[55]In the original, και την γην αναδαστον εποιησαν, which Obrechtus erroneously translates, “et agrorum divisionem introduxerunt.” [56]The words within the brackets are from a Latin Manuscript, which was in the possession of Fabricius. [57]In the original, ουδεν γαρ αυταρκες, ο τουτων των μοριων ποιει το ολον. This Canter erroneously translates, “Quandoquidem horum nulla pars totum queat constituere.” And Gale has noticed the error. [58]Gale says in his notes, that after οφθαλμων he adds φυσιος, but he should evidently have added αρετα, as in the above translation. [59]In the original συν τᾳ οξυδορκιᾳ, which Canter very defectively translates, _videndi facultate_. [60]For ου μετριαν here, I read ασυμμετριαν. [61]i. e. So far as he is considered as energizing in conjunction with the body; but so far as he has an energy independent of the body, viz. so far as he is a rational soul, the body is not to be considered as a part of his essence. And the energy of the rational soul by itself alone, without any assistance from the corporeal organs, constitutes the true man, into the definition of which body does not enter. [62]Canter, in his version of these Pythagoric fragments, uniformly translates ευτυχια _felicitas_, contrary to the obvious meaning of the word, as is evident in this, and many other passages. It is also directly contrary to what Aristotle says in cap. 13. lib. 7. of his Nicomachean Ethics: δια δε το προσδεισθαι της τυχης, δοκει τισι ταυτον ειναι η ευτυχια τῃ ευδαιμονιᾳ, ουκ ουσα· επει και αυτη υπερβαλλουσα, εμποδιος εστι. i. e. “Because felicity requires fortune, it appears to some persons that prosperity is the same with felicity. This however is not the case; since prosperity, when it is excessive, is an impediment to felicity.” But Canter did not, I believe, pretend to have any knowledge of philosophy: and Gale, who did, has not corrected him in this and many other places in which he has erred through the want of this knowledge. Gale however, though verbally learned, was but a garrulous smatterer in philosophy, as is evident from his notes on Iamblichus de Mysteriis. [63]For επιπρεπειαν here, I read απρεπειαν. [64]In the original, ωστε ουδεποκα δει θαυμαινεν, ει παντ’ αντεστραμμενως ενιοκα κρινεται, τας αληθινας διαθεσιος μεταπιπτοισας, which Canter erroneously translates as follows: “Quocirca mirandum non est, si cuncta nonnunquam, verâ affectione mutatâ, aliter eveniunt.” Nor is the error noticed by Gale.