Hippolytus

Footnotes

^[648] Justin Martyr mentions, as an instance of the estimation in which Simon Magus was held among his followers, that a statue was erected to him at Rome. Bunsen considers that the rejection of this fable of Justin Martyr’s, points to the author of The Refutation being a Roman, who would therefore, as he shows himself in the case of the statue, be better informed than the Eastern writer of any event occurring in the capital of the West. [Bunsen’s magisterial decision (p. 53) is very amusingly characteristic.] Hippolytus’ silence is a presumption against the existence of such a statue, though it is very possible he might omit to mention it, supposing it to be at Rome. At all events, the very precise statement of Justin Martyr ought not to be rejected on slight or conjectural grounds. [See vol. i., this series, pp. 171 ,172, 182, 187, and 193. But our author relies on Irenæus, same vol., p. 348. Why reject positive testimony?]

Chapter XVI.—Heresy of Valentinus; Derived from Plato and Pythagoras.

^[649] Valentinus came from Alexandria to Rome during the pontificate of Hyginus, and established a school there. His desire seems to have been to remain in communion with Rome, which he did for many years, as Tertullian informs us. Epiphanius, however, tells that Valentinus, towards the end of his life, when living in Cyprus, separated entirely from the Church. Irenæus, book i.; Tertullian on Valentinus, and chap. xxx. of his Præscript.; Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom., iv. 13, vi. 6; Theodoret, Hæret. Fab., i. 7; Epiphanius, Hær., xxxi.; St. Augustine, Hær., xi.; Philastrius, Hist. Hærs., c. viii.; Photius, Biblioth., cap. ccxxx.; Clemens Alexandrinus’ Epitome of Theodotus (pp. 789–809, ed. Sylburg). The title is, ᾽Εκ τῶν Θεοδότου καὶ τῆς ἀνατολικῆς καλουμένης διδασκαλίας, κατὰ τοὺς Οὐαλεντίνου χρόνους ἐπιτομαὶ. See likewise Neander’s Church History, vol. ii. Bohn’s edition.

^[650] These opinions are mostly given in extracts from Valentinus’ work Sophia, a book of great repute among Gnostics, and not named by Hippolytus, probably as being so well known at the time. The Gospel of Truth, mentioned by Irenæus as used among the Valentinians, is not, however, considered to be from the pen of Valentinus. In the extracts given by Hippolytus from Valentinus, it is important (as in the case of Basilides: see translator’s introduction) to find that he quotes St. John’s Gospel, and St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. The latter had been pronounced by the Tübingen school as belonging to the period of the Montanistic disputes in the middle of the second century, that is, somewhere about 25–30 years after Valentinus.

Chapter XVII.—Origin of the Greek Philosophy.

^[651] See Timæus, c. vii. ed. Bekker.

^[652] Or, “Solomon,” evidently a mistake.

Chapter XVIII.—Pythagoras’ System of Numbers.

^[653] Miller would read for προστιθέμενον, νομιστέον or νομίζει.

^[654] Respecting these lines, Miller refers us to Fabricius, in Sextum Empiricum, p. 332.

^[655] The Abbe Cruice adduces a passage from Suidas (on the word ἀριθμός) which contains a similar statement to that furnished by Hippolytus.

Chapter XIX.—Pythagoras’ Duality of Substances; His “Categories.”

^[656] Matt. v. 18.

Chapter XX.—Pythagoras’ Cosmogony; Similar to that of Empedocles.

^[657] Or, συνάγει, leads together.

^[658] The Abbe Cruice considers that the writer of The Refutation did not agree with Pythagoras’ opinion regarding the soul,—a fact that negatives the authorship of Origen, who assented to the Pythagorean psychology. The question concerning the pre-existence of the soul is stated in a passage often quoted, viz., St. Jerome’s Letter to Marcellina (Ep. 82).

Chapter XXI.—Other Opinions of Pythagoras.

^[659] Cruice thinks that the following words are taken from Heraclitus, and refers to Plutarch, De Exilio, c. xi.

^[660] Phædo, vol. i. p. 89, ed. Bekker.

Chapter XXII.—The “Sayings” Of Pythagoras.

^[661] These sayings (Symbola Pythagorica) have been collected by, amongst others, Thomas Stanley, and more recently by Gaspar Orellius. The meaning and the form of the proverbs given by Hippolytus do not always correspond with, e.g., Jamblichus (the biographer of Pythagoras), Porphyry, and Plutarch. The curious reader can see the Proverbs, in all their variety of readings and explanations, in the edition of L. Gyraldus.

^[662] This has been explained by Erasmus as a precept enjoining habits of tidiness and modesty.

^[663] Miller’s text here yields a different but not very intelligible meaning.

^[664] Horace quotes this proverb (2 Serm., iii. 274) with a somewhat different meaning. Porphyry considers it a precept against irreverent language towards the Deity, the fire being a symbol—for instance, the vestal fire—of the everlasting nature of God. Σκάλευε in Hippolytus is also read, e.g., by Basil, ζαίνοντες, that is, cleaving. This alludes to some ancient game in which fire was struck at and severed.

^[665] Σάρον. This word also signifies “sweepings” or “refuse.” Some say it means a Chaldean or Babylonian measure. The meaning would then be: Neglect not giving good measure, i.e., practise fair dealing. This agrees with another form of the proverb, reading ζυγόν for σάρον—that is, overlook not the balance or scales.

^[666] Another meaning assigned to this proverb is, “Labour to no purpose.” The palm, it is alleged, when it grows of itself, produces fruit, but sterility ensues upon transplantation. The proverb is also said to mean: Avoid what may seem agreeable, but really is injurious. This alludes to the quality of the wine (see Xenophon’s Anab., ii.), which, pleasant in appearance, produced severe headache in those partaking of it.

^[667] “Eat not from a stool.” This proverb is also differently read and interpreted. Another form is, “Eat not from a chariot,” of which the import is variously given, as, Do not tamper with your health, because food swallowed in haste, as it must be when one is driving a team of horses, cannot be salutary or nutritive; or, Do not be careless, because one should attend to the business in hand; if that be guiding a chariot, one should not at the same time try to eat his meals.

^[668] The word “entire” Plutarch adds to this proverb. Its ancient form would seem to inculcate patience and courtesy, as if one should not, when at meals, snap at food before others. As read in Plutarch, it has been also interpreted as a precept to avoid creating dissension, the unbroken bread being a symbol of unity. It has likewise been explained as an injunction against greediness. The loaf was marked by two intersecting lines into four parts, and one was not to devour all of these. (See Horace, 1 Epist., xvii. 49.)

10 per page

Search Comments

This page has been visited 0196 times.

Contents