, i. e. " To ev'ry mortal conscience is a God." και οτι κατα τους Στωϊκους ο ειδως πως δει αρχειν, αρχων εστι εἰ και μη κεχρηται τη αρχῇ τοιουτοι δε οι φιλοσοφοι· διο και εν Φαιδρῳ φησι· μετα μεν δη Διος ειμι. Creuzer in a note on the last part of this passage, viz. μετα μεν δη Διος ειμι, rightly observes, “ Hac verba non sunt in Platonis Phædro." But it is singular it should have escaped the notice of this learned man, that the words μετα μεν Διος ημεις are in the Phædrus, and that these are the words to which Olympiodorus alludes, who perhaps quoting from memory, which he frequently does, substitutes e for ημεις; or else ειμι was erroneously written by the transcriber for ημεις. But that Socrates, (or Plato,) intended by this to signify that Jupiter was his peculiar god, is shown by Hermias in his Scholia on the Phædrus (Ast. p. 157) as follows : εν τῷ Τιμαίῳ φησιν ο Πλατων, οτι ποιησας ο δημιουργος του κόσμου, ενε σπειρε ψυχας ισαριθμους τους αστροις, ουχ οτι ει τυχει χιλιας εποίησε δηλον μεν γαρ αλλ' όμως κατα τα είδη ακουσομεν ποιησας ουν ηλια κας, σεληνιακας, Διΐας, εσπειρε τας μεν εις γην, τας δε αλλαχού. λεγει ουν νυν επομενοι μετα μεν Διος ημεις, ως το οικειον θεον επιγνους • Πλατων. τουτο γαρ εστιν ευδαιμονια ανθρωπινης ψυχης το συμπερι πολήσαι τοις οικείοις θεοις ουδε γαρ υπερβηναι θεους δυνατον. The same explanation of Plato's assertion that the Demiurgus disseminated souls equal in number to the stars, is also given by Proclus in the 5tli book of his Commentaries on the Timæus. In p. 95, Olympiodorus, adverting to what had been said by Alcibiades respecting το ελληνίζειν, observes : ιστέον γαρ οτι οι Πυθαγόρειοι εθαυμαζον τους πρώτους ευροντας τους αριθμους λέγοντες εγνωκέναι τουτους την ουσίαν του νου είχε αριθμους εκάλουν τας ιδέας, αι δε ιδεαι εν τω νῳ εισιν. Εθαυμαζον δε και τους πρώτους θέντας τα ονόματα· ουτοι γαρ, φασι, την ουσίαν έγνωσαν της ψυχής. Ταύτης γαρ το ονοματοθέτειν, και ου νου. Conformably to this also it is said by Proclus in Crat. (p. 6, of Boissonade's excellent edition) Ερωτηθείς γουν Πυθαγορας, τι σοφωτατον των οντων ; αριθμος εφη τι δε δεύτερον εις σοφίαν, ο τα ονόματα τοις πραγμασι θέμενος. Ηινιττετο δε δια μεν του αριθμου του νοητον διακοσμον τον περιε χοντα το πλήθος των νοερών ειδών, κ. τ. λ. In p. 211, Olympiodorus says, “that Vulcan is the first artist, and that the bellows employed by him indicate nature,” Και πρωτος τεχνιτης ο Ηφαισ τος, και αι παρ' αυτῷ φυσαι την φυσιν δηλούσιν. Thus also Olympiodorus in his Mss. Scholia in Gorgiam, after having observed that Vulcan is a certain power presiding over bodies, adds, dia τουτο γαρ και εν φυσαις εργάζεται, αντι του εν ταις φύσεσι. In 216, in the following passage, ουτω και ο παρ' Ομηρῳ Οδυσσευς ου το καινον αμα εθεασατο, αλλ' εκαστον εσέδρακεν οφθαλμοισιν, for το καινον [ read το κοινον. In the last place, Olympiodorus having observed (p. 217) that the images in mirrors are not according to Plato ανακλάσεις, reflections, as Proclus thought they were, but απορροιαι, efturions, and υποστασεις, or things which have a natural and real subsistence, adds (p. 219) Οτι δε τουτο αληθές εστι, κατασκευάζουσιν οι παλαιοι, τουτεστι το είναι υποστασεις τας σκιας πρωτον μεν οτι, ει κυνος καθεύδοντος εν υψηλῳ τοπῳ η σκια αυτου εκπέμποιτο εις την γην, υαινα διελθουσα, και πατήσασα την σκιαν, καταπεσειν ποιει τον κυνα. Δηλον αρα, οτι ουκ εισιν εμφάσεις, αλλα απορροιαι. Δευτε ρον, οτι αι καθαιρομεναι γυναίκες την επιμηνιον φοράν, ει ίδοιεν εις κατοπτρον, ευθεως αυτο κηλιδουσιν, ωστε σαφες εξ απορροίας αυτών τουτο γινεσθαι. i. e. “ That this is true, that shadows have a real existence, the ancients inferred in the first place, because if the shadow of a dog that is sleeping in a lofty place should be transmitted to the ground, an hyæna passing by, and trampling on the shadow, will cause the dog to descend. It is evident therefore that shadows are not representations of, but effluxions from things. In the second place, if women when they are undergoing their monthly purgation, look into a mirror, they will immediately defile it, so that it is clear that this is effected through an effluxion from them." In these passages, the first remarkable circumstance that presents itself, and which is not noticed by the learned editor, is the mistake of Olympiodorus in asserting that Proclus thought the images in mirrors to be reflections, and not effluxions; as Proclus in Plat. Polit. p. 431, most clearly says that they are efluxions. For his words are, εκ δη τουτων συλλογιστεον ημιν, και οτι κατα Πλατωνα αι εμφασεις υποστάσεις εισιν ειδωλων τινων δαιμονια μηχανη δημιουργούμεναι, καθαπερ αυτος εν τω Σοφιστη δια δασκει. και γαρ αι σκιαι, αις τα ειδωλα συζυγειν φησι, τοιαυτην εχουσι φυσιν. και γαρ αυται σωματων εισι και σχηματων εικονες, και παμπολυν εχουσι προς τα αφ' ων εμπιπτουσι συμπάθειαν, ως δηλουσι, και οσα μαχων (lege μαγων) τεχναι προς τε τα ειδωλα δραν, και επαγγέλλονται και τας σκιας. και τι λεγω τας εκείνων δυνάμεις, α και τοις αλόγοις ηδη ζωοις υπαρχη προ λογου πακτος ενεργειν. η γαρ υαινα φασιν την του κυνος εν ύψει καθημένου πατησασα σκιαν καταβαλλει, και θοινην ποιηται τον κυνα. Here we see Proclus mentions the same thing as Olympiodorus respecting the hyæna and the shadow of the dog, and with the same view, to prove that representations in mirrors have a real existence, and also observes that this is confirmed by what the arts of magicians are able to effect through images and shadows. The second remarkable thing is, that the learned editor has not noticed that the circumstance of a mirror being defiled when looked into by a woman during her menstrual purgation, is mentioned by Aristotle in his treatise De Insomniis cap. 11. as follows: οταν γαρ καταμηνίων ταις γυναιξί γινομένων, εμβλέψωσιν εις το κατοπτρον, γίνεται το επιπολής του ενοπτρου, οιον νεφελη αιματωδης και μεν καινον η το κατοπτρον, ου ράδιον εκμαξαι την τοιαυτην κηλιδα· εαν δε παλαιον, ραον. And this circumstance also is noticed by Proclus in the above cited place, as a thing asserted by Aristotle: xx γυναικος καθαιρουμένης, φησιν Αριστοτελης, εις ενοπτρον ιδουσης, αιματούται το τε ενοπτρον και το εμφαινομενον ειδωλον. As it is so obvious from these passages, that Proclus did not conceive the images in mirrors to be reflections, but asserted conformably to Plato that they were effluxions, it is reasonable to suppose that the name of Proclus is an error of the transcribers; and I should conjecture that for ο φιλόσοφος Προκλος, Olympiodorus originally wrote ο φιλόσοφος Πορφύριος, as the appellation of the philosopher was given to Porphyry by all the Platonists that succeeded him. This at least is more probable than that a man so conversant with the writings of Proclus, as Olympiodorus was, should have made such an egregious blunder. T. In DEMOSTHENEM Commentarii JOANNIS SEAGER, Bicknor Wallica in Com. Monumethic Rectoris. No. II. [Continued from No. LII. p. 239.] In Philippum iv. p. 134. 1. 4. οὐ στήσεται, πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἀδικῶν, τάδ' ὑφ ̓ αὐτῷ ποιούμενος Φίλιππος, εἰ μή τις αὐτὸν κωλύσει. Probabilius, πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἀδικῶν ΚΑΙ ὑφ ̓ αὑτῷ ποιούμενος. In Philippum iv. p. 136. 1. 5. ταῦτα τοίνυν ἕκαστον εἰδότα καὶ γιγνώσκοντα παρ' αὑτῷ δεῖ μα Δί ̓ οὐ γράψαι κελεύειν πόλεμον τὸν τὰ βέλτιστα ἐπὶ πᾶσι δικαίοις συμβουλεύοντα· τοῦτο μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ὅτῳ πολεμήσετε λαβεῖν βουλομένων, οὐχ ἃ τῇ πόλει συμφέρει πράττειν. Eadem constructio, Adversus Leptin. p. 457. 1. 11. ἐγὼ δ ̓ ὅτι μὲν τινῶν κατηγοροῦντα πάντας ἀφαιρεῖσθαι τὴν δωρεάν ΤΩΝ ΑΔΙΚΩΝ ΕΣΤΙΝ, ἐάσω. In Philippum iv. p. 136. 1. 19. ἀλλ ̓, ὃν ἐκεῖνος πολεμεῖ τρόπον, τοῦτον ἀμύνεσθε· τοῖς μὲν ἀμυνομένοις ἤδη χρήματα καὶ τἆλλα, ὧν ἂν δέωνται, διδόντες· αὐτοὶ δ ̓ εἰσφέροντες, ὦ ἄνδρες Αθηναῖοι ων κ. τ. λ. τοῖς ἀμυνομένοις ἤδη) Diopithi et militibus ejus in Cherroneso. In Philippum iv. p. 140. 1. 10. ὑπὲρ δὴ τούτων ἁπάντων οἴομαι δεῖν ὑμᾶς πρεσβείαν ἐκπέμπειν, ἥτις τῷ βασιλεῖ (Persarum sc.) διαλέ ξεται, καὶ τὴν ἀβελτερίαν ἀποθέσθαι, δι ̓ ἣν πολλάκις ἐλαττώθητε, ὁ δὴ βάρβαρος, καὶ κοινὸς ἅπασιν ἐχθρὸς, καὶ ἅπαντα τὰ τοιαῦτα. Legendum videtur, ὅτι δὴ βάρβαρος-ὅτι habet index Lambini. τὴν ἀβελτερίαν (ὑμῶν λεγόντων) ὅτι δὴ βάρβαρός (ἐστιν ὁ Περσῶν βασιλεὺς) καὶ κοινὸς ἅπασιν ἐχθρὸς, auxilioque ejus adversus Philip pum uti nolentium. Recte dicit Wolfus ὁ δὴ βάρβαρος—κ. τ. λ. esse ἐξήγησιν τῆς ἀβελτερίας. Mirum hæc convicia de Philippo, non de Artaxerxe, accipere Reiskium, quasi talia convicia in illum objurgaret Orator, in quem ipse cum maxime inveheretur ; et quasi non sequatur, ἐγὼ γὰρ ὅταν ἴδω τινὰ τὸν μὲν ἐν Σούσοις καὶ ἐν ̓Εκβατάνοις δεδοικότα, καὶ κακόνουν εἶναι τῇ πόλει φάσκοντα, ὃς καὶ πρότερον συνεπηνώρθωσε τὰ τῆς πόλεως πράγματα, καὶ νῦν ἐπηγ γέλλετο·—ὑπὲρ δὲ τοῦ ἐπὶ ταῖς θύραις ἐγγὺς οὑτωσὶ ἐν μέσῃ τῇ Ελλάδι αὐξανομένου λῃστοῦ τῶν ̔Ελλήνων ἄλλο τι λέγοντα, θαυμάζω· καὶ δέδοικα τοῦτον, ὅστις ἂν ᾖ πότ', ἐγώγ', ἐπειδὴ οὐχ οὗτος Φίλιππον. In Philippum iv. p. 141. 1. 12. ἦν πότ ̓ οὐ πάλαι παρ' ἡμῖν, ὅτ' οὐ προσῄει τῇ πόλει τάλαντα ὑπὲρ τριάκοντα καὶ ἑκατόν· καὶ οὐδεὶς ἦν τῶν τριηραρχεῖν δυναμένων οὐδὲ τῶν εἰσφέρειν, ὅστις οὐκ ἠξίου τὰ καθήκοντα ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖν, ὅτι χρήματα οὐ περιῆν. οὐ περιῆν] τῇ πόλει scil. Malis forsan ότε, ut tempus, potius quam causam, significet. Adv. Philippi Epist. p. 155. 1. 14. ἔτι δὲ τῶν μὲν πολλῶν ἐπειδὰν ἁμάρτη τις, ζημίαν κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν εἴληφεν· οἱ δ ̓, ὅταν τὰ μέγιστα κατορθώσωσιν, τότε μάλιστα σκορακίζονται καὶ προπηλακίζονται παρὰ τὸ προσῆκον.—Idem fere Græcis εἰς κόρακας (unde σκορακίζω) quod Anglis, go to hell. All sciences a fasting Monsieur knows : Johnson. Imit. of Juvenal. Ad Philippi Epist. p. 160. 1. 3. ὥστε ἔγωγε (inquit Philippus) ἀπορῶ τί ποτ ̓ ἔσται καινότερον ἐὰν ὁμολογήσητέ μοι πολεμεῖν· καὶ γὰρ ὅτε φανερῶς διεφερόμεθα, ληστὰς ἐξεπέμπετε, καὶ τοὺς πλέοντας ὡς ἡμᾶς ἐπωλεῖτε, τοῖς ἐναντίοις ἐβοηθεῖτε, τὴν χώραν μου κακῶς ἐποιεῖτε. Restituenda particula negativa: καὶ γὰρ, ὅτε Ο φανερῶς διεφεβόμεθα, λῃστὰς ἐξεπέμπετε, κ. τ. λ.—nisi si sensus sit bic;-Quid pejus facere possitis, si mecum belligerare confiteamini? Quæ enim olim, quum ex professo et aperte dissideremus, fecistis, eadem omnia nunc, sub pacis specie, facitis. Ad Philippi Epist. p. 160. 1. 17. ὑμεῖς δ ̓ οὐκ αἰσχύνεσθε ταῦτα ποιοῦντες, ἃ διετελεῖτε τοῖς τυράννοις ἐγκαλοῦντες. F. ταυτὰ, Eadem. Περὶ συμμοριών. p. 182.1. 28. Τὰς δὲ τριήρεις πως; (φημὶ δεῖν συντετάχθαι) τὸν ἅπαντα ἀριθμὸν κελεύω τριακοσίας ἀποδείξαντας, |